Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001984
Original file (20120001984.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001984 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  after serving 8 years with good conduct and obtaining a promotion to sergeant (SGT/E-5), he made a mistake and did not perform his duties as he was trained;

   b.  he voluntarily admitted to his first sergeant what he had done and regretted his mistake;

   c.  he played football, was on the post boxing team, and he was a member of the post German American Athletic League while he was stationed in Germany; and

   d.  subsequent to his military service, he was gainfully employed by Manatee County Florida and the City of Bradenton before he suffered kidney failure.

3.  The applicant provides five certificates.  He also indicates he submitted service performance records and letters of appreciation; however these documents were not included with his application when it was received by the Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 27 August 1979.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

3.  On 2 November 1983, he was promoted to SGT, which is the highest rank he achieved while serving on active duty.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he earned the following awards and badges:

* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with M-16 Rifle Bar
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar

4.  The applicant’s record confirms that he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two dates for the indicated offenses:  

* 19 February 1985 - for twice failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 14 January 1985 and wrongfully straggling in the physical training formation on 18 January 1985
* 7 May 1985 - for wrongfully using marijuana on 16 March 1985

5.  On 9 September 1985, pursuant to his pleas, a special court-martial (SPCM) found the applicant guilty of violating the following Articles of the UCMJ:

* Article 121 - Larceny of property valued in excess of $100.00
* 
Article 130 - unlawful entry into a room with the intent to commit wrongful appropriation

6.  The resulting sentence was a reduction to PV1/E-1, two months confinement, and a BCD. 

7.  Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division, SPCM Order Number 49, dated 
31 October 1985, shows the SPCM convening authority approved the sentence and directed that all except the BCD portion be duly executed. 

8.  On 26 March 1987, SPCM Order Number 47, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, directed, Article 71c of the UCMJ having been complied with, that the BCD portion of the sentence be duly executed.  On 8 May 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of court-martial and received a BCD.  It also shows at the time of his discharge he completed 7 years, 6 months, and 21 days of creditable active military service and accrued 51 days of time lost due to confinement during the period                 9 September - 29 October 1985.

10.  The applicant provides three course completion certificates, one certificate of achievement, and one certificate of appreciation.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 provides the policies and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or BCD.  It stipulates that a Soldier will be given a BCD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial, and that the appellate review must be completed and affirmed before the BCD portion of the sentence is ordered duly executed.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

13.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  Under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a 

conviction.  Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his BCD should be upgraded to a GD because, after completing 8 years of service with good conduct, he made a mistake which he regretted.  However, the evidence of record reveals a disciplinary record consisting of two NJP’s under the UCMJ and an SPCM conviction.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which he was charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.  By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited.  The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed.

3.  The evidence of record reveals no error or injustice related to the applicant’s court-martial and/or his subsequent discharge.  Given the gravity of the offenses that resulted in his SPCM conviction, the evidence is not sufficient to support clemency.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   __x_____   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001984





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001984



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006038

    Original file (20080006038.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 11 January 1989, after carefully reviewing the applicant's entire military service record and the issues and evidence submitted by the applicant, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) concluded the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record reveals no error or injustice related to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010088

    Original file (20100010088.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he held the rank/pay grade of private/E-1 at the time of separation. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant's record is devoid of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence that he was ever told his BCD would be upgraded after a period of 6 months.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030553

    Original file (20100030553.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 6 May 1987 shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of court-martial with a BCD. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022199

    Original file (20100022199.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. Therefore, given his extensive disciplinary history and the gravity of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002707C070206

    Original file (20050002707C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that while on active duty he didn’t realize how his actions and behavior would have a negative effect on him, his career in the military and his life ever since being separated from the military with a BCD. The record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and his conviction by a special court-martial (SPCM). The Board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001105

    Original file (20100001105.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge (DD). It states a Soldier will be given a DD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a GCM, and that the appellate process must be completed and affirmed before the DD portion of the sentence is ordered duly executed. The applicant's contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because he did not commit the violations for which he was court-martialed, instead another individual committed the violations, were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027104

    Original file (20100027104.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 27 March 1990, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of court-martial with a BCD. On 23 April 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military record, and all other available evidence, determined the applicant's discharged was proper and equitable.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008693

    Original file (20120008693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. GCM Order Number 43, Headquarters, V Corps, dated 30 October 1985, shows the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence adjudged on19 September 1985 that provided for a DD, confinement for 40 months, forfeiture of all pay and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011755

    Original file (20120011755.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of creditable active service with 523 days of time lost due to confinement. On 25 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s entire military service record and the issues presented by the applicant, determined his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023455

    Original file (20100023455.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The evidence shows he was given the BCD for committing the offenses.