IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  14 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002811 


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 upgrade of his bad conduct discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was instructed his discharge would be upgraded after 6 months
* his discharge has adversely impacted his ability to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 January 1985 and trained as a single channel radio operator.  He served in Korea from August 1985 to August 1986 and he attained the rank of specialist. 

3.  On 16 December 1987, in accordance with his plea, he was convicted by a general court-martial of distributing cocaine.  He was sentenced to confinement for 1 year and 1 day, to forfeit $500.00 pay for 12 months, to be reduced to E-1, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge.  On 
28 January 1988, the convening authority approved the sentence.

4.  On 22 March 1988, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.

5.  On 11 October 1988, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed.

6.  He was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 13 October 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial.  He had served a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 13 days of creditable active service with 301 days of lost time.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 states that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

9.  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.

10.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  In accordance with 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.

11.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was instructed his discharge would be upgraded after 6 months; however, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  He contends his discharge has adversely impacted his ability to receive VA benefits.  However, a discharge is not changed for the purpose of obtaining VA benefits.

3.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged.  His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

4.  His record of service included one general court-martial conviction for distributing cocaine and 301 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

5.  Any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited by law.  The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed.  Given the applicant's undistinguished record of service and absent any mitigating factors, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate.  As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.

6.  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)                                         AR20120002811



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002811



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1