Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006647
Original file (20130006647.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	    23 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006647 


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, in effect:

	a.  His general court-martial conviction be overturned.

	b.  That all records which indicate he has served in the Army be expunged.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  In 2003, it was extremely hard fighting and defending himself against his command and the Army from jail.  He felt so helpless and ashamed.  The only post-traumatic stress disorder that he suffers from involves the military incidents.

	b.  Today, he is a social worker and he serves his community.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Work in 2013 and he wants to apply for the Masters of Social Work program at his school.  He has a great chance of getting in the program, but not with a bad conduct discharge which involved a court-martial, sodomy charge, and being absent without leave (AWOL). 
 
	c.  His Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records show a "not guilty" verdict for the sodomy charge, but a charge of "guilty with lesser-included offense of indecent acts."  None of this is true.  As he has always stated, he and his roommate were drinking all night and he was in a drunken blackout when he returned to the barracks.  He thought his roommate was his fiancé and he pulled down his roommate's pants and after a few seconds his roommate awoke and he immediately stopped and apologized.  His fiancé had been staying with him in his barracks room prior to this incident.

	d.  Before enlisting in the Army in 2003, he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps in 2001.  He only enlisted in the Army to get into the Special Forces, but his commanding officer would not sign off on the Special Forces orders.  

	e.  In 2003, a friend was shot during a night fire training incident.  He told investigators that he did not think they should have been out there that night and everyone got reprimanded but him.  His command found out what he said and immediately began to show hatred towards him.    

	f.  The only thing he was guilty of was going AWOL twice and pulling down his roommate's pants.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from the U.S. Marine Corps
* U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals notice of correction
* General Court-Martial order
* Original FBI identification record
* Revised FBI identification record
* Diploma
* Certificate of training

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.  Having prior active service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant's enlistment contract shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 30 October 2002 for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-4.  

3.  On 18 December 2003, he was convicted by a general court-martial of:

* being AWOL from 2 April  to 16 April 2003 and from 24 April to 14 July 2003
* violating a lawful general order (cohabitating with girlfriend in barracks)
* indecent acts
* disobeying a lawful order  

4.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, to be confined for 6 months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.  On 10 June 2004, the convening authority approved the sentence.

5.  On 12 October 2005, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals corrected his general court-martial order by:

	a.  deleting the words "Company D" and substituting the words "Company C" in the arraignment paragraph; and

	b.  deleting the word "regulation" and substituting the word "order" in charge II.

6.  On 18 May 2006, the convening authority ordered the bad conduct discharge duly executed.  

7.  His DD Form 214 is not available.  

8.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By law, this Board cannot disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction, and the applicant has not established a basis for granting clemency.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request to overturn his general court-martial conviction.

2.  The applicant requests the Army expunge any record that shows he was ever in the Army.  However, the evidence shows he was in the Army.  His enlistment contract shows he enlisted in the RA on 30 October 2002.    

3.  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)                                         AR20130006647



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006647



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03699

    Original file (BC 2013 03699.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03699 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Any commander would normally consider such statements during Article 15 proceedings because they were relevant and clearly showed that any exposure was due to the pants falling down which in turn was caused by the assault. These statements were not provided to the squadron commander, the applicant, or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011767

    Original file (20110011767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    General Court-Martial Order Number 7, Headquarters, U.S. Army Transportation Center Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Eustis, VA, dated 4 June 2001, shows the following charges, pleas, and findings: a. Finding: Guilty b. Finding: Guilty 5.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005933

    Original file (20110005933.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 3 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110005933 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 January 2008, charges were preferred against the applicant for: * committing sodomy with a child under the age of 12 between 1 May and 12 November 2005 * on divers occasions between 1 May and 12 November 2005, committing an indecent act on a female under the age of 16 * desertion from 16 September 2007 to 3 January 2008 4. Article 71(c) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500532

    Original file (ND0500532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Board also found the Applicant’s Commanding Officer’s consideration of the Applicant’s court-martial conviction when recommending the Applicant’s discharge characterization to be proper an in accordance with regulations. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014600

    Original file (20130014600.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB's) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR's) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. However, the evidence shows he voluntarily requested...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002514

    Original file (20150002514.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    f. Former PVT D____ R____ claimed she was sexually harassed by the applicant's licking and biting of his lips. The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the finding of guilty of violating Army regulations by wrongfully touching and sexually harassing trainees. On 18 February 2014, the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army, Criminal Law Division, Washington, DC, notified the applicant that: * his record of trial contained sufficient legal and competent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017769

    Original file (20120017769.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states his sexuality was used to determine his discharge. The applicant, a Regular Army sergeant (pay grade E-5) with approximately 6 1/2 years of active duty service, committed an offense for which he ultimately requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017494

    Original file (20120017494.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states he had a previous honorable discharge from active duty for training as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Chapter 11 provides that a member will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial after completion of appellate review and after such affirmed sentence has been ordered duly executed. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01142

    Original file (MD01-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. IT WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONVENE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD FOR THIS MATTER Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Brief from civilian counselNinety-six pages from applicant's service recordCopy of DD Form 149 with attachment (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01107

    Original file (ND04-01107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01107 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040629. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board determined that the facts of the Applicant’s conduct did not constitute the offense under the UCMJ for which the Applicant was separated in lieu of a court-martial.