IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    26 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018297 


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 an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was 19 years of age at the time of his court-martial.  He had a drinking problem because he was depressed for being stationed in Germany, so far away from his fiancée and new-born daughter.  This coupled with the threat of being on alert to go and fight during Desert Storm led him to make a mistake.  This incident had been the only blemish on his record.  He had never been in trouble with the law before. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any 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's records show he was born in March 1972 and he enlisted in the Regular Army at 18 years and 6 months of age on 4 September 1990.  He was trained in and held military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist). 

3.  He served in Germany from 2 February 1991 to on or about 6 September 1991.   He was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

4.  On 6 September 1991, he was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of assaulting another individual by hitting him and kicking and stomping upon his upper body and head area and thereby intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon him.  The court sentenced him to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 3 years, and a reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 

5.  On 13 March 1992, the convening authority approved the sentence and, except for the bad conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed.  The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review.

6.  On 23 September 1992, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence.

7.  Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, WA, General Court-Martial Order Number 32, dated 25 March 1993, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed.

8.  He was discharged on 24 September 1993.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged as a result of a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) with a bad conduct discharge.  This form further shows he completed 11 months and 21 days of creditable military service during this period and he had lost time from 6 September 1991 to 24 September 1993. 

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's trial by a general court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged.  His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

2.  He was given a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a general court-martial.  The appellate review was completed and the affirmed sentence was ordered duly executed.  All requirements of law and regulation were met with respect to the conduct of the court-martial and the appellate review process and the rights of the applicant were fully protected.

3.  His contention that his discharge was related to his age is without merit.  He was 19 years of age at the time of his incident; however, there is no evidence that he was any less mature than other Soldiers who successfully completed their term of service.  

4.  His contention that he had a drinking problem because he was depressed for being stationed in Germany, so far away from his fiancée and new-born daughter, is also rejected.  There is no evidence in his records and he provides none to support this contention.  In any case, the appropriate avenue or forum to address such issues would have been during the court-martial and the appellate process. 

5.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  By law, this Board 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.

6.  His service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.  He is not entitled to the 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)                                         AR20130018297





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018297



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1