IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 Ju1y 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019859
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 at the time he agreed to his discharge, he was 20 years of age. He had experienced several life threatening and changing circumstances that really affected his thoughts and actions. He had never been in trouble before and after his military service.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 2003 and he was trained in and held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).
3. He attained the rank/grade of private first class/E-3 and he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. He was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC.
4. On 7 July 2005, consistent with his pleas, he was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of conspiring with another Soldier to distribute cocaine between 1 January and 2 February 2005. The court sentenced him to a bad conduct discharge and confinement for 12 months.
5. On 29 September 2005 (amended by the Court to read 27 September 2005), the convening authority approved the sentence and, except for the bad conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed. He approved a waiver of the automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances in the amount of $400 pay per month for 4 months. He also ordered the record of trial forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review.
6. On 14 March 2006, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence.
7. Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, General Court-Martial Order Number 160, dated 3 August 2006, 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. The applicant was discharged on 26 January 2007. 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 3 years and 2 days of creditable military service during this period and he had lost time from 7 July to 26 December 2005.
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. 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.
4. 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) AR20130019859
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130019859
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018045
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. 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. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018297
He was discharged on 24 September 1993. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015109
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) with a bad conduct discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015606
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 136, dated 23 March 1988, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 3, with a bad conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007660
This form further shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 3 days of creditable military service during this period and he had lost time on 9 October 1986 and from 10 October 1986 to 29 January 1987. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009290
His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 3, with a bad conduct discharge. 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. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002750
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008164
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. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005173
The applicant was discharged on 11 May 1984. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 3, with a bad conduct discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010537
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) with a bad conduct discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the...