Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019615
Original file (AR20080019615.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 081124	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and documents submitted by the Applicant.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070907   Chapter: 3       AR: 635-200
Reason: Court-Martial, Other	   RE:     SPD: JJD   Unit/Location: US Army Medical Retention Center, US Army Garrison, Ft. Eustis, VA 

Time Lost:  Military confinement (050929-060219)  total of 143 days.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 051213 Special Court-Martial disobeying a lawful from an E6 x3(041207); intent to deceive, sign an official record to wit: Drug Testing Program Testing Register (041214), which was false; willfully destroy by smashing a reinforced glass window of the Security Forces Control Center detention cell (041207); wrongfully use marijuana (041115); steal 2 bottles of cologne, the property of Army and Air Force Exchange Service (040807); steal 3 compact discs, the property of Army and Air Force Exchange Service (041207); sentence to reduction to E1, confinement for 6 months, to be discharged form the service with a Bad-Conduct Discharge.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 000608    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 2Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		7 Yrs, 9Mos, 7Days Includes 565 days of excess leave (060220-070907)
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10/ Motor transport op   GT: 118   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (040128-051002)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, SWA, GWOTEM, ASR, ARCAM, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Monticello, MS
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 December 2005, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of  disobeying a lawful order from an E6 x3(041207); intent to deceive, sign an official record to wit: Drug Testing Program Testing Register (041214), which was false; willfully destroy by smashing a reinforced glass window of the Security Forces Control Center detention cell (041207); wrongfully use marijuana (041115); steal 2 bottles of cologne, the property of Army and Air Force Exchange Service (040807); steal 3 compact discs, the property of Army and Air Force Exchange Service (041207).  He was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement for 6 months, and reduction to E-1.  On 26 September 2005, the sentence was approved.  On 19 July 2007, Article 71c having been complied with, the Bad-Conduct Discharge was executed.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3, Section IV,  establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the available applicant’s military records, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would warrant clemency.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of misconduct.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the convening authority.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  The analyst is empowered to recommend a change to the discharge 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.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s available record and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board to deny clemency.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 090624         Location: Chicago, IL

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: Yes 

Exhibits Submitted: Applicant submitted 6 additional documents, totaling 44 additional pages.

























VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, the testimony of his witnesses and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that clemency was warranted based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service.  Accordingly, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  A change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080019615
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014999

    Original file (20090014999.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090014999 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, by reason of court-martial, other. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001693

    Original file (AR20090001693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120004550

    Original file (AR20120004550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? EF married the applicant’s sister-in-law and agreed that EF and his wife would live with the applicant and wife and that EF would pay $400 a month rent starting in September. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board to deny clemency.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090020530

    Original file (AR20090020530.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110008211

    Original file (AR20110008211.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01001

    Original file (MD02-01001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 921016 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged...

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00017

    Original file (FD01-00017.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE I CASENUMBER FD-0 1 -000 17 GENERAL: The applicant appealed for upgrade of his discharge frombailreofiduct to h6-k applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD, on April 5,2001. Issue 2 : At the time of my court martial, the Base Commander was more likely to approve a "bad conduct" discharge or worse then receive approve lesser punishment. Issue 3: Out of the eight Air...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01018

    Original file (ND02-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Applicant's letter to the Board, dtd Oct 15, 2001 Applicant's spouse, E_ A. L_, letter to the Board, dtd Oct 29, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 860826 - 870705 COG Active: USN 870706 - 940116 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940117*...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001326

    Original file (AR20090001326.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 4 December 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the Applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012064

    Original file (AR20060012064.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This would change his "Total Service" from 2 yrs, 4 mos, and 18 days, to 2 yrs, 2 mos, and 18 days. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the...