1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 April 2018 b. Date Received: 10 May 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of a bad conduct discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during the enlistment, the applicant was young and immature. After several years of reflection, the applicant has become a productive member of society and now requests an upgrade. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3, SEC IV / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 19 May 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 4, dated 8 February 1999, on 3 December 1998, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I. Article 92. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification: Violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully failing to register a firearm on or about 5 June 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II. Article 134. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: 5 June 1998. Plea: Unlawfully carry a concealed weapon on or about Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: 19 April 1998. Plea: Unlawfully carry a concealed weapon on or about Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge I: Article 86. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: Without authority, fail prescribed to appointed place of duty, on or about 15 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: Without authority, fail prescribed to appointed place of duty, on 14 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 3: Without authority, fail prescribed to appointed place of duty, on 14 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge II: Article 90. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 3 November 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 2 November 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 3: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 1 November 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 4: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 30 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 5: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 29 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 6: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 28 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 7: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 27 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 8: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 26 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 9: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 25 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 10: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 24 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 11: Willfully disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, on or about 24 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge III: Article 91. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification: Willfully disobey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, on or about 14 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge IV: Article 92. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification: Violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully having a blood alcohol level over*.05 percent while on duty. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge V: Article 107. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification: With intent to deceive, make an official statement which was totally false, on or about 14 October 1998. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for five months, to be confined for five months, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 8 February 1999 / only so much of the sentence as provides for a reduction E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay per month for five months, to be confinement for four months, and a bad conduct discharge was approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 20 February 2003 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 March 1998 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31L10, Wire System Installer / 6 years, 7 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 July 1996 - 9 March 1998 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 70 days (Confined. 3 December 1998 - 11 February 1999) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is a productive member of society. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section III 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. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change 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. The service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, AR 635-200, CHAP 3, SEC IV. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of Special Court-Martial. Soldiers discharged as a result of a Special Court-Martial, with a Bad Conduct discharge, will be processed under the provisions AR 635-200, Chapter 3, SEC III. The applicant contends that he was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. Notwithstanding the administrative error, based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20180007317 1