| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general and that she be issued a more favorable Reentry (RE) Code that will allow her to enlist again.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she made a terrible mistake in 1989 and she learned deeply from that mistake. She further states that since her release from confinement, she has made restitution, remained steadily employed and has not had any run ins with the law. She goes on to state that she desires to join the National Guard in order to be honorable with her country and serve with dignity and respect.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 in Nashville, Tennessee, on 28 January 1987, for a period of 4 years and training as a finance specialist. At the time of her enlistment, her husband was serving on active duty at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. She successfully completed her training and was transferred to Italy on 6 July 1987. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 January 1988 and on 13 December 1988, she attained promotion list standing to the pay grade of E-5.
On 19 June 1989, the applicant reported to the finance officer of the unit to which she was assigned, that she had written numerous bad checks beginning as early as February and she had no idea how many she had written. The finance officer determined that the amount was in excess of $9,000.00.
On 11 September 1989, charges were preferred against her for cashing/uttering 13 worthless checks at the finance office where she worked in the amount of $745.00 per check and for uttering a check at the Italian on-post banking facility in the amount of $200.00. All of the checks were cashed between 15 May and 19 June 1989. The applicant waived her rights to an Article 32 investigation and requested a trial by judge alone.
She also entered into a pre-trial agreement whereas she agreed to plead guilty to all charges in return for an agreement that she would not be sentenced to confinement for more than 18 months.
A review of the record of trial in her case shows that her chain of command recommended that she be restored to active duty upon completion of her sentence and opined that she was a good soldier who had made a mistake.
She was convicted by a general court-martial on 27 September 1989 of 14 specifications of unlawfully uttering checks in the amount of $9,885.00, with intent to defraud. She was sentenced to confinement for 18 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and a BCD. She was transferred to the Army Correctional Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas, to serve her confinement.
On 2 April 1990, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Department of the Army Review Boards and Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance and Complaints Review denied her request for clemency and restoration. However, he approved her being placed on parole effective 11 May 1990, conditioned upon continued good behavior and restitution, effective 22 June 1990.
On 13 April 1990, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority.
On 1 March 1991, she was discharged pursuant to a duly affirmed and approved general court-martial conviction, which adjudged a BCD. She had served 2 years, 7 months and 29 days of total active service and had 490 days of lost time due to confinement.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the 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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness of her offense and the circumstances of her case.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
___mmd _ ___rwa _ ___clg __ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072118 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/03/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | GCM |
| DISCHARGE REASON | TRIAL BY GCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 685 | 144.6800/A68.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605913C070209
APPLICANT STATES: Through counsel, in effect, that she was never qualified to be a soldier and should not have been enlisted in the first place; that she did not intentionally issue checks with insufficient funds in her account to cover those checks; that absent without leave (AWOL) charges against her were trumped up. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: She was born on 29 March 1970 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years on 2 October 1989. The pre-trial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508142C070209
The record of trial of her GCM contains no reference to any mental impairment or evaluation being raised prior to, during or following the trial that would indicate that she was not able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offenses charged. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The evidence of record does not show that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012206
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), paragraph 3-11, by reason of court-martial, with a BCD. General Court-Martial Order Number 641, issued by the U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, dated 9 October 1990, states the applicant's sentence to a BCD, confinement for 18 months, and a forfeiture of $600.00 pay for 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012086
The applicant requests, in effect, that her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a discharge that will allow her to join a Reserve unit. 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. Although not explained in the available records, the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-3 for misconduct on 1 April 1985.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079827C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 31 January 1994, the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office at Fort Greely was notified by an investigator at the Alaska Department of Labor that the applicant had illegally received unemployment checks intended for her husband in the amount of $2,160.00. On 12 September 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant's petition...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02606
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The Air Force Court of Criminal Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence on 5 March 1990. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057879C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011364
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general discharge. Except for the BCD, the sentence would be executed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001281
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge. On 1 March 1989, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for the wrongful use of marijuana on 14 January 1989. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offense.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05158
He simply requests an upgrade to his BCD based on the circumstances at the time he was court-martialed along with the positive progress he has made since his discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military...