RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002540


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Prevolia A. Harper            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of her Bad Conduct
Discharge (BCD) to a General Discharge (GD) under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was 22 years old when she
received her BCD.  The applicant further states that she is now 41 years
old and a mother of 2, and that she learned her lesson and has been an
outstanding citizen.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  A self-authored letter, dated 9 February 2005

      b.  A letter of support from the supervisor at the Central Kitchens
Facility in Columbia, South Carolina.

      c.  A letter of support from the supervisor of mail services at Blue
Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina.

      d.  A letter of support from the Pastor of the Zion Chapel Baptist
Church.

      e.  A Certificate of Appreciation from the Central Kitchen.

      f.  A Certificate of Completion from the South Carolina Food Service
Association.

      g.  A records check indicating the applicant has no criminal record
from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 1 August 1988.  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 January 2005.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3.  The applicant’s record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army for
3 years and entered active duty on 29 May 1986.  She completed the required
training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 77F10
(Petroleum Supply Specialist) and the highest rank she attained while
serving on active duty was specialist four.

4.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that
during her tenure on active duty, she earned the Army Service Ribbon, the
Expert Qualification Badge (Grenade), and the Marksmanship Badge with Rifle
Bar (M-16).  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant’s records do not contain her complete discharge
processing documents.  The applicant’s record does not contain the specific
facts and circumstances pertaining to the events which led to her
discharge.

6.  On 20 August 1987, a general court-martial (GCM) found the applicant
guilty, contrary to her pleas of violating the following articles of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the offenses indicated:
Article 123, by wrongfully uttering a certain check in the amount of $50.00
on or about 16 February
1987 and falsely making a signature of another individual on a certain
check on or about 16 February 1987.

7.  The applicant was sentenced to a reduction to private/E-1 (PV1) and to
be discharged from the Army with a BCD.

8.  On 29 January 1988, the United States Army Court of Military Review, on
consideration of the applicant’s entire record, including consideration of
the issue personally specified by the applicant, affirmed the findings of
guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority to be
correct in law and fact.

9.  On 22 June 1988, GCM Order 26, issued by Headquarters, United States
Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Kentucky, directed, Article 71c of the
UCMJ having been complied with, that the BCD portion of the sentence be
duly executed.  On 1 August 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.


10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of her separation,

1 August 1988, shows she was separated with a BCD under the provisions of
Chapter 3, AR 635-200, as a result of court-martial.  It also shows that at
the time of her separation, she had completed a total of 2 years, 2 months
and 3 days of creditable active military service.

11.  The applicant submitted a self-authored letter in which she stated, in
part, that she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge based on her life
progression. She explained that it has been 16 years since her discharge
and she would like to have her records reflect that although she showed bad
judgment, she is now a productive member of society.

12.  The applicant provided various letters of support from her employers
and who stated that the applicant was a dependable and faithful employee.
She also provided a letter from the Pastor of the Zion Chapel Baptist
Church who stated that the applicant had been a member of the church for 2
years and a member of the church choir.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 provides the policies 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 affirmed
sentence ordered duly executed.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

15.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal
through the judicial process.  In accordance with Title 10, United States
Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records 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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to have her bad conduct discharge upgraded to
honorable has been carefully considered.  However, after a thorough and
comprehensive review of the applicant’s military service record, it is
concluded that based upon the seriousness of the offenses for which she was
convicted, clemency would not be appropriate in this case.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s trial by court-
martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which she was
charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with
applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately
characterizes the misconduct for which she was convicted.

3.  By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial
conviction is prohibited.  The Board is only empowered to change a
discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the
severity of the sentence imposed.  In light of the seriousness of the
offenses for which she was convicted, and absent the presentation of any
significant mitigating factors, the applicant’s overall record of service
does not support clemency in this case.

4.  The applicant contends that she was 22 years old during the time-frame
in which she received the BCD.  However, there is no evidence that
indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the
same age who successfully completed military service.

5.  The applicant’s post service conduct is noteworthy.  However, good post
service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge and does not
mitigate her indiscipline in the Army.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 August 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 31 July 1991.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LDS __  __REB __  __RMN  _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ____Linda D. Simmons ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002540                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060112                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]