RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        31 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016759


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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 that her bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that she was found guilty by a jury of her peers
and has no desire to re-open that era of her life.  She is only requesting
an upgrade of her discharge.  She is a Gulf War veteran with two prior
honorable discharges and would not like to have this bad conduct discharge
follow her for the rest of her life.  She is proud to have served her
country and would gladly do it again, without the mistakes she made that
got her to this point.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 1989.  She served
    in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War.  She was honorably discharged on
       15 March 1995 and immediately reenlisted on 16 March 1995.  She was
promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 7 February 1997 in military occupational
specialty 63J (Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repairer).  She was
honorably discharged on 26 February 1997 and immediately reenlisted on 27
February 1997.

2.  On 22 January 1999, the applicant was convicted, contrary to her pleas,
by a general court-martial of conspiring with another person to commit
forgery, by falsely making a check in the amount of $3,000.00; of
conspiring with another person to commit larceny of U. S. currency of a
value of $3,000.00; of stealing an American Red Cross Emergency Services
check of some value; of attempting to steal $889.64, the property of
another, by presenting for payment a fraudulent check; and of five
specifications of falsely making the signature of another on a check and
offering the check for payment.

3.  The applicant’s adjudged sentence was to be confined for two years and
to  be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.  On 16 April 1999, the
convening authority approved the sentence and, except for the bad conduct
discharge, ordered it to be executed.

4.  On 16 May 2002, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings
and sentence in the case.  The Court corrected the date of offense in four
of the specifications and amended the convening authority’s action by
adding, after the word and punctuation “executed.” the following:  “The
forfeiture of all pay and allowances as required by Article 58b, UCMJ, is
hereby waived effective 16 April 1999 until 13 October 1999 with the
direction that such moneys be paid by allotment to her qualifying
dependents…in the care of their guardian, Gladys B___.

5.  On 1 July 2003, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
consolidated the conspiracy offenses into one specification.  The court
affirmed the remainder of the findings and approved the sentence as
adjudged.

6.  On 4 June 2004, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct
discharge pursuant to her sentence by court-martial.  She had completed a
total of            13 years, 7 months, and 26 days of creditable active
service with 421 days of lost time (confinement).

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation
with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality
of the Soldier’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.
 Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should
be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A Soldier
will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a
specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15.  Conviction by a general
court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not
automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge.
An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the
Soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful
service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.
It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be
considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to
be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under
honorable conditions.  It is issued to a Soldier whose military record is
satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable
discharge.

8.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(f) states that, with respect to
records of courts-martial tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the Board's action may extend only to action on the
sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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.
2.  Considering the applicant’s multiple offenses of the same nature,
committed while she was an experienced noncommissioned officer with two
honorable discharges behind her, the discharge appropriately characterizes
the misconduct for which she was convicted.  Her service during her last
enlistment did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct that would
warrant upgrading her bad conduct discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wfc___  __dll___  __rsv___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  __William F. Crain____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016759                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070531                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |BCD                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20040604                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |105.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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