MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047611

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                	        records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
		       advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was discharged with a BCD on 15 May 1998 and now wants her discharge reviewed on the basis of her military records.  The applicant provides in support of her application a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214) and various memoranda relating to her court-martial and subsequent BCD.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Army on 1 August 1989 for 5 years.  She completed her initial training and served as a personnel management specialist (75C) in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas.  

On 26 November 1991 she extended her 5-year enlistment to comply with assignment instructions, obligating herself until 31 January 1995.  She subsequently attained the rank of specialist (E-4) on 1 March 1992.

On a date unknown to the Board, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for conspiracy to commit larceny of military property, with violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for wrongfully making a false declaration to the United States Post Office, with intent to conceal goods or information from customs officials, with violation of Article 121, UCMJ, for larceny of military property of a value more than $100.00, and with violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for false swearing (2 specifications).  She pled not guilty to the charge of conspiracy and guilty to all other charges.

On 9 February 1995 the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial (GCM) of wrongfully making a false declaration, larceny of military property and false swearing.  The charge of conspiracy was dismissed.  She was sentenced to be reduced to private E-1, and to be discharged from the service with a BCD.

The convening authority approved the sentence and, except for the part of the sentence extending to the BCD, directed its execution.

On 21 March 1995 the applicant was placed on excess leave pending appellate review of the subject court-martial.

On 18 April 1995 the applicant’s counsel sought relief from the Army Discharge Review Board and from this Board.  Counsel contended that the applicant should have received an honorable discharge upon completion of her active duty service obligation.  Counsel states that the applicant was retained for 7 months past her ordinary service obligation to be tried by court-martial.  Her supervisor’s and fellow soldiers testified at her court-martial that her duty performance was always exceptional and that they believed she could continue to be an outstanding soldier.  She never received an Honorable Discharge Certificate for her first term of service that ran for 5 years from 1 August 1989.  Counsel further requests that the applicant’s discharge be upgraded, or that she receive a discharge certificate for completion of her first service tour.  There is no indication in the record of any action taken by either the ADRB or this Board.

Appellate review of the subject court-martial was completed on 11 December 1997 affirming the sentence and ordering execution of the BCD.

On 15 May 1998 the applicant was discharged as a result of her conviction by a GCM with a BCD.  She had 8 years, 9 months and 15 days of creditable active service.  She was retained in service 1200 days for the convenience of the government and was placed in excess leave status for 1125 days.

On 12 August 2000 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of her discharge.  The ADRB advised her that it did not have the authority to review a discharge resulting from a GCM and that her application would be forwarded to this Board.

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 applicant’s trial by GCM was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  Her 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 applicant has not provided any evidence to support her request for an upgrade to her discharge.

3.  The applicant’s contention, through her counsel, that she should have received an Honorable Discharge Certificate upon completion of her first 5 years of service is without merit since she was never discharged prior to conviction by a GCM.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LLS___  __JEA___  __BJL___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047611	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980515	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 3, Sec IV	
DISCHARGE REASON	Court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A68.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.