MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072118

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  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

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

INDEX

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.