1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 November 2017 b. Date Received: 29 November 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of a bad conduct discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge does not reflect the service she provided while the applicant was in the military. The applicant was falsely accused of something and has attempted on many occasions to submit this application but could not get anyone to help. The applicant wants to clear the name. The applicant was not a bad Soldier, just worked for bad leadership. The applicant did not intend to commit the crime as stated and fully intended to make the military a career and to raise the kids responsibly. This incident was created behind a lot of mess going on in the unit, which involved the senior non-commission officer, roommate, and friends, as stated in the Court-Martial, C.C. was the roommate. The NCO was having an affair with then call C.C., and they collaborated together to get the applicant kicked out the military. The applicant did not get along with any of them, didn't have anything in common with any of them, and so it was better to stay away. The Court-Martial was stacked. Prior to joining the military, the applicant had no criminal background, never had been to jail or committed any crimes. The applicant would never have thought of stealing another person's card for benefit. The applicant is not that kind of person. The applicant regrets that it happened and tried to make this right but the three of them were so determined to get the applicant kicked out. There was no use of trying any further. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Court-Martial Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad-Conduct Discharge b. Date of Discharge: 11 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 16, dated 27 June 2003, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 121: On divers occasions, between on or about October 2002 and January 2003, wrongfully appropriated a Wachovia Bank card, of some value, the property of Wachovia Bank and PV2 C.C; Charge II, in violation of Article 123: On divers occasions, with intent to defraud, falsely made the signature of C.C. to a series of credit/debit card receipts, which said writings would, if genuine, apparently operated to the legal harm of another between on or about October 2002 to January 2003; Charge III, in violation of Article 107: With intent to deceive, signed an official statement, to wit: a DA Form 2823, which statement was false in that PFC T.S.C. claimed that she had picked up PV2 C.C.'s ATM/Debit Card by mistake and did not realize she had used PV2 C.C.'s card until she examined the transaction receipts and the PFC T.S.C. denied forging PV2 C.C.'s signature, and was then known by the said PFC T.S.C. to be so false on or about 30 January 2003 (2) Adjudged Sentence: On 27 June 2003, the applicant was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-1, confinement for four months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge (3) Date/Sentence Approved: On 27 June 2003, only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to the grade of E-1, confinement for four months, and a bad conduct discharge was approved, and except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge was executed (4) Appellate Review: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocated General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the remaining finding of guilty. Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad-conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. Effective 27 June 2003, the automatic forfeiture of pay required by Article 58b, UCMJ, was waived until 26 October 2003, with direction that those funds be paid to Ms X, the accused's mother for the benefit of the accused's three minor children. That portion of the sentence extending to confinement having been served. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 30 July 2004 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 February 2002 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Orders as described in previous paragraph 3c(2) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 16 April 2003 to 24 July 2003. The DD Form 214 under review makes reference to 571 days of excess leave (19 August 2003 to 11 March 2005). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, and a letter of recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV establishes policy 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 the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her bad conduct discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge 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. The applicant seeks relief contending that her discharge does not reflect the service she provided while she was in the military. She contends she was falsely accused of something she did not do; she has attempted on many occasions to submit this application but could not get anyone to help her. She wants to clear her name, she was not a bad Soldier, and she just worked for bad leadership. The applicant's contention was noted; however, Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. Evidence of records shows the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge as a result of her Special Court-Martial. Further, the applicant was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to raise this issue at the time of trial. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant was fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170018822 1