2.  The applicant requests “removal of Article 15 from [his] performance microfiche to restricted.”  He states the incident took place more than 14 years ago when he was a private and that, in effect, the NJP has served its purpose.

3.  Although the Board was able to secure copies of the applicant’s military personnel file from his initial term of active Federal service (1979 to 1985), attempts to secure copies of files associated with his current military service were not successful.

4.  However, notwithstanding the absence of current records, available records indicate the applicant initially entered active duty in October 1979.  In April 1981, at the age of 20 and while serving in pay grade E-3, the applicant received non-judicial punishment for being disrespectful in language towards a staff sergeant.  The applicant’s punishment included suspended reduction to pay grade E-2 until 1 July 1981.  Although a subsequent, undated record of NJP indicates the suspension was vacated other documents in his file do not reflect that a reduction ever occurred.

5.  The applicant was released from active duty on 28 July 1985 having attained pay grade E-4 with no evidence of subsequent misconduct.  He was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal for the period in question.

6.  The applicant is currently serving in an Active Guard Reserve capacity and as of the date of his applicant was serving in pay grade E-6.

7.  In the processing of this application an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was provided by the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB).  Although the DASEB noted they could not take action to expunge the record of NJP from the applicant’s file they did note that “there is substantial and sufficient evidence that the intended purpose of the Article 15 has been served and the best interest of the Army would be served if it were to be transferred to the appellant’s restricted data in the OMPF” and recommended such action be accomplished.



CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant asked that the record of NJP be removed from his “performance microfiche to restricted” and not that the record be expunged entirely from his records.

2.  The evidence indicates that the DASEB believes the applicant’s 1981 record of NJP should be transferred from his performance fiche to a restricted fiche and likely would have accomplished that action administratively had they read the applicant’s application more closely.

3.  The Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an individual’s service.  The transfer of a record of NJP, which has served its purpose, to a restricted fiche enables the Army to maintain that historical record without jeopardizing the individual’s career.  In the interest of fairness to the applicant it would be appropriate to transfer the record of NJP to a restricted fiche in accordance with the recommendation in the advisory opinion.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing the 1981 record of non-judicial punishment and associated documents from the performance fiche of the individual concerned and transfer them to a restricted fiche.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION


		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON