PROCEEDINGS   

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            03 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077717

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Charmane Collins		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  In effect, the applicant requests the removal of two letters of reprimand from his restricted portion (fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  He also requests that the 24 February 2000 memorandum recommending that he be removed from the drill sergeant program be removed from his OMPF, or in the alternative, that references to letters of reprimand be redacted from the memorandum.   

3.  The applicant states that the commander of the Army Field Artillery Training Center at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, intended that the letters of reprimand not be filed in his OMPF, either his performance or restricted fiche.  Consequently, any reference to such letters in his OMPF is unfair and unjust, and not in keeping with the commander’s determination.  The inclusion of such letters in his OMPF will harm his military career.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that the applicant enlisted in the Army on 13 September 1988 and has remained on continuous active duty.  The applicant completed the drill sergeant school in December 1998, where he was named the distinguished honor graduate, was promoted to sergeant first class in July 2000, and completed the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) in September 2000.  The applicant’s OMPF contains 13 NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOER).  All those reports show that he was considered a top-notch NCO by his raters and senior raters, with all of his raters stating that he was among the best in overall potential for promotion and service in positions of greater responsibility. 

5.  The NCOER for the period February 1999 through September 1999 shows that he was a drill sergeant/platoon sergeant with D Battery, 1st Battalion,        22nd Field Artillery, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  The report for the period October 1999 through February 2000, was deleted by a decision of the DCSPER Special Review Board and declared a non-rated period.  Reports after that date show that he was an ammunition section chief with Service Battery; a gunnery sergeant with A Battery and later the chief of a firing battery with A Battery; units of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery, at Fort Sill.     

6.  On 20 December 1999, the applicant then assigned to E Battery, 1st Battalion, 22nd Field Artillery, received a letter for reprimand from his battery commander.  In issuing that reprimand, his battery commander stated that a copy would be filed in the applicant’s unit personnel records until he or the applicant departed from the unit, whereupon it would be removed or destroyed.  A copy of that reprimand is contained in the restricted fiche of the applicant’s OMPF. 

7.  On 14 February 2000, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his battalion commander, who also notified him on that same date, that he intended 

to request that he be taken off drill sergeant status because of his lack of sound judgment and discipline due to his recent letters of reprimand from his battery commander and himself [the battalion commander].  That notification specifically stated in paragraph 1, “You have proven that you lack the sound judgment and discipline due to your recent Letters of Reprimand from your battery commander and myself.”  It also stated that if the removal was approved he might not be allowed to retain his Drill Sergeant Identification Badge, that he would be removed from his unit, that his special drill sergeant pay would be terminated, and that his special qualification identifier (SQI) of “X” would be removed.  The letter of reprimand is contained in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  The letter notifying the applicant of the intention to request that he be removed from drill sergeant status is included in both the restricted and performance portions of his OMPF. 

8.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of the intent to remove him from drill sergeant status.  That acknowledgment is contained in both his restricted and peformance fiches.  He submitted a rebuttal through his battalion commander to the commanding general of the Field Artillery Training Center and Fort Sill.  The subject of that rebuttal is, “Rebuttal of Removal from Drill Sergeant Status and Letter of Reprimand.”  He also submitted a rebuttal of the letter of reprimand to his battalion commander.  Both rebuttals are dated 22 February 2000 and both are in his restricted fiche. 

9.  On 23 February 2000, the applicant’s battalion commander provided to the commanding general of the Field Artillery Training Center and Fort Sill, a response to the applicant’s 22 February 2000 rebuttal for removal from drill sergeant status and the letter of reprimand.  The subject of that response is, “Response to [the applicant] Rebuttal for Removal from DS Status and LOR dated 22 Feb 00.”  The third paragraph of that response contains the words, “This is his third incident indicating poor judgment and his second Letter of Reprimand.”  That response is contained in the applicant’s restricted fiche. 
 
10.  On 24 February 2000 the applicant’s battalion commander recommended to the commanding general of the Field Artillery Training Center and Fort Sill, that the applicant be removed from the drill sergeant program, stating that the applicant had demonstrated on several occasions that he lacked the maturity and sound judgment to be entrusted in the position of drill sergeant.  That recommendation also stated, “He has received a battalion Letter of Reprimand for disrespect and insubordination, and a battery Letter of Reprimand for lack of sound judgment in dealing with Initial Entry soldiers.”  That recommendation is contained in the applicant’s peformance and restricted fiche.

11.  On 28 February 2000 the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center in an endorsement to the Total Army Personnel Commander stated that the applicant was removed from the drill sergeant program for failure to maintain high standards of military conduct and/or professionalism and for infractions of training policies, “which resulted in two Letters of Reprimand.”  [quotation marks are those of the analyst].  That officer also stated the applicant’s drill sergeant pay would be terminated, that his SQI of “X” would be withdrawn, and that he would not retain his Drill Sergeant Identification Badge.  He stated that Army Regulation 600-37 had been complied with, and that a copy of this correspondence [the removal endorsement] would be placed in the permanent section of the applicant’s MPRJ (military personnel records jacket) and OMPF.  That endorsement is contained in both the applicant’s performance and restricted fiche. 

12.  On 31 May 2000 the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center notified the applicant that he had considered the applicant’s statement [rebuttal to the letter of reprimand], and the recommendation of his chain of command, and was returning the letter of reprimand for filing in his unit informational personnel file.  That notification is contained in the applicant’s restricted fiche. 

13.  The applicant’s restricted portion of his OMPF also contains numerous statements of support for the applicant, and three statements concerning the incident for which he received the 14 September 2000 letter of reprimand.

14.  In a previous application to this Board on 15 March 2001, the applicant requested that the letters of reprimand be removed from his OMPF.  He was informed on 15 April 2001 that his OMPF contained no such letters and consequently his case was administratively closed without action. 

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth the basic authority for the filing of unfavorable information in the OMPF.  Paragraph 3-4 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive letter of reprimand or admonition would be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general officer senior to the recipient or by direction of the officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient.

16.  That regulation also states in effect that other unfavorable information of which the recipient had prior official knowledge, e.g., acknowledgement of his or her rebuttal opportunity, may be filed in the performance portion of the OMPF without further referral to the recipient.  The notation “AR 600-37 complied with” will be entered below the filing authority on such unfavorable information. 

17.  Army Regulation 614-200, paragraph 8-16, provides for the removal of soldiers from the drill sergeant program, and states in pertinent part, that soldiers may be removed from the program for failure to maintain high standards of military appearance, military courtesy, bearing, conduct and/or professionalism; or infractions of training policies, among other reasons.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Neither the letter of reprimand of 20 December 1999 nor the one of                14 February 2000 belong in the applicant’s OMPF.  Both letters were intended for inclusion in his local personnel files.  Consequently, those two letters, and his    22 February 2000 rebuttal to his letter of reprimand should be removed from his OMPF.  The 31 May 2000 notification from the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center informing the applicant that he was returning the letter of reprimand for filing in his unit informational personnel file should be removed from his OMPF.  Furthermore, any references to a letter or letters of reprimand should be redacted from documents contained in his OMPF.  

•	The 14 February 2000 memorandum from the applicant’s battalion commander notifying the applicant of his intention to remove him from drill sergeant status, includes the words, “due to your recent Letters of Reprimand from your battery commander and myself,” in paragraph 1 of the memorandum.  Those words should be redacted from that memorandum.

•	Because his 22 February 2000 rebuttal of his removal from drill sergeant status and letter of reprimand, contains the words, “Letter of Reprimand” in the subject line, those three words should be redacted from that rebuttal.  Furthermore, because the 23 February 2000 response to the rebuttal by the applicant’s battalion commander also contains the words, “and LOR” in the subject line of the response, and in paragraph 3 the words, “and his second Letter of Reprimand,” those words should be redacted from that response.

•	The 24 February 2000 memorandum from the applicant’s battalion commander to the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center, recommending that the applicant be removed from the drill sergeant program, contains the sentence, “He has received a battalion Letter of Reprimand for disrespect and insubordination and a battery Letter of Reprimand for lack of sound judgment in dealing with Initial Entry soldiers.”  That sentence should be redacted from that memorandum.  

•	
The 28 February 2000 endorsement from the commander of the Army Field Artillery Training Center to the Total Army Personnel Command which indicated that the applicant was removed from the drill sergeant program contains the words, “which resulted in two Letters of Reprimand.” Those words should be redacted from that endorsement.

2.  Notwithstanding, the applicant’s removal from drill sergeant status was proper and conducted in accordance with regulatory provisions.  The filing of that information concerning his removal in the performance portion of his OMPF was also in accordance with regulatory provisions.   

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by: 

	a.  removing the 20 December1999 and the 14 February 2000 letters of reprimand from the applicant’s OMPF; 

	b.  removing the applicant’s 22 February 2000 rebuttal to his 14 February 2000 letter of reprimand from his OMPF;

	c.  removing the 31 May 2000 notification from the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center informing the applicant that he was returning the letter of reprimand for filing in his unit informational personnel file from his OMPF;

	d.  redacting the words, “Letter of Reprimand” in the subject line of his    22 February 2000 rebuttal to his removal from drill sergeant status and letter of reprimand;

	e.  redacting the words, “and LOR,” in the subject line and the words, “and his second Letter of Reprimand” in paragraph 3 of the 23 February 2000 response to the rebuttal by the applicant’s battalion commander; 

	f.  redacting the sentence, “He has received a battalion Letter of Reprimand for disrespect and insubordination and a battery Letter of Reprimand for lack of sound judgment in dealing with Initial Entry soldiers” from the            24 February 2000 memorandum from the applicant’s battalion commander to the commander of the Field Artillery Training Center, recommending that the applicant be removed from the drill sergeant program; and 

	g.  redacting the words, “which resulted in two Letters of Reprimand” from the 28 February 2000 endorsement from the commander of the Army Field Artillery Training Center to the Total Army Personnel Command.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__FNE __  __JEA __  __CC____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077717	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.