IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013394 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his DA Form 2627, Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 17 May 1996, be removed from his records. 2. The applicant states that his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) has served as a reminder of past inappropriate actions. However, he did not allow this incident to hinder his performance and progression in the Army. At this point he is trying to maintain his professional growth with his peers and believes his NJP is a hindrance to that progress. He adds he is capable of excelling in positions of greater responsibility. 3. The applicant adds that the reason for his request to remove his NJP is so he can have another document from his performance file moved to his restricted file. 4. The applicant provides in support of his application, a memorandum he wrote to the Department of Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) dated 19 March 2008, and the DASEB’s 21 May 2008 response to that memorandum. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 12 April 1990. On 29 January 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. 2. On 17 May 1996, the applicant, then a sergeant, accepted NJP for stealing a wallet and four pair of men’s underwear from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). 3. On 12 January 2001, the applicant, then a staff sergeant, again accepted NJP for wrongfully viewing pornographic materials on a Government computer. 4. The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a staff sergeant. 5. In the memorandum the applicant sent to the DASEB, he requested that his 12 January 2001 NJP be moved to the restricted portion or removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant stated that he had matured after he received the NJP and has served in many demanding positions. The applicant concluded that he is capable of excelling in positions of increased responsibility and feels that he would remain at a competitive disadvantage if his NJP remains in performance portion of his OMPF. 6. In the DASEB’s response it was stated that Army regulations only allows one NJP to be filed in the restricted portion of a Soldier’s OMPF. Since the applicant already has one NJP filed in the restricted portion of his OMPF, the DASEB could not consider moving a second NJP into the same location. 7. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) requires that when a Soldier requests a record of NJP be transferred to the restricted fiche the request is to be accompanied by substantive evidence that the intended purpose has been served and the transfer of the record is in the best interest of the Army. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was provided leniency when his first NJP, received when he was a sergeant, was placed in the restricted portion of his OMPF. 2. The applicant was later promoted to staff sergeant. 3. The intended purpose of the applicant’s first NJP had apparently not been served based on the fact that he committed another offense for which he was given a second NJP. 4. The applicant now asks the Board to remove his first NJP so he can request to have his second NJP moved to his restricted section. 5. Based on the applicant’s history, there is no substantive evidence that the intended purpose of the applicant’s NJP has been served. 6. In addition, promotion boards should be given as clear of a picture as possible of Soldiers they consider in order for the promotion boards to make selections which would be in the best interest of the Army. While the transfer of one NJP to the restricted section is understandable (youthful indiscretion, isolated lapse of judgment, etc.), the transfer of a second NJP is not normally understandable. At that point a pattern has emerged. It would appear that is why the regulation governing the filing of NJPs limits the restricted section to one NJP. 7. To grant the applicant’s request would be giving him a benefit not provided to other Soldiers in similar situations, and would distort the picture of the applicant considered by the promotion boards. 8. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X_____ ___X____ ___X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080013394 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080013394 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1