IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120011315 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 the DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 4 January 1969, be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (previously known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. He states: a. when he requested his military records he discovered an Article 15 that he received when he was assigned to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) in 1968/1969. b. the Article 15 in question showed he apparently didn't show up for a meeting. His track commander never mentioned this and he never received any paperwork. c. this is totally unfair. When he was serving in the United States, he received two Article 15s and he took the punishment like a "good Trooper." 3. He provides no additional documents. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 October 1966. He was promoted to specialist four on 20 March 1968. 3. On 4 January 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer, an order which it was his duty to obey, to wit: that all 1st Squadron rear detachment personnel would attend formations each day at 0730 hours. The DA Form 2627-1 indicates he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Battalion, 11th ACR. 4. On 4 January 1969, the applicant signed Section II (Acknowledgement of Notification) acknowledging receipt of the Article 15. He did not demand trial by court-martial and he did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense. 5. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of private first class (sentence suspended for 30 days). 6. He was advised of his right to appeal the punishment. On 4 January 1969, he elected not to submit an appeal to the punishment. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management) prescribes the policies governing the AMHRR, the military personnel records jacket, the career management individual file, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the AMHRR it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the ABCMR among other agencies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer, an order which it was his duty to obey. 2. The evidence of record shows the Article 15 was properly filed in the applicant's AMHRR in accordance with applicable regulations. 3. Although the applicant contends he was never aware of the Article 15 when he was assigned to the 11th ACR in 1968/1969, the evidence of record shows he signed the Article 15 in question acknowledging receipt of the punishment on 4 January 1969. He was afforded the opportunity to submit an appeal, but he elected not to do so. If he did not believe he was guilty of the offense, he could have demanded trial by court-martial. 4. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that the Article 15 was unfair. 5. The evidence of record is void of evidence which indicates the Article 15 was filed in error. Therefore, 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) AR20120011315 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120011315 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1