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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 appellants 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 applicants 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 applicants application more closely.
3. The Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an individuals 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 individuals 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004579C070206
Carol Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that a 1994 record of non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be expunged from the restricted portion of his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). It also provides that the officer imposing NJP determines whether the report of NJP is to be filed on the individual’s restricted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606920C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that the 22 May 1979 nonjudicial punishment administered under Article 15, UCMJ, be expunged from his records, and that he receive standby advisory board consideration for promotion to pay grades E-5 through E-7. An enlisted evaluation report signed by the applicant on 3 May 1982 shows his pay grade as E-5, however, with a date of rank of 1 May 1981. On 7 July 1995 the applicant requested that the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061379C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that his August 1991 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). The 25 January 1990 edition of Army Regulation 27-10, which establishes the policies and provisions for the filing of DA Forms 2627, states that records of nonjudicial punishment for soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment files. b. by expunging all documents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085330C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was unlawfully non-selected for promotion to LTC by two Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) convening in December 2000 and May 2001 under 1998 and 1999 criteria, when the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) failed to properly expunge derogatory documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF) microfiche. The applicant appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 1 August 1995 to be retained on active duty as an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083656C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of this NJP is filed on the applicant's R fiche.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011755C070208
He stated that sometime in 2002 or 2003, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) granted that all the NJPs be transferred to his Restricted Fiche. The evidence of record shows the Army Review Boards Agency in St. Louis transferred the applicant's Article 15 imposed on 17 October 1987 to the restricted portion of his OMPF without board action. There is no evidence of record which shows that any of the Article 15s were filed on his restricted fiche in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009267C070206
The applicant requests that a memorandum of reprimand imposed by a general officer (GOMOR) and associated documents be expunged from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant acknowledged the GOMOR and provided a rebuttal in which he maintained that he was not intoxicated under German law because his blood alcohol content (BAC) was only .054 at 0036 hours and .060 at 0038 hours and that German law provided that a BAC of .080 was considered evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606933C070209
The applicant requests that the record of a 1987 nonjudicial punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ be expunged from his Official Military Personnel Record (OMPF), both his performance and restricted fiche. Therefore, removal of the nonjudicial punishment from his restricted fiche of his official file is not warranted. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077764C070215
Army Regulation 190-5 (Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision) provides that soldiers will be issued an administrative letter of reprimand for alcohol related driving incidents in the following circumstances: When there is a conviction for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; a refusal to take a properly requested blood, urine or breath test; when the individual was driving or in physical control of a vehicle on post with a BAC of .10 or off post with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084424C070212
The commanding general considered the circumstances and the recommendations and directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. If the appeal is denied the DASEB letter of denial will be filed on the performance fiche, the appeal itself and any associated documents will be filed on the restricted fiche. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: