APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, removal of a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) from the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reconsideration for promotion to pay grade E-7 and E-8.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a record of NJP remained in his OMPF after the punishment was wholly set aside by the imposing officer and as such was reviewed by promotion selections boards resulting in his nonselection for promotion and ultimate retirement in pay grade E-6. He notes that Army Regulation 600-200 provides for the reconsideration of promotion if an article 15 punishment that was wholly set aside on or after 1 September 1979 was filed on the performance fiche when reviewed by the [promotion] board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served an initial period of active duty between 1973 and 1976 and then reenlisted on 21 March 1978.
In April 1980 the applicant, while serving in pay grade E-5 at Fort Hood, Texas was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for operating a vehicle while drunk. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-4, which was suspended for 180 days, and forfeiture of $338.00 for two months.
On 22 May 1980 the officer who imposed the original punishment set aside one month of the two month forfeiture. The suspended reduction and forfeiture of #338.00 for one month remained in effect.
The applicant was subsequently promoted to pay grade E-6 in July 1982. On 28 February 1995 he retired for length of service after completing 20 years of active Federal service.
Army Regulation 600-200 does state that an individual may be reconsidered for promotion if an Article 15 remained on the
performance fiche of the OMPF after punishment was wholly set aside providing it was set aside on or after
1 September 1979.
Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states that setting aside punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ is an action whereby the punishment or any part or amount, whether executed or unexecuted is set aside and any rights, privileges, or property affected by the portion of the punishment set aside are restored. Nonjudicial punishment is wholly set aside when the commander who imposed the punishment sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual under Article 15.
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:
1. The evidence confirms that only a portion of the punishment imposed under the Article 15 issued in April 1980 was set aside.
2. The suspended reduction to pay grade E-4 and one months forfeiture remained in effect. As such the punishment was not wholly set aside and the record of NJP correctly remained on the applicants performance fiche. The provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, which allows for promotion reconsideration, would not apply in this case.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076558C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. New evidence unquestionably exculpating the individual is a cited example whereas the fact that a soldier's subsequent performance has been exemplary or that the punishment adversely effects the career potential...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060003334C070205
Nonjudicial punishment is “wholly set aside” when the commander who imposed the punishment, a successor-in- command, or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual under Article 15. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with her application and the evidence of record that there was insufficient time to consult with counsel. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005758
The applicant provides: * DA Form 2627 * DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. b. NJP was imposed against him on 8 June 2011 for violating a lawful general regulation for using bath salts and the issuing commander directed that the original DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of his OMPF. Although the DA Form 2627 imposed on 8 June 2011 was properly filed in the restricted portion of the applicants OMPF in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067603C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008191C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed against her on 26 January 2004 be set aside, that she be restored to the pay grade of E-6 and that the Board direct the imposing officer to provide her with a written letter of apology. On 26 January 2004, the imposing commander imposed a reduction to the pay grade of E-5 and directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the Restricted Fiche of her OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018073
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 17 July 2008, and DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 1 August 2008, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), or transfer of the documents to the restricted section of his OMPF. It shows: * DA Form 2627 is filed in either the performance or restricted section, as directed in item 5 of the DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058436C070421
The applicant’s contention that the record of NJP should not be filed because his appeal was granted, has been noted by the Board and appears to be without merit. However, the applicable laws and regulation provide that a properly imposed record of NJP will be filed in accordance with the filing instructions of the imposing commander. Accordingly, the record of NJP was properly filed on the restricted fiche of the applicant’s OMPF and he has failed to show through the evidence submitted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017341
The Board noted that an Enlisted STAB denied the applicant's request to remove the DA QMP bar to reenlistment and that an Enlisted Special Review Board denied his request to remove the relief for cause NCOER. There is no evidence the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 to show he was retired from active duty in the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with an effective date of pay grade of 1 August 1993. A letter from the applicant to DFAS, dated 12 May 2009, in which he stated that he retired from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062179C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The record of NJP was properly filed on the Restricted Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF in accordance with the imposing commander’s instructions and the applicable regulations in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010195
Counsel requests the Article 15 be set aside as it did not contain a valid charge under the UCMJ. On 21 January 2014, a military attorney reviewed the applicant's appeal and determined the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation. On 13 January 2014, COL SAE imposed an Article 15 on the applicant for a violation of Article 92, UCMJ for a failure to obey Army Regulation 600-20, Appendix 7-6(b) (Sexual Harassment).