APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that a memorandum of reprimand be removed from his official file. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That the reprimand is filed in both his performance and restricted fiche of his official military personnel file (OMPF).  (NOTE:  The DA Suitability Evaluation Board has transferred the memorandum of reprimand from his performance fiche of his OMPF).  That he was voluntarily on jump status and voluntarily terminated that status, and that the Fort Bragg policy should not affect future assignments at other installations.     

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the memorandum of reprimand should be withdrawn from his official files, and in the alternative that it should be filed only in the restricted portion of his OMPF.  Counsel states that the applicant was removed from “jump status”, his parachutist badge taken away, and he was reassigned, because he elected not to jump from a C130 aircraft on an airborne operation.

Counsel states that the applicant is a legal NCO and paratrooper qualification is not an essential skill.  The majority of assignments available to the applicant are non-airborne assignments.  Because the applicant is no longer airborne qualified should not prevent him from further promotion nor inhibit his military career.  He only received the memorandum of reprimand because it is mandated by Fort Bragg policy.  The applicant’s next assignment will not be at Fort Bragg.  Counsel requests that the applicant’s entire military record be considered. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant is a career soldier who entered the Army in 1983.  He has served in various locations, including Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Southwest Asia.  The applicant’s evaluation reports have generally been excellent, and he has received three awards of the Army Commendation Medal, three awards of the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal, among others.  He first attended airborne school in 1987 but did not complete it.  He did complete the airborne school in 1994.
On 2 August 1994 the applicant received a memorandum of reprimand for refusing to exist an aircraft during airborne operations on 23 May 1994, even after receiving a lawful order to do so.

In his rebuttal to the memorandum of reprimand the applicant acknowledged that he had refused to jump from the aircraft, because he was paralyzed by fear, the same fear that he had experienced in jump school, but was able to overcome.  Subsequent to the incident he was referred to the mental health clinic, and was diagnosed as having a fear of heights.  He stated that he had volunteered for an airborne assignment, wanted to be part of the airborne tradition, however, he did not have to be airborne qualified for career advancement.  He had been selected for promotion, served in the infantry with the Marine Corps, been in combat and awarded the Bronze Star.  He stated that his refusal to jump was not deliberate or voluntary, and regretted his inability to fulfill his commitment to the airborne corps.  He requested that the memorandum of reprimand not be filed, but if filed, be placed in his military personnel records jacket[not OMPF].

A report of mental status evaluation of 10 June 1994 indicates that the applicant’s history and symptoms were indicative of a fear of heights.

On 29 June 1994 the applicant received a less than favorable NCO evaluation report, which commented on his refusal to jump during an airborne operation.

On 5 October 1994 the Deputy Commanding General of the XVIII Corps directed that the memorandum of reprimand be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

On 10 September 1997 the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) determined that the intended purpose of the memorandum of reprimand had been served and approved the applicant’s request to transfer the memorandum of reprimand and supporting documentation (NCO evaluation report) to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.

The applicant furnished a copy of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg airborne terminee policy, which states, in pertinent part, that commanders will initiate action to revoke the parachutist badge of all deliberate or command directed terminees whose termination takes place prior to serving 36 cumulative months of airborne duty.  That policy goes on to say that a soldier does not have an unqualified right to terminate.  Soldiers who deliberately terminate before serving 36 months on airborne status during their current assignment should be considered for general officer letters of reprimand (for soldiers in the rank of E-7 and above).  That policy continues by saying that a trooper who, through his own design, negligence, or misconduct, fails to complete an airborne operation after he is aware of his duty to do so, may be punished for dereliction of duty. 

Army Regulation 614-200, chapter 6, prescribes the policies for airborne training and assignment.  Paragraph 6-5 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that soldiers accepted for airborne training incur, on graduation, an obligation to serve a 3-year airborne tour of duty.  Soldiers who are on assignment instructions to an airborne position or unit will be utilized for at least 3 years in an airborne position/unit unless physically disqualified, exempted by the General Court-Martial Convening Authority ....

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.  Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance portion.  That regulation states that only letters of reprimand may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted fiche.  Appeals approved [by the DASEB] will result in transfer of the document from the performance record to the restricted portion of the OMPF.  However, the transfer will not normally serve as the sole basis for promotion reconsideration by a special board .... 

Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part, that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed on the performance portion of the OMPF.  That regulation states that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, the DASEB ....  Documents designated for transfer from the performance of service fiche will be put on the restricted fiche, if authorized. 

Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part, that the R fiche is used for historical data that that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  Its release is highly controlled.  The R fiche is intended to provide an unbroken historical record of an individual’s service while protecting the interests of both the soldier and the Army.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant successfully completed airborne training, was assigned to an airborne unit, and was expected to participate in airborne operations.  He understood this.  Notwithstanding the contentions of the applicant and his counsel, he deliberately refused to do what he was trained for and what was expected of him.  It is the considered opinion of this Board that the memorandum of reprimand and the filing of that memorandum in the applicant’s OMPF was proper.  

2.  The applicant’s memorandum of reprimand has been transferred from the performance portion of his OMPF to the restricted portion.  No further action is considered necessary by this Board.

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.  Neither the applicant or counsel has submitted evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request for removal of the memorandum for reprimand from the restricted portion of his OMPF.
 
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