Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605562C070209
Original file (9605562C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received be removed from his record.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was initially told by the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) that his only recourse was to accept the NJP. After accepting the NJP, he was informed that had he requested a court-martial the charge would have been thrown out.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 April 1985 and was honorably discharged in pay grade E-4 after 9 years, 8 months and 28 days of service.

While serving in Germany in June of 1994 he was accused of indecent assault upon another soldier’s wife.  During the course of the investigation of the assault, he made two statements under oath to criminal investigators concerning his involvement in the assault.  In his first statement, given on 29 June 1994, he claimed that the victim made a pass at him and when he rejected her she became angry and ran from him.  In the second statement, given on 12 July 1994, he admitted to placing his hands inside the dress of the victim.

On 18 October 1994 the applicant accepted NJP from his battalion commander for making a false official statement, orally communicating indecent language, and two specifications of committing an indecent act.  His punishment included reduction to the grade of E-4 and forfeiture of $644.00 pay per month for 2 months.

The record shows that after being advised of his rights in connection with accepting NJP, he did not demand trial by court-martial.  Further, he indicated that he did not desire to appeal the punishment he received.  There are no documents in the file to confirm or refute his allegation concerning the contradictory information provided to him by the SJA.
The policies and procedures governing the imposition of NJP are set out in title 10, United States Code, section 815 (Article 15, (UCMJ)), and in Army Regulation 27-10, chapter 3. In this case there is no evidence of significant departure from those established policies or procedures.

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.  As its name indicates, NJP is different from a trial by court-martial.  An NJP hearing is a more informal proceeding where the rules of evidence need not be strictly applied.  Before he elected to accept NJP the applicant was made aware of these differences and of his right to demand court-martial where he would receive the protection of the rules of evidence.  Instead he chose to have the matter settled at NJP.

2.  The NJP was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.  The punishment imposed was neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offense, and there is no evidence of any substantive violation of any of the applicant's rights.

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 appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605612C070209

    Original file (9605612C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    That official stated that the nonjudicial punishment action against the applicant was proper, that the applicant had the opportunity to appeal that punishment and the NCO evaluation report predicated upon it, but did not do so. As its name indicates, nonjudicial punishment is different from a trial by court-martial. The applicant had the opportunity to appeal, as do all soldiers who receive nonjudicial punishment, and he elected not to do so.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065967C070421

    Original file (2001065967C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board considered the following evidence:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511850C070209

    Original file (9511850C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the findings and sentence of his summary court-martial dated 14 September 1994 be set aside, that he be restored to the pay grade of E-7, and that a relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report covering the period January 1994 through February 1994 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The TJAG concluded that the applicant failed to establish any basis for relief for his conviction or sentence and denied his application. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006720

    Original file (20120006720.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial: a. Paragraph 3-6 addresses the filing of an NJP and provides, in pertinent part, that a commander’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511418C070209

    Original file (9511418C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states the applicant did not “enter” into a relationship while the student was in training but merely continued a relationship “with someone already known to him prior to her status as an AIT student.” Counsel states the applicant met the female student while he was in Texas. He states “not only did the command have a problem with deciding who the rating officials would be and what period the report should cover but they also could not decide whether the report should be a change of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104215C070208

    Original file (2004104215C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states the applicant appealed the punishment to the brigade commander and cited two legal errors committed by the battalion commander during the Article 15 proceedings, which were the insufficiency of the evidence and consideration of evidence not contained in the package provided the applicant prior to the hearing. Counsel claims that it is clear based on the facts provided that the applicant was both legally and factually not guilty of indecent assault and no NJP should have been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511954C070209

    Original file (9511954C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, letters from his brothers indicate that they had told him about taking some pictures, but he had waited too long (to have film developed), and had no way of knowing which film was his (which were non-criminal) and which were his brothers. The applicant did not appeal the bar to reenlistment. As its name indicates, nonjudicial punishment is different from a trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711237

    Original file (9711237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant requested a separation from the Army for hardship reasons in early 1993. As its name indicates, nonjudicial punishment is different from a trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087985C070212

    Original file (2003087985C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 20090012446

    Original file (20090012446.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was informed in the NJP record of proceedings that he had the right to legal counsel and the right to demand trial by court-martial instead of accepting the NJP. ______ _ 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) AR20090012446 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record...