2.  The applicant requests that a 17 April 1990 letter of reprimand and an NCO evaluation report (NCOER) for the period April 1992 through January 1993 be removed from his official file (OMPF).  NOTE:  The applicant has been informed that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the contested NCOER, and that the Board will only consider his request pertaining to the removal of the letter of reprimand. 

3.  The applicant has submitted a copy of an academic evaluation report showing his successful completion of a medical specialist course in 1993, a copy of a certificate showing award of the Army Achievement Medal in 1995, copies of three NCOER covering the period from February 1993 through January 1996, two of which show his potential as fully capable, and the last showing his potential as among the best.  He submits a copy of a letter from an attorney, in which that lawyer stated that the charges against him (operating under the influence, endangering, and operating a vehicle while drinking alcohol) were continued without finding by a Massachusetts court, and in effect, were dismissed.

4.  The applicant submits a copy of a letter of support from a member of congress, copies of letters from a Brigadier General and a Colonel requesting that a standby advisory board reconsider its recommendation that the applicant’s appeal [USAR AGR Qualitative Management Program] be disapproved, and that the imposed bar to reenlistment be removed, and he be retained in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program.  He submits copies of letters of support from other Reserve officers and NCOs attesting to his good character, work habits, professionalism, competence, diligence, and enthusiasm.

5.  The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 
28 January 1981 in the delayed enlistment program (DEP), was discharged from that program and enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1981.  He was released from active duty on 12 November 1985 on his ETS (separation date) and transferred to the Reinforcement Control Group.  On 
14 November 1985 he signed a statement acknowledging his enlistment in the Ready Reserve.  On 22 June 1989 he enlisted in the Army Reserve for three years, and on 
11 April 1992 enlisted for six years.
  
6.  The applicant served as a Reserve recruiter from at least July of 1986 through March of 1992.  His NCOERs for those periods have ranged from outstanding (the first two reports for the period), to a fully capable rating concerning his potential for promotion on one of his reports, two ratings of marginal concerning his potential, and the last rating showing his potential as fully capable.

7.  On 17 April 1990 the applicant received a letter of reprimand from the Deputy Commanding General of the Army Recruiting Command for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, for operating a vehicle negligently as to endanger, and for drinking from an open container.  The general officer administering the reprimand informed the applicant that he had 10 days to submit a rebuttal to the letter, and that a decision on the letter’s filing would be made without his rebuttal if not received within the required time.  There is no evidence that the applicant submitted a rebuttal to that letter, and the letter of reprimand is filed in the performance fiche of his official file.

8.  On 11 July 1990 the applicant received the Gold Recruiter Badge, awarded to recruiting personnel who have served honorably during their tour of duty with Recruiting Command.  He received two additional awards of that badge and the third and fourth awards of the Good Conduct Medal. 

9.  In February 1993 the applicant received a relief for cause NCOER for the period April 1992 through January 1993, his rating official stating that he falsified official documents, that his professional conduct was not in accordance with NCO standards, and that his integrity was flawed.

10.  Army Regulation 600-37 (unfavorable information) provides in pertinent part, that administrative letters of reprimand may be issued by an individual’s commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the soldier.  This letter must be referred to the recipient.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before filing determination is made.  Letters of reprimand may be filed in a soldier’s OMPF only upon the order of a general officer and are to be filed on the performance fiche.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  Once filed, the letter is presumed to have been administratively correct.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 provided, 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s letter of reprimand was administered and filed in the performance fiche of his OMPF in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Nonetheless, the incident which caused him to receive the letter occurred over seven years ago.  While this Board has no doubt that the letter of reprimand was deserved, the Board also believes that the letter has served its purpose.  
2.  However, the Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an individual’s service, and the transfer of a letter of reprimand to a restricted fiche enables the Army to maintain that historical record.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to transfer the letter of reprimand to his restricted fiche.  This action, however, should not be considered retroactive and, therefore, does not constitute grounds for referral to a Standby Advisory Board for reconsideration of any previous nonselections.

3.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.


RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by transferring the 17 April 1990 letter of reprimand and all associated documents to the applicant’s restricted fiche.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.                

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON