| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| M. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Ernest M. Willcher | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, be set aside.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is making this request because he was on the company’s “primacy” in full view of the unit in which he was assigned to at Fort Hood, Texas. He also states that he was late for formation and stayed on the porch of the unit, rather than report late.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 30 June 1967 as a light weapons infantryman. He served in Vietnam from 24 November 1967 to 21 November 1968.
He was promoted to the pay grade of SP4/E-4 on 10 May 1968.
On 1 April 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was considering
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his appointed place of duty from 0600 hours to 1500 hours on 1 April 1970. The commander provided the applicant with the opportunity to submit any matters in mitigation, extenuation, or defense.
On 3 April 1970, the applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and elected not to demand trial by court-martial. He also elected not to submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense. On that same day, the commander imposed the punishment of 7 days restriction and a reduction to the pay grade of
E-3/Private First Class (permanent). The commander also advised the applicant of his right to appeal the punishment imposed within 72 hours.
On 4 April 1970, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15, and admitted that he was guilty. He stated that he requested an appeal due to the punishment imposed. He also stated in his appeal, that he was AWOL from his appointed place of duty; however, his reasons were legitimate.
On 25 May 1970, the applicant’s appeal was forwarded to the Division Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). The SJA stated in his opinion that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and that the punishments imposed were not unjust or disproportionate to the offense committed. The battalion commander denied the applicant’s appeal.
On 4 June 1970, the applicant was informed of the results of his appeal; however, he refused to sign his appeal.
On 29 June 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged in the pay grade
of E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2, at his expiration of term of service (ETS).
Army Regulation 27-10 provides guidance for the administration of military justice. Chapter 3 sets forth the policy and procedures for nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Paragraph 3-28 governs policies on setting aside and restoration. It provides, in pertinent part, than an NJP may be set aside upon a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case a clear injustice has resulted. A clear injustice means that an unwaived legal or factual error has clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the soldier. 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 affects the career potential is expressly excluded from the definition of clear injustice. There is no provision for the individual to apply for the command action of setting aside a punishment.
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 of record shows that the Article 15 was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies. A legal review also indicates the
punishment imposed was neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offense
and that there was no evidence of any substantive violation of any of the applicant's rights.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence of record shows that the applicant admitted that he was guilty and requested an appeal due to the punishment imposed. His commander denied his appeal after review by appropriate legal authorities.
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 this requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is 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
__ew___ ___to___ ___rd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052158 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20019315 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970-629 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 277 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006592
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. It states, in pertinent part, that the basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003552C070208
In his appeal, he claimed he had not committed the offense upon which the Article 15 was based. It further stipulates that the Soldier will be informed of the following: the right to remain silent, that he/she is not required to make any statement regarding the offense or offenses of which he/she is suspected, that any statement made may be used against the Soldier in the Article 15 proceedings or in any other proceedings, including a trial by court-martial. Thus, notwithstanding his...
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 | CY2008 | 20080008346
The applicant requests, in effect, that the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received (DA Form 2627) be set aside and that all rights and privileges be restored to him. The applicant states, in effect, that he received a field grade imposition of NJP and was fined one-half of 1 months pay for 2 months by the battalion commander for failing to report to Atlanta, Georgia on the 2nd of November 2007 after completing his 15 day Continental United States (CONUS) leave. Nonjudicial punishment is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027611
The applicant requests that his rank be restored to sergeant (SGT)/E-5. NJP 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. Although he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety, the evaluating physician found him mentally responsible and his thinking process and thought content were found to be clear and normal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008512
The applicant requests, in effect, that his DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceeding under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 26 April 2006, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Paragraph 3-43 of the military justice regulation contains guidance on the transfer or removal of records of NJP (DA Form 2627) from the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that applications for removal of an Article 15 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001245C070208
It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served on active duty when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years. There is no such evidence of a fatal legal or factual error that would support setting aside the punishment imposed on the applicant, to include the reduction now in question. Advancement under this provision of the law is...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2006-099
The JAG stated that the applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed any error by punishing him at NJP for violating Article 86 (UA) of the UCMJ. The JAG argued that the applicant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not appealing the NJP and the Board could deny the application on that basis. The Board notes the Coast Guard's argument that the Board could deny the applicant's request based solely on his alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003272
On 12 December 2006, the applicants battalion commander, after having considered all matters presented in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation at a closed hearing, imposed the following punishment on the applicant for wrongfully using cocaine between 12 August 2006 and 13 September 2006: Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4, a forfeiture of $500.00 pay and 30 days of extra duty. The applicant appealed the punishment and a legal review determined the punishment was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008938C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 14 June 1999 Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) action imposed on him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be set-aside. The 15 January 2000 set-aside request submitted to the commander I Corps and Fort Lewis by legal counsel, on behalf of the applicant, stated, in effect, there was insufficient evidence to form the basis of the 14 June 1999 Article 15 imposed on the applicant, and it failed to show...