| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
2. The applicant requests that the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 9 September 1999, be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that his rank be restored to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was administered NJP (nonjudicial punishment) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for testing positive for cocaine on a unit drug screening. He steadfastly asserted that he never knowingly used cocaine and provided a statement from his sister-in-law that she introduced cocaine into his drink because he would no longer permit her to live with his family. The applicant's battalion commander, who had just assumed command, did not know the applicant or his character and presumed that if he tested positive for cocaine, he must have knowingly ingested the drug.
4. In support of his application, the applicant presents: a self-authored memorandum dated 8 January 2001; his Enlisted Record Brief, dated 26 January 2001; a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record); a copy of his Bachelor of Science degree; six statements of support; a copy of the DA Form 2627 and associated paperwork; a copy of an administrative separation packet (under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200) submitted by his company commander on 4 January 2000; a copy of an administrative separation board hearing, dated 14 November 2000, with associated paperwork; and a copy of a memorandum from his battalion commander, dated 23 May 2001, in which the NJP of 9 September 1999 is set aside.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he was given a random urinalysis test for drugs on 17 May 1999 and that he tested positive for cocaine use. On 9 September 1999, the applicant's battalion commander administered NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ. The applicant presented numerous letters of support, as well as a letter from his sister-in-law stating that she had been living with the applicant's family, but was asked to leave because of her drug use. She stated that on Mother's Day 1999 the entire family gathered at her mother's home and she put a small amount of cocaine in the applicant's drink because she was mad at him for kicking her out of his home. The battalion commander was not persuaded by the letter and imposed punishment of reduction to sergeant/E-5, forfeiture of $922 per month for 2 months, and 45 days of extra duty. The applicant appealed and the brigade commander suspended the forfeiture and extra duty.
6. On 23 May 2001, the applicant's battalion commander -- the same individual who imposed the 9 September 1999 NJP -- set aside the Article 15 under the provisions of paragraph 3.28, Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice. In a detailed memorandum, he indicated that he was setting aside the NJP action because he had based his original decision on the presumption that anyone who tested positive for drugs must have knowingly used those drugs. He added that he should have made that determination without relying on a presumption.
7. Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. As such, the regulation also governs the administration of NJP. It states, in pertinent part, the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment charges a commander with the responsibility of exercising his or her authority in an absolutely fair and judicious manner. The commander of the alleged offender must ensure that the matter is investigated promptly and adequately. The investigation should provide the commander with sufficient information to make an appropriate disposition of the incident. The investigation should cover whether an offense was committed, whether the soldier was involved, and the character and military record of the soldier. It also provides that the power to set aside an executed punishment will be exercised within 4 months, absent unusual circumstances. If a commander sets aside an executed punishment after 4 months, a detailed addendum of the unusual circumstances will be attached to the form containing the set aside action.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's battalion commander imposed NJP against the applicant for testing positive for cocaine on a unit drug urinalysis screening. In so doing, he relied on the presumption that anyone who tested positive for drugs must have knowingly ingested those drugs.
2. Under the provisions of paragraph 3.28, Army Regulation 27-10, the same battalion commander set aside the applicant's NJP citing the unusual circumstances of having relied on an improper presumption in determining the applicant's guilt.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. Expunging the record of NJP from the OMPF of the individual concerned;
b. Restoring his rank to staff sergeant/E-6, with the appropriate date of rank and all back pay and allowances; and
c. By placing the records of the individual concerned before a standby promotion board for consideration for promotion to sergeant first class, if appropriate.
BOARD VOTE:
__JHL___ __MHM_ ___KAH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____JoAnn H. Langston
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001052781 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010918 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DASA |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022466
Counsel requests the Article 15 be removed from the applicant's AMHRR. It states that applications for removal of an Article 15 from the AMHRR based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The imposing commander directed filing the Article 15 in the performance section of his AMHRR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007240
The unit conducted a urinalysis on 10 December 2011 and the applicant tested positive for cocaine. He does not do cocaine but he did use the coca tea. c. At the applicant's administrative separation board, a doctor from the drug testing lab states that for the level of cocaine in the applicant's specimen, he would have had to drink five cups of tea within four to five hours of the urinalysis, based on the rate at which it metabolizes.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board
The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329
The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04427-01
In a statement he submitted on the date of the NJP, The disciplinary action was based on a urine sample when he received NJP for use of f. On 23 June 2000 Petitioner appealed the NJP on the grounds that he was denied access to the "litigation package" prepared by the Navy drug laboratory, "innocent ingestion" defense or question the chain of custody at the drug laboratory. At the time of the positive urinalysis result, Petitioner had never been the subject of a disciplinary action during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016710
The applicant provides the following documentation: * a memorandum for Chairperson, Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 14 August 2009 * DA Form 2627 * a statement addressed to the Appellate Authority, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division * new drug testing results * testimony given by another Soldier to that Soldier's defense counsel * an excerpt from the Military Judges' Benchbook entitled, "3-37-2. In an undated memorandum to the brigade commander, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067911C070402
The SGM opined that had the information been known at the time the applicant was being considered for punishment, his case would have been dismissed as well. The Board also finds the supporting statement from the SGM at the time is very telling in regards to the command’s intentions at the time and given the doubts expressed, the Board finds that the NJP should be set aside, and that all rights privileges and property be restored to the applicant. Additionally, the applicant’s records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014202
The prevalence of illegal valium obtained by a member of the applicant's unit while he was present, the fact that his doctor could not remember prescribing him valium, and the fact that the applicant was unable to produce a prescription for valium are sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt he wrongfully used valium. However, as indicated in his commander's letter, dated 31 January 2007, he was being processed for separation based on his valium use in Iraq and a positive urinalysis for...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500088
5420 CORB:003 14 Feb 06 From: Secretarial Review AuthorityTo: Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Via: President, Naval Discharge Review BoardSubj: REQUEST FOR REVIEW: CASE OF H------O. MC____-, (B---------) , EX AT2, USNR DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AT2, USNR Docket No. The Navy’s Drug Lab urinalysis test has indicated that her urine sample has indeed tested positive for cocaine, yet a civilian hair DNA test has...