| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the reduction in rank from Sergeant (SGT/E-5) to Specialist (SPC/E-4) and the forfeiture of $1,652.00 in pay he received as a result of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) administered on 5 November 2001 be rescinded and that his rank and money be restored.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was administered NJP under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for fraternization with a junior enlisted female soldier. He states that he was punished because of a rumor, with no actual proof that he committed an offense. In support of his application, he submits: DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ); an undated copy of an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Report of Proceedings by investigating Officer/Board of Officers) with 6 continuation pages; a copy of DD Form 457 (Investigating Officer's Report) with 16-page verbatim transcript; a copy of the applicant's 8 November 2001 Article 15 appeal; and numerous statements.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was a Regular Army SGT serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63G (Fuel and Electrical Systems Repairer) at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
Based upon rumors that the applicant and a Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) had engaged in sexual intercourse with a female Private First Class (PFC), two investigations were conducted -- one under the provisions of AR 15-6 and the other under the provisions of Article 32, UCMJ. During the investigations, the PFC admitted to having consensual sexual intercourse with the applicant and the CW2 at the CW2's residence after she returned the CW2's car that he loaned her. She stated that the CW2 had a camera and that photographs were taken of the three of them having sexual intercourse. A female Sergeant stated during the AR 15-6 investigation that she discovered five pornographic photographs in the applicant's belongings after she allowed him to store some of his things in her garage. She described in graphic detail the sexual acts depicted in the five photographs.
Following completion of the investigations, the applicant's battalion commander offered the applicant NJP which he accepted on 5 November 2001. He was charged with violating a lawful general regulation by: wrongfully engaging in a personal relationship with a female PFC; wrongfully committing an indecent act with a female PFC by engaging in sexual intercourse with her in the presence of a CW2; wrongfully committing an indecent act with a female PFC and a CW2 by photographing his engagement of sexual intercourse in a ménage à trios; wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife; and three specifications of wrongfully and unlawfully making under oath a false statement. Following a closed hearing, the applicant's battalion commander imposed punishment of reduction to SPC, forfeiture of $826 per month for 2 months, and 45 days of extra duty.
Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice. Chapter 3 provides that NJP is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate. It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member'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 fewer resources than trial by court-martial. The imposing commander is not bound by the formal rules of evidence before courts-martial and may consider any matter, including unsworn statements the commander reasonably believed to be relevant to the case. Furthermore, whether to impose punishment and the nature of the punishment are the sole decisions of the imposing commander.
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. 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.
2. 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 the applicant elected to accept NJP he was made aware of these differences and of his right to demand trial by court-martial where he would receive the protection of the rules of evidence. Instead he chose to have the matter settled at NJP.
3. 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. The applicant has not presented a valid reason for rescinding the forfeiture or reduction.
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
__rvo___ __rwa___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065967 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020620 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508897C070209
She continued by stating that during her second and third date with the applicant they had sexual intercourse and she was not forced in any way. She was asked if she told the authorities if she had intercourse with both the applicant and the PFC. On 16 November 1955 the accuser and a male interpreter returned to the captain and told him that the applicant had forced her to have intercourse with him and during the act he had one of his friends take pictures.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001233
(3) A 21 May 2012 character reference letter from a colonel who wrote that he had known the applicant since 2007. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), paragraph 3-6 discusses the importance of filing determinations regarding records of punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of personnel records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002095
The applicant requests: a. removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 12 February 2009, from his official military personnel file (OMPF); b. restoration of his rank and pay grade; and c. monetary reimbursement of the forfeiture of pay imposed on 12 February 2009. It states that application for removal of a DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017702
Counsel requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 28 April 2005, from the restricted section of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF). Counsel provides: * multiple DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) * appointment of investigating officer (IO) memorandum * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) * legal review of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087985C070212
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 | CY2014 | 20140003117
(2) The applicant violated Article 133 of the UCMJ, in that he did, at or near Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, between on or about 17 July 2011 and on or about 14 October 2011 wrongfully request sexual intercourse from 1LT KEH, a subordinate under his supervision, such conduct being unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. The evidence of record shows that on 24 October 2013 the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for offenses he committed between on or around 17...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008076
The applicant requests correction of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) to: * remove non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 15 March 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the contested NJP) * restore his date of rank (DOR) to 1 August 2011 as his DOR to staff sergeant (SSG) * remove the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period ending on 24 March 2012 2. He provided a Memorandum...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05158-00
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 28 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. We recommend that the requested relief be denied. grade from sergeant to corporal, forfeiture of $780.00 pay per Petitioner was awarded reduction in Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION month for 2 months, and 60 days restriction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002352
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090002352 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) submitted by the applicant shows that, on 13 September 2008, he was informed that the battalion commander was considering whether he should be punished under Article 15, UCMJ for sexual contact by kissing PFC S_________ on the lips in violation of Article 120, UCMJ and for orally communicating certain indecent...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-135
The applicant further argued that SN A’s CGIS statement was not credible because it contained inconsistencies with her subsequent statement to the PIO or with the statements of the other witnesses. She stated that she saw 3. SN B who was allegedly involved in homosexual acts with the applicant stated to CGIS that SN A was attracted to the applicant, but the applicant was not interested.