| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That a 1990 DA Form 2627, Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), be expunged from his military records or transferred to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) resulted from a confrontation between himself and a staff sergeant (SSG). “I was talking long distance with my wife concerning the shipment of our household goods as we were in the process of a PCS move. SSG G____ picked up the other phone and slammed the receiver against the desk and told me to get off of the phone. I showed disrespect in my statement to him because I was offended and angered by his actions. The Army has since begun a program called Consideration of Others. If this program had been in place in 1990, this event may not have resulted in an Article 15.”
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel offered no evidence or argument beyond that submitted with the application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant is a sergeant first class (E-7) with more than 21 years of continuous active duty. He was a sergeant (E-5) with approximately 11 years service when he was notified that his company commander was considering whether to impose NJP for treating the SSG with contempt and being disrespectful by saying, “You hang up the God dammed phone.” “You don’t pull no shit like that” and yelling “No” or words to that effect. The applicant acknowledged that he had been afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel. He waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and requested an open hearing. He also requested that another person speak in his behalf and indicated that matters in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation would be both presented in person and were attached.
The punishment comprised forfeiture of $306.00 dollars per month for 1 month and 14 day restriction (both suspended). The officer imposing the punishment directed that the record be filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF. The applicant appealed the punishment. An officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps opined that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and that the punishment was not disproportionate to the offense. The appeal authority denied the appeal. The DA Form 2627 is filed in the applicant’s performance fiche.
Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice. Chapter 3 provides that nonjudicial punishment is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which non-punitive 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. Prior to accepting NJP the applicant was offered the right to consult with counsel who was obliged to advise him of his rights, including his right to demand trial by court-martial.
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. The applicant’s assertion that, “If this program had been in place in 1990, this event may not have resulted in an Article 15.” tends to indicate that he still has not accepted responsibility for his own actions. The DA Form 2627 is properly filed and its presence in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF is not unjust.
4. 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
5. 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
__JHL___ __GDP__ __CG___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067433 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020425 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022149
The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance section or restricted section of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed. It states that applications for removal of an Article 15 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110022149 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070252C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the record (DA Form 2627) of a 9 December 1986 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice be expunged from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Effective in 1987 Army Regulation 27-10 was changed to provide for the filing of NJP in a unit punishment file and the military personnel record jacket (MPRJ) for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008619
The applicant provides: * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) * 15 letters of support/character reference * 2 DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ) * 20 pages of an Administrative Separation Board Hearing CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After hearing all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation and after having considered the violation(s) of the UCMJ,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017018
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 12 December 2001, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The evidence of record confirms that the applicant elected not to demand a trial by court-martial and chose to have his case disposed of through Article 15 proceedings at a closed hearing with his commander. The evidence of record further shows that this DA Form 2627 is properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000559
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000559 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests that his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be removed from the Performance Section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, the filing location for the NJP issued on 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014197
The imposing commander directed this Article 15 be filed in the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF. The evidence of record further shows that this DA Form 2627 is properly filed in the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF as directed by the imposing commander. The applicant is currently an SFC/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081021C070215
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100007825
The applicant's records show his first Article 15 was placed in the performance section of his OMPF in September 2004. There is no evidence of record and he provides no evidence to show that keeping the DA Form 2627 in the performance section of his OMPF is unjust. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100007825 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100007825 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083007C070215
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. He submits documents and...