| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of a Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (DA Form 2627) dated 9 March 1999, an Administrative Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) dated 2 April 1999, a memorandum from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) dated 13 July 2001, and a MOR dated 1 February 2001, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That he desires to have the DA Form 2627 and two MORs’ removed from his OMPF, because he believes that if there is any negative documents left in his OMPF, he will get punished twice for the same offense. By getting passed over for promotion, he has already been punished.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Richmond, Virginia on 13 August 1986, for a period of 3 years and training as an air defense short-range gunnery crewman. He has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1998.
On 9 March 1999, while stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for driving while under the influence (DWI) of alcohol. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty. He did not appeal the punishment and the imposing commander directed that it be filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF.
On 2 April 1999, the Commanding General (CG) issued him a MOR for the DWI offense. After reviewing the applicant’s appeal/rebuttal of the MOR, the CG directed that it be filed in his OMPF and Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) for a period of 1 year.
On 21 April 2000, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant informing him that the Calendar Year (CY) 2000, Master Sergeant Promotion Selection Board had determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), based on the presence of the DA Form 2627, dated 9 March 1999, in his OMPF. The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was approved on 15 December 2000.
Meanwhile, on 25 November 2000, the applicant was apprehended by El Paso, Texas, civil authorities for DWI and for his involvement in a traffic accident. The applicant refused to submit to a breath test and on 13 December 2000, the CG issued him a MOR. After reviewing the applicant’s appeal, the CG directed that it be filed in the applicant’s OMPF and his MPRJ for a period of 1 year.
The applicant submitted an appeal to the DASEB on 25 March 2001, requesting that the DA Form 2627 and the MOR dated 1999 be removed from his OMPF, based on intent served. The DASEB denied his appeal on 13 July 2001.
Army Regulation 600-37 prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files. It states, in pertinent part, that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient. The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter. However, before a letter may be filed in the OMPF, it must be referred to the recipient concerned for comment, it must include reference to the intended filing of the letter, and must be signed by an officer authorized to direct such filing.
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. The Board finds that all of the documents in question are properly filed in the applicant’s OMPF and he has failed to provide sufficient justification to warrant either their transfer to the Restricted Fiche or removal from his OMPF.
3. By virtue of the fact that he has been punished twice for similar offenses within a 2-year period, while serving in his present grade, it is apparent that the punishment has not served its intended purpose, as he contended to the DASEB.
4. The Army has an interest in maintaining certain records and the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show why the documents in question should not remain a matter of record.
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
___fe ___ ___pm __ __ra ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067512 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 328 | 134.0000/REM NJP/MOR |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071763C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his two Memorandums of Reprimand (MOR) be removed from his Performance (P) fiche, Disciplinary Data Section, and transferred to his Restricted (R) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). APPLICANT STATES : That his two MORs have served their purpose, remained in his record for more than 4 years, and since receiving his MORs his military performance has been nothing but stellar. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079840C070215
The applicant’s unit, battalion, and brigade commanders, after reviewing the applicant’s rebuttal letter, all recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the P-Fiche portion of the applicant’s OMPF. On 5 December 2001, the applicant was notified that the DASEB had deliberated on his petition to remove the GOMOR, dated 10 March 2000, from the P-Fiche portion of his OMPF, and after careful consideration had denied his request. The DASEB case summary indicated, in effect, that the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060691C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 September 1997, and all other documents pertaining to the GOMOR be transferred from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to his restricted fiche (R-Fiche). DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066984C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: However, the Board notes that the OMPF provided to the Board, dated 24 January 2002, the MOR in question is filed in the R-Fiche, along with the applicant’s rebuttal statements and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083656C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of this NJP is filed on the applicant's R fiche.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084460C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant also enlisted the services of an attorney who submitted a letter to his CG dated 29 April 1999, requesting that the GOMOR be filed locally. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000869C070206
On 7 April 2001, the CG, 94th RSC, informed the applicant that he had reviewed the documents supplied by her attorney and considered the applicant's comments and information presented during their meeting. On 5 May 2001, the CG, 94th RSC, informed the applicant that he had again reviewed the documents supplied by her attorney, considered the applicant's comments and information presented during their meeting, and her request for reconsideration. Army regulation states that letters of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000869C070206
Laverne V. Berry | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 7 April 2001, the CG, 94th RSC, informed the applicant that he had reviewed the documents supplied by her attorney and considered the applicant's comments and information presented during their meeting. The initial filing instructions by the approving authority directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant's OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010425C070205
Paragraph 3-37b (2) states, in pertinent part, that for Soldiers, in the rank of sergeant and above, the original of the DA Form 2627 will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that application for removal of an Article 15 from a Soldier's OMPF based on error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The applicant states that the Article 15 was based on an unjust investigation; however, she...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071762C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Following the CY1996 Master Sergeant Selection/Sergeant QMP (Qualitative Management Program) Board, the applicant was notified on 16 April 1996 that he was receiving a Department of the Army (DA) bar to reenlistment because of the MOR in his records. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...