| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, unjustified nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed on her by her unit commander, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in January 2001 be overturned.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the unit commander lacked evidence when he imposed NJP on her in January 2001. She states that just dismissing the NJP action would not be sufficient given she will shortly be released from the Army based on a medical discharge, and the reduction imposed by the NJP in question will impact her benefits. She claims the NJP was given to her solely based on third-party information and was possibly in reprisal for previous complaints she made against her unit commander to the Inspector General (IG) and Equal Opportunity Officer (EOO). In support of her application, she provides the enclosed self-authored statement outlining what she contends are the facts and circumstances surrounding the improper imposition of the NJP action against her by her unit commander.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time of her application to this Board, the applicant was serving on active duty in military occupation specialty (MOS) 92M (Mortuary Affairs Specialist) at Fort Lee, Virginia, in the rank and pay grade of private/E-2 (PV2). She has subsequently been discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of disability with severance pay.
The separation document issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of her separation confirms that she was discharged on 2 October 2001, in the rank and pay grade of PV2, after completing a total of 2 years and 9 days of active military service on her enlistment.
The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain the NJP in question and the applicant did not provide a copy of the Record of Proceedings under Article 15 (DA Form 2627). However, her record does confirm that she was reduced from the rank and pay grade of private first class/E-3 to private/E-2 on 23 January 2001.
On 26 November 2001, the Assistant President of the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) returned a petition the applicant submitted without action. In this correspondence, it was indicated that an initial review of the applicant’s request revealed that she had not provided any evidence in support of her contentions, except her own self-authored statement. In addition, in connection with the imposition of NJP, the applicant had been advised of her right to seek counsel and/or to request a court-martial to adjudicate her case. However, after consulting counsel, she elected not to request a court-martial and to have her unit commander handle the action.
The DASEB further indicated that, by the applicant’s own admission, she appealed the NJP action to her battalion commander, who reviewed her appeal and denied it, which is evidence that she was provided due process in connection with the NJP action.
Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice. It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers have the following rights in connection with NJP processing: the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to demand trial. The demand for trial may be made at any time prior to imposition of punishment.
In addition, the regulation states that soldiers are also afforded the following other rights in connection with NJP processing: to fully present their case in front of the imposing commander, except in rare circumstances; to call witnesses; to present evidence; to request to be accompanied by a spokesperson; to request an open hearing; and to examine available evidence. Further, a soldier has the right to reasonable decision period in order to decide if they wish to demand trial by court-martial, which should provide sufficient time to consult legal counsel.
Finally, the regulation confirms that soldiers have the right to appeal the NJP and that the next superior authority to the commanding officer who imposed the
Article 15 will act on the appeal. It further states that the superior authority will act on the appeal expeditiously, normally within 5 days and may conduct an independent inquiry into the case, if necessary or desirable. The superior authority may refer an appeal in any case to a Judge Advocate for consideration and advice before taking action.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that the NJP she received was unjust and a reprisal against her for submitting IG and EOO complaints against her unit commander and that it should be overturned. However, notwithstanding her personal statement, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. Further, lacking a copy of the DA Form 2627 in question and evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes government regularity in the NJP process. This presumption of regularity includes a determination that the applicant received due process. This conclusion is further supported by the applicant’s own statement to the Board, in which, she admits the following: that she consulted legal counsel; that she elected not to demand trial by court-martial and to have the unit commander handle the action; and that she appealed the NJP to her battalion commander, who denied the appeal.
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
__FNE__ ___LE___ ___TL___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068527 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 338 | 134.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018865
Removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 22 April 2009 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and b. On 29 April 2009, a Senior Defense Counsel submitted an appeal of the applicants Article 15 and stated the following: * the Article 15 process was conducted in a highly inappropriate manner * the imposing commander completed the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) recommendation 5 days prior...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008409
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 8 December 2009, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File, or transfer of the DA Form 2627 from the performance section to the restricted section of his AMHRR. The evidence of record confirms the commander administering the Article 15 proceedings determined the applicant committed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015390
The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)), dated 9 August 2003, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). It states, in pertinent part, 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). Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-37 contains guidance on appeals and petitions for removal of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150011587
Army Regulation 27-10 further provides that the original DA Form 2627, for Soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below prior to punishment, will be filed locally in unit NJP or unit personnel files. The next superior authority to the commanding officer who imposed the Article 15 will act on an appeal if the Soldier punished is still under the command of that officer at the time of appeal. The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected by showing that her NJP was set aside.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013447
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) dated 23 February 2009 from her official military personnel file (OMPF) and restoration of her rank/grade as a sergeant (SGT)/E-5. The applicant provides the following documents: * Contested Article 15 * Self-authored article from a junior member of her squad * Character reference letter * Recommendation for restoration of rank * Three-day pass...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014027
The applicant requests that the DA Form 2627 (Records of Proceeding Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 30 May 2006 and a General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 31 May 2006 be completely removed from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Records show the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for willfully disobeying a lawful command and acting inappropriately and disgracefully. It...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062896C070421
On 28 September 1992, the applicant submitted an appeal of the LOR to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), requesting that the LOR be filed in the R-fiche rather than the P-fiche portion of his OMPF. In addition, the Board noted that the applicable regulation does not provide for the local MPRJ filing in the applicant’s case based on his rank and years of service and that the applicant failed to inform the official making the filing determination that he already...
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 | CY2006 | 20060012886
The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15) from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 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. While the battalion commanders intent may have been to remove the Article 15 entirely from the applicants OMPF, unless there is clear...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013723
The applicant requests, in effect, that DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) he received in December 1999 and March 2008 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant's unit commander directed the filing of the 30 May 2008 Article 15 in the R portion of the applicant's OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, applications for removal of an Article 15 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made...