| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Article 15 dated 21 August 1987 be removed from the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That the Article 15 was imposed almost 15 years ago. He made a bad decision but he learned. He has since proven himself to be an asset to the Army. He intends to make command sergeant major, E-9 and feels that the permanent removal of this document will enhance his competitiveness.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 March 1984. He was promoted to sergeant, E-5 on 5 April 1987.
On 21 August 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for operating a passenger car while drunk. His punishment was to be reduced to specialist four, E-4, suspended, to be restricted for 45 days and to perform extra duty for 45 days. The Article 15 was directed to be filed on the restricted fiche of his OMPF.
The suspended reduction was never vacated. He was promoted to staff sergeant, E-6 on 1 November 1993 and to sergeant first class, E-7 on 1 February 1999.
The applicant’s records indicate that he has consistently received above average to exceptional noncommissioned officer evaluation reports. He was named to the Commandant’s List at his Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) in 1999. His service has been recognized with an award of the Meritorious Service Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, an Army Achievement Medal, and five Army Good Conduct Medals.
Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice. In pertinent part, it states that, for soldiers E-5 and above, the decision to file the original Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, DA Form 2627, on the performance or restricted fiche in the OMPF will be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 establishes policies and provisions for the maintenance and release of information in the OMPF. It states that disciplinary information filed on the restricted fiche will be provided to command sergeant major/sergeant major and sergeant major academy selection boards. For the purpose of this provision, disciplinary information includes court-martial orders, records of nonjudicial punishment, and punitive or administrative letters of reprimand, censure, or admonition. There are no provisions to routinely provide information from the restricted fiche to other selection boards although a board president may request permission from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel to review specific restricted information when he or she believes the information is crucial to the selection process.
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 that, as an E-5, the applicant’s Article 15 was properly filed in his restricted fiche in accordance with regulation and the determination of the imposing commander and there is no evidence of error.
2. The applicant is currently a sergeant first class, E-7. Disciplinary information from his restricted fiche will not be routinely provided to selection boards until the time he is considered for promotion to E-9 or attendance at the Sergeants Major Academy. His desire to have a 15-year old Article 15 removed from his files based upon his subsequent service record is understandable. However, promotion and school selection board members are experienced and capable of distinguishing between one youthful indiscretion and a “problem” record of service. In the event a selection choice comes down between two soldiers with an equal record of service, all information properly filed on an OMPF must be available to board members in order to equitably make their selection choice. Given the above and the fact the Article 15 was properly filed on his OMPF, it would not be equitable to remove the Article 15 from the applicant’s restricted fiche.
3. 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
__jl____ __jns___ __tlp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068544 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105588C070208
The applicant requests that the record of nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) be removed from the restricted portion of his official military personnel file (OMPF). His commanding officer directed that the record of punishment be placed in the applicant's restricted fiche. Documents on the restricted fiche are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; record investigation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053849C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 1986 record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) However, Army Regulation 600-8-104, currently in effect, and which replaced Army Regulation 640-10, states that disciplinary information filed on the restricted fiche will be provided to Command Sergeant Major/sergeant major (CSM/SGM) and SGM academy selection boards. As such the Board concludes that the 1986 record of NJP has served its purpose...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090450C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Article 15 dated 24 January 1988 be removed from his records. The Board notes that, as an E-4 with more than 3 years of service, the applicant’s Article 15 was properly filed in his restricted fiche in accordance with regulation and the determination of the imposing commander and there is no evidence of error. Disciplinary information from his restricted fiche will not be routinely provided to selection boards until the time he is considered for promotion to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011755C070208
He stated that sometime in 2002 or 2003, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) granted that all the NJPs be transferred to his Restricted Fiche. The evidence of record shows the Army Review Boards Agency in St. Louis transferred the applicant's Article 15 imposed on 17 October 1987 to the restricted portion of his OMPF without board action. There is no evidence of record which shows that any of the Article 15s were filed on his restricted fiche in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011754C070206
However, because the promotion boards can see his restricted fiche, the GOMOR has prevented him from being selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7. Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, serves as the authority for the conduct of selection boards. Promotion boards for selection to the pay grades of E-7 and E-8 are not routinely provided information from the restricted fiche of eligible Soldiers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090019C070212
COUNSEL CONTENDS : In a four page attachment to the applicant’s DD Form 149 (Application For Correction of Military Record) that his records be corrected by expunction of the Article 15 dated 24 November 1986 and Article 15 dated 1 June 1987 from his official military personnel file (OMPF). In addition, counsel states that, at the time the Article 15s were issued, Army Regulation 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records) which established the policies and provisions for maintenance and...
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 | CY2008 | 20080006450
The applicant requests that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) imposed on 4 June 1996, and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 14 June 1996, be removed from the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The DA Form 2627 imposed on 4 June 1996 and the 14 June 1996 GOMOR were properly filed in the performance section of the applicants OMPF and then subsequently transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061379C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that his August 1991 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). The 25 January 1990 edition of Army Regulation 27-10, which establishes the policies and provisions for the filing of DA Forms 2627, states that records of nonjudicial punishment for soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment files. b. by expunging all documents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015739C070206
He states that future selection board members may see that he refused promotion to the pay grade of E-7 in the past and question why he should be promoted again. According to the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch, United States Total Army Personnel Command, the applicant was considered and selected for promotion by the Sergeant First Class and Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board. Promotion boards for selection to the pay grades of E-7 and E-8 are not routinely...