| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That a 10 August 1992 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice), be purged from his restricted fiche.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the Article 15 was not unjust or in error. He admits that the actions that led to the Article 15 were a grave mistake on his part but believes he has paid for this mistake. He states that there were extenuating circumstances involved but that he accepts the blame for the incident, that the incident cost him his marriage, he learned from his mistake, accepted his punishment, and moved on to better the Army and himself. He asks that the Article 15 be purged from his record, as he believes that it will adversely affect him for future promotions and assignments.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Reserve and entered active duty for training (ADT) on 1 February 1989. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police (MP)), with a release from ADT on 20 June 1989. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 3 May 1990. He has had continuous service since this enlistment.
On 10 August 1992, the applicant, then a sergeant (E-5), received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for choking his wife. The applicant's company commander imposed a forfeiture of $277 per month for 1 month and 14 days restriction. $200 of the forfeiture and 7 days of the restriction were suspended. The DA Form 2627 was directed to be filed in the applicant's restricted fiche. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
The applicant attained his current rank, staff sergeant (E-6), on 1 March 1996. Other than the 1992 NJP, there are no negative or derogatory entries in the applicant's record.
The applicant's raters have consistently described his performance as meeting or exceeding standards in all areas. He has consistently been recommended to be promoted ahead of his peers.
His duty assignments have shown that he has been given progressively more responsible positions. He has been recommended for advanced training and for assignment as a drill instructor.
His current assignment is Operations Sergeant for the Provost Marshal Office and noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) for Military Police Information Management System at Fort Buchanan, Porto Rico.
The applicant's awards and decorations include but are not limited to the Meritorious Service Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, three Army Achievement Medals, three Good Conduct Medals, the Joint Services Commendation Medal, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Service Medal (for service in the former Yugoslavia Republic), two Department of the Army Certificates of Achievement, eleven local command Certificates of Achievement, four local command Certificates of Appreciation, and a Special Certificate of Achievement from the White Sands Missile Range for being selected Soldier of the Month.
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 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. 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.
2. The applicant's overall record of service and his accomplishments, as reflected by his personal decorations, his selection for promotion and assignments subsequent to his offense, are noteworthy. However, these factors do not demonstrate that there is an injustice in the fact that the record contains potentially damaging material, which is the direct consequence of his past behavior. While the applicant has demonstrated strength of character by overcoming that setback, the removal of the NJP would, in effect, place him on a level playing field with contemporaries, whose careers have not been marred by incidents of such inappropriate behavior.
3. The Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an individual's service. The placement of the record of NJP on the restricted fiche enables the Army to maintain that historical record without unduly jeopardizing the individual's career.
4. Further, the applicant has provided no evidence that the retention of the Article 15 in his restricted fiche has or will adversely affect any future promotion or assignment.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002072271 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020716 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002070951C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009013C071108
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 10 December 1999 record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The DASEB decision summary shows that the applicant provided a self-authored statement with no enclosures for consideration with his application. While it is unfortunate the applicant was not selected for promotion to pay grade E-8, the Board does not correct a record without evidence of an error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001497C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 3 March 1993 record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The record of NJP is filed in accordance with the applicable Army regulation. While it is unfortunate the applicant was not selected for promotion to pay grade E-8, the Board does not correct a record without evidence of an error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001497C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 3 March 1993 record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The record of NJP is filed in accordance with the applicable Army regulation. While it is unfortunate the applicant was not selected for promotion to pay grade E-8, the Board does not correct a record without evidence of an error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711237
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant requested a separation from the Army for hardship reasons in early 1993. As its name indicates, nonjudicial punishment is different from a trial by court-martial.
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 | CY2002 | 2002076558C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. New evidence unquestionably exculpating the individual is a cited example whereas the fact that a soldier's subsequent performance has been exemplary or that the punishment adversely effects the career potential...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087976C070212
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's commanding officer directed that the record of punishment be placed in the restricted fiche of his OMPF. The applicant's OMPF shows that the records of both Article 15 punishments are in his restricted fiche, and that the record of the punishment that he received on 4 November 1986 is also in...
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 | 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.