MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 29 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077308

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member
Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of her request that the Memorandum For Record (MFR), dated 8 April 1997, "Subject: Non Receipt of Good Conduct Medal" [hereafter referred to as the contested MFR], be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES: That she received award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period March 1994 to March 1997. She referenced Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), Chapter 3, paragraph 3-14f (sic 3-16f) as evidence to support her case. She states that, in accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-14 (sic 3-16), item f (Recording and Filing of DA Form 2627-1): "These forms will be maintained locally in a nonjudicial file (file number 27-10f). They will be destroyed at the end of two years from the date of punishment or on the soldier's transfer from the unit, which ever occurs first. A copy will be furnished to the soldier if a request is submitted during the filing period."

The applicant resubmitted a copy of the contested MFR.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) of Docket Number AR2001053669 on 1 May 2001.

The applicant's contentions are new arguments which will be considered by the ABCMR.

In an 8 April 1997 MFR from the company commander of the 155th Transportation Company at Fort Eustis, Virginia, the applicant was informed that she was disapproved for award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 March 1994 through 9 March 1997. The contested MFR cited the reason for the disqualification as the applicant's receipt of a Summarized Article 15 for being AWOL on 31 January 1995.

The applicant signed the contested MFR and acknowledged that she was aware that she was not receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 March 1994 through 9 March 1997.

Orders show she was subsequently awarded the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 March 1994 to 9 March 1997.

She was also awarded the second award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 March 1997 to 9 March 2000.

The Proceedings of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001053669, dated 1 May 2001 stated that the contested MFR had served its intended purpose and that the contested MFR should be moved to the Restricted Fiche of the applicant's OMPF for historical and recording purposes for the benefit and interest of the applicant and the Army. As a result, the ABCMR recommended that the contested MFR be transferred from the applicant's Performance Fiche to the Restricted Fiche of her OMPF.

Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), in effect at the time, provides the applicable policies for nonjudicial punishment. Paragraph 3-16f of this regulation governs the recording and filing of DA Form 2627-1 (Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ). The regulation states, in pertinent part, that the proceedings will be legibly summarized on DA Form 2627-1, ordinarily with handwritten entries. The regulation also states that these forms will be maintained locally in nonjudicial punishment files (file number 27-10f) and that they will be destroyed at the end of 2 years from the date of imposition of punishment or on the soldier's transfer from the unit, whichever occurs first.

Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the Official Military Personnel File it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by: the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board, Army appeals board, Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command, the Official Military Personnel File custodian when documents have been improperly filed, Total Army Personnel Command
(TAPC-PDO-PO) as an exception, Chief of the Appeals Branch of the Army Reserve Personnel Center and Chief of the Appeals Branch of the National Guard Personnel Center.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

Army Regulation 15-185 also provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without 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 considered the applicant's second request for removal of the contested MFR.

2. The Board noted that the Proceedings of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001053669, dated 1 May 2001 transferred the contested MFR from the Performance Fiche to the Restricted Fiche of the applicant's OMPF.

3. The Board noted the applicant's reference to Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), Chapter 3, paragraph 3-14f (sic 3-16f) in support of her claim. However, this regulation governs recording and filing of DA Form 2627-1 (Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) and does not pertain to the contested MFR.

4. The Board noted that Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) governs the filing of documents in the OMPF.

5. There is no evidence that the contested MFR was improperly filed in the applicant's OMPF.

6. Further, there is no explanation for award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 March 1994 through 9 March 1997 in spite of the applicant's disqualification based on AWOL. Therefore, it is appropriate that the contested MFR remain as currently filed.

7. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with this application or the evidence of record, that an error or injustice exists in his case. Therefore there is no basis for removing the contested MFR from her OMPF.

8. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

9. 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

JNS_____ TL______ BPI_____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077308
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030429
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	134.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.