| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for placement of his records before a standby advisory board (STAB) for promotion reconsideration to Master Sergeant.
APPLICANT STATES: That a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) was improperly filed on his performance fiche in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). This improper filing adversely affected his promotion chances resulting in his nonselection for promotion to the rank of Master Sergeant.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 4 December 2001 (AR2001063031). The applicant provides new evidence in the form of a statement, dated 2 May 2002, from the appellate authority, a Major General (retired), who acted on the subject nonjudicial punishment (NJP). The letter states that it was always the intent of the appellate authority to file the NJP on the applicant's restricted fiche and, had he known that he could not change the filing decision made by the commander who imposed punishment, he would have directed that commander to place the NJP on the applicant's restricted fiche from the very beginning.
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. Although the letter from the appellate authority is new, the argument raised in it is not new to the Board. The Board already knew of the appellate authority's desire to transfer the NJP from the applicant's performance fiche to his restricted fiche provided the applicant demonstrate 180 days of good behavior.
2. The appellate authority's intent is irrelevant to this case. At the time of the subject NJP, the filing decision for NJP's did not rest with the appellate authority; it resided solely with the imposing commander. In this instance, the imposing commander directed filing on the performance fiche on 17 November 1994. Following the imposition of punishment and the filing decision, the applicant appealed to the appellate authority. On 23 November 1994, the appellate authority, in contravention to Army regulations then in effect, attempted to alter the filing decision predicated on the applicant's demonstration of good behavior.
3. On 23 July 2001, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), upon request from the applicant, directed that the subject NJP be removed from his performance fiche and placed on his restricted fiche. The DASEB reasoned that the NJP had served its intended purpose. This is the same reason given by the DASEB for the transfer of two earlier NJP's from the applicant's performance fiche to his restricted fiche.
4. The Board finds the applicant's penchant for accumulating NJP's somewhat disturbing. The applicant was a 30-year old Sergeant First Class (SFC/E-7) with more than 12 years of active service at the time of the offenses that were subject to the NJP. His pattern of behavior should have been well established by the time of these offenses, and his judgment should have been mature. Given the applicant's two previous NJP's, one for larceny from a fellow soldier, and one for larceny and assault on a German national, the current offenses highlight an established pattern of misconduct, a lack of integrity, or serious character deficiencies.
5. 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.
6. 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
__rvo___ __slp___ __eja___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079144 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021024 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.1100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063031C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be considered by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for promotion reconsideration to Master Sergeant. Paragraph 3-37b(1)(a) reiterates that the decision to file the original Article 15 on the performance fiche or the restricted fiche will be determined by the imposing commander at the time the punishment is imposed. The error was not made in the filing of the Article 15; it was made by the appellate authority, who did not have the authority to legally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077022C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The DASEB concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the nonjudicial punishment had served its intended purpose, or that it would be in the best interest of the Army to transfer the document to the R-fiche. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
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 | CY2001 | 2001063430C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) and a Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (DA Form 2627) dated 6 June 1996, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant appealed the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was granted on 3 December 1998. Neither the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record shows that the NCOER or the Record of NJP were in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012657C070206
On 5 March 2003, the applicant’s brigade commander, the commander who imposed the NJP, directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the P-Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF, and the applicant appealed the NJP action and submitted additional matters. However, the evidence of record confirms that the disposition and filing of the record of NJP he accepted on 26 February 2003, while he was serving in the rank of SSG, was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000161C070206
The applicant requests that his record of punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated, 5 November 1999, be removed from the restricted fiche of his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant’s commander directed that the Article 15 be filed on the restricted fiche of the applicant’s OMPF. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076040C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. At the conclusion of the closed hearing, the unit commander elected to direct the filing of the original DA Form 2627 in the P-Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF, and he advised the applicant that he had the right to appeal within 5 calendar days. The evidence of record confirms the NJP in question was imposed, the applicant’s appeal of the punishment considered, and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008701
The applicant states that her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was not correctly presented to the FY07 and FY08 MSG selection boards because the documentation removing her from the Drill Sergeant Program was improperly posted in the disciplinary portion of the file. The applicant contends that this administrative error made it appear that she had been removed from the Drill Sergeant Program for disciplinary reasons, when, in fact, she was administratively removed from the program for...
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 | 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.