| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be granted reconsideration by a Special Selection Board for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three.
APPLICANT STATES: That a record of nonjudicial punishment he received under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in April 1997, was not placed in his performance fiche until July 2000. His
29 January 2002, request to move the Article 15 from his performance fiche to his restricted fiche was approved on 4 June 2002, however he feels an injustice occurred because the Article 15, which had served it intended purpose, was in his records when he was nonselected for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three by the 2001 and 2002 promotion boards. He contends that an injustice has been done through the mishandling and delay with regard to his service record, that without notice that the Article 15 was not going to be filed or the actual presence of the Article 15 in his fiche he was unable to take action to have it moved. Compounding the delay in his requesting it’s removal from his performance fiche was the ineffectiveness of his legal assistance.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 March 1995, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer One, and promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two on 29 March 1997.
On 20 May 1997, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for driving while intoxicated. His punishment was a forfeiture of $500.00 per month for two months. The imposing general directed that the Article 15 be filed in the applicant’s performance fiche.
On 29 January 2002, the applicant petitioned the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to transfer his Article 15 from the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File to a restricted file.
On 4 June 2002, the DASEB approved the transfer of the Article 15 based upon intent served, and further advised that it’s transfer was not to be considered retroactive, and did not constitute grounds for referral to a Special Selection Board for a previous non-selection.
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 applicant provides no evidence that he attempted to have the Article 15 transferred prior to his non-selection for promotion.
2. The applicant’s primary contention is that without the actual presence of the Article 15 in his performance fiche he could not take action to have it transferred, and that he did not receive appropriate legal guidance until he arrived in Korea in March 2001. The applicant’s DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceeding under Article 15, UCMJ) clearly shows that the imposing commander directed it to be filed in his Performance Fiche. If the Article 15 was not placed on his performance fiche until July 2000, as he contends he did not request it’s transfer until January 2002, and provides no evidence to support the two year delay or his inability to get sufficient legal advice.
3. The April 1997 UCMJ action was administered in accordance with applicable regulations and was not disproportionate to the offense involved. There is no evidence of any substantive violation of the applicant’s rights.
4. The Board agrees with the DASEB determination that the transfer of the applicant’s Article 15 on 4 June 2002, is not retroactive, and does not constitute grounds for referral to a Special Selection Board for a previous non-selection.
5. 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 that requirement.
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
__FNE __ __MVT__ __ENA __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080531 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030715 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006492
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120006492 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that the memorandum of disqualification for the Good Conduct Medal be moved to the restricted portion of his file. On 24 March 2011, the applicant requested transfer of the NJP and the Disqualification Statement for Award of the Good Conduct Medal to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
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 | CY2006 | 20060013189C070205
Army Regulation 27-10 states, in pertinent part, that enlisted Soldiers (E-5 and above) and officers may petition the DASEB for transfer of records of nonjudicial punishment from the performance to the restricted portion of the OMPF. There was no other record of misconduct committed by the applicant or any record of nonjudicial punishment given to the applicant since the Article 15 was imposed on 7 October 1993. Nevertheless, on 1 December 2000, he was promoted to sergeant first class...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001574C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Performance (P) fiche and transferred to his Restricted (R) fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The last Colonel's promotion board did not select him for promotion, and he believed that despite his otherwise outstanding record, this GOMOR was the reason for his non-selection. Letters (memorandums) of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of...
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 | CY2004 | 20040006329C070208
It is conceivable to believe that, had the applicant's request been correctly sent to the DASEB in September 2003, the DASEB would have considered his request prior to the 1 November 2003 convening of the captain promotion board. Therefore, it would be equitable to correct the applicant's records to show that the GOMOR was transferred to his restricted fiche prior to the 1 November 2003 convening of the captain promotion board. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016908C070206
Jeanette McCants | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance portion (P-fiche).
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 | CY2002 | 2002077764C070215
Army Regulation 190-5 (Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision) provides that soldiers will be issued an administrative letter of reprimand for alcohol related driving incidents in the following circumstances: When there is a conviction for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; a refusal to take a properly requested blood, urine or breath test; when the individual was driving or in physical control of a vehicle on post with a BAC of .10 or off post with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014521
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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 file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR); the DASEB; the Army Appeals Board; Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources...