| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Stanley Kelley . | Member | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the judgment and punishment imposed upon him in a 3 March 2003 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action, Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), be overturned.
APPLICANT STATES: In the enclosed self-authored statement and exhibits, that the NJP action taken against him was unjust and the charges upon which it was based were false. He claims that he has given the Army all of his time for the last three and one half years and he has not simply met the standard, but rather set the standard. He states that he outlines his accomplishments only to point out that the effort he has made has earned him the right to be judged fairly. The exhibits with his self-authored statement include a two page outline he titles “Formation of Presentation”, a six page presentation with what he calls his side of the story, seven pages containing what he calls “Matters in Defense”; and four pages titled “Set Tone for the Investigation.” He also provides various witness statements, and extracts of several Army regulations and command policy statements pertaining to sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Army, in the rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4), and is assigned to Fort Myer, Virginia.
On 26 February 2003, while the applicant was serving as a sergeant/E-5
(SGT/E-5) with H Company, 3rd United States Infantry, The Old Guard,
Fort Myer, Virginia, his commander notified the applicant that he was considering whether the applicant should be punished under Article 15, UCMJ,
for the following misconduct: disobeying the lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer; failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully creating a hostile working environment due to sexual harassment; failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully continuing a romantic relationship with a subordinate solder in the same company; and for wrongfully communicating a threat. On this same date, the applicant was advised of his rights and specifically of his right to consult counsel and to demand trial by court-martial.
On 28 February 2003, the applicant confirmed that having been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, he decided not to demand trial by
court-martial. He instead elected to have the matter handled by his commander in a closed hearing. He requested a person to speak in his behalf and indicated that matters in defense, mitigation, and or extenuation would be presented at the hearing.
On 3 March 2003, after a closed hearing at which all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were considered, the commander imposed the following punishment: reduction to SPC/E-4; forfeiture of $500.00 per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction to the limits of Fort Myer except quarters for 45 days. The commander also directed that the Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627) be filed in the performance fiche of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
The applicant elected to appeal the NJP action and to submit additional matters in his defense. On 13 March 2003, a legal representative of the Staff Judge Advocate’s office considered the applicant’s appeal and opined that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation, and the punishments imposed were not unjust nor disproportionate to the offenses committed.
On 1 April 2003, the appellate authority, after considering all matters presented in the applicant’s appeal, elected to modify the punishment imposed to reduction to SPC/E-4 and forfeiture of $260.00 pay per month for two months.
Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice. Chapter 3 implements and amplifies Article 15, UCMJ. It states that the soldier will be given the opportunity to accept the Article 15 or to request a reasonable time, normally 24 hours, to decide whether to demand trial by court-martial and to gather matters in defense, extenuation, and/or mitigation. Further, unless the soldier demands trial by
court-martial within the decision period, the imposing commander may proceed with the hearing, which will consist of the following: consideration of evidence, written or oral, against the soldier; examination of available evidence by the soldier; presentation by the soldier of testimony of available witnesses or other matters, in defense, extenuation, and/or mitigation. Finally, in making a determination of guilt the imposing commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the soldier committed the offense(s).
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. Notwithstanding the extensive argument presented by the applicant in his application and the accompanying documents, the evidence of record confirms that the 3 March 2003 NJP action accepted by the applicant was accomplished in accordance with the governing regulation.
2. Prior to accepting NJP the applicant was offered the right to consult with counsel who was obliged to advise him of his rights, including his right to demand trial by court-martial where, with the assistance of counsel and the safeguards of the rules of evidence, he could have asserted his defense.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant elected not to demand trial by court-martial, and that he instead elected to have the matter handled by his commander in a closed hearing. He was afforded all rights associated with the NJP action and he was allowed to present his appeal to the proper authority. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the NJP process.
4. 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 this requirement.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
GW___ __SK___ __RO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087862 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 277 | 126.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008619
The applicant provides: * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) * 15 letters of support/character reference * 2 DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ) * 20 pages of an Administrative Separation Board Hearing CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After hearing all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation and after having considered the violation(s) of the UCMJ,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104215C070208
Counsel states the applicant appealed the punishment to the brigade commander and cited two legal errors committed by the battalion commander during the Article 15 proceedings, which were the insufficiency of the evidence and consideration of evidence not contained in the package provided the applicant prior to the hearing. Counsel claims that it is clear based on the facts provided that the applicant was both legally and factually not guilty of indecent assault and no NJP should have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003552C070208
In his appeal, he claimed he had not committed the offense upon which the Article 15 was based. It further stipulates that the Soldier will be informed of the following: the right to remain silent, that he/she is not required to make any statement regarding the offense or offenses of which he/she is suspected, that any statement made may be used against the Soldier in the Article 15 proceedings or in any other proceedings, including a trial by court-martial. Thus, notwithstanding his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006210C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 May 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040006210 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. There is no evidence of record that suggests the NJP imposed on the applicant resulted in a clear injustice. As a result, he was not eligible to receive separation pay at the time he was released from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089181C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: This enlistment document shows that he participated in the MGIB upon his enlistment and it appears that the period of active duty service he completed and the honorable discharge he received would satisfy the criteria for receipt of this education benefit. There appears to be no error in the record that would result in the applicant being denied MGIB benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140019460
It states that applications for removal of an Article 15 from the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). It further indicates that there must be clear and compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly-completed, facially-valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's record by the ABCMR. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140019460 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015003C070206
The applicant's records contain a 27 August 2004 Memorandum for Record signed by the Commanding General of the Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, it states that the Soldier will be informed of the right to counsel, to demand trial by court-martial, to fully present his/her case in the presence of the imposing commander, to call witnesses, to present evidence, to request to be accompanied by a spokesperson, to an open hearing, and to examine available evidence. Evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005594
Counsel also states that subsequent to imposition of the NJP, the applicant received formal notification of his case being referred to an involuntary separation board in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for the same alleged misconduct as recorded in the NJP. Counsel further states the findings and recommendations of the formal involuntary separation board concluded that the very same allegations of misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002295
The applicant requests, in effect, that the non-judicial punishment (NJP) action imposed on him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 4 November 2003 be set-aside; and that the Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627) be removed from his record. Paragraph 3-43 of the military justice regulation contains guidance on the transfer or removal of records of NJP (DA Form 2627) from the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008938C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that a 14 June 1999 Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) action imposed on him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be set-aside. The 15 January 2000 set-aside request submitted to the commander I Corps and Fort Lewis by legal counsel, on behalf of the applicant, stated, in effect, there was insufficient evidence to form the basis of the 14 June 1999 Article 15 imposed on the applicant, and it failed to show...