| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Article 15 dated 27 October 1997 be removed from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the Article 15 has served its purpose in teaching him to be careful of all his actions. It is keeping him from becoming a drill sergeant. He has been a model soldier since the incident and has been promoted twice since the incident.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1991.
On 27 October 1997, while a Sergeant, E-5, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for striking another Sergeant, E-5 in the mouth with his closed fist. His punishment was a forfeiture of $176.00. The Article 15 was directed to be filed in the restricted portion of his OMPF.
On 19 December 1997, the applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6. He apparently was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-7 sometime after January 2003.
Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers (E-5 and above) and officers may petition the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board for transfer of records of nonjudicial punishment from the performance to the restricted portion of the OMPF. To support the request, the person must submit substantive evidence that the intended purpose of the Article 15 has been served and that the transfer is in the best interest of the Army.
Army Regulation 614-200 (Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management), chapter 8, section III (Drill Sergeant Program), paragraph 8-15b(10) states that a soldier being considered for drill sergeant duty must have no record of disciplinary action or time lost or letter of reprimand filed in the OMPF during the current enlistment or in the last 5 years, whichever is longer (does not include Article 15s directed for filing in the restricted portion of the OMPF). Paragraph 8-15b(17) states that the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) will conduct a thorough background screening. Soldiers with Type II reports of unfavorable information disqualifiers will be excluded from consideration for drill sergeant duty for 5 years from the date of the incident. Paragraph 8-15b(19)(b) states that assault (other than of a subordinate, spouse, or child) is a Type II
disqualifier. Paragraph 8-15b(21) states that PERSCOM will screen Department of the Army Inspector General records, personnel security and criminal records indexed in the Defense Clearance Investigation Index, OMPF restricted files, and other records.
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. 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.
2. The Board accepts the applicant's contention that the Article 15 has served its purpose and notes that he has been promoted from E-5 to E-7 since the incident. However, a finding that an Article 15 has served its purpose would normally only result in its being moved from the performance fiche to the restricted fiche. The applicant's Article 15 was always filed in his restricted fiche. Unless there is evidence to show the Article 15 was improperly issued/filed in the first place, the Board concludes that equity does not demand it be removed from his restricted fiche. The applicant has not shown nor has he contended that it was improperly issued/filed.
3. The Board notes the applicant's contention that the Article 15 is hindering him from becoming a drill sergeant. Based upon regulatory guidance, it appears the applicant's contention is not mistaken. The incident for which he was given the Article 15 appears to be a Type II report of unfavorable information disqualifier which would exclude him from consideration for drill sergeant duty for 5 years from the date of the incident. That 5-year period expired in October 2002.
4. The Board notes that PERSCOM is required to conduct a thorough background screening of more record sources than just the OMPF when considering a soldier for drill sergeant duty. It is possible the incident can be discovered through screening one of the other sources. Removal of the Article 15 from the applicant's restricted fiche possibly would not prevent the incident from being discovered.
5. It cannot be determined if the incident is still the sole reason the applicant is not being selected for drill sergeant duty. In any case, the Board will not usurp PERSCOM's authority to select the best-qualified soldiers for this duty by removing the Article 15 from the applicant's records absent compelling evidence to show the Article 15 was improperly issued/filed in the first place.
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
__ao___ ___kh___ ___tr_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089407 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030605 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.06 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010425C070205
Paragraph 3-37b (2) states, in pertinent part, that for Soldiers, in the rank of sergeant and above, the original of the DA Form 2627 will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that application for removal of an Article 15 from a Soldier's OMPF based on error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The applicant states that the Article 15 was based on an unjust investigation; however, she...
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 | CY2007 | 20070010041C071108
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, removal of a memorandum dated 9 October 2003 and a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 2 October 2003, from the performance (P-fiche) portion of his official military personnel file (OMPF) and place in the restricted (R-fiche) portion of his OMPF. The applicant has not provided any new evidence or compelling argument to show that it is in the best interest of the United States Army to move this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087979C070212
He successfully completed his tour as a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, Georgia and he has continued superior duty performance as evidence by the eight Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) he submitted with his application. On the same date, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the LOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. The applicant successfully completed his tour as a drill sergeant without further incident; the QMP bar to reenlistment has been removed; and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077717C070215
In effect, the applicant requests the removal of two letters of reprimand from his restricted portion (fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Consequently, those two letters, and his 22 February 2000 rebuttal to his letter of reprimand should be removed from his OMPF. a. removing the 20 December1999 and the 14 February 2000 letters of reprimand from the applicant’s OMPF;
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008743C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that a DA Form 2627, Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, be removed from the restricted fiche (R-fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). It states, in pertinent part, that application for removal of an Article 15 from a Soldier's OMPF based on error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The document will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089412C070212
The applicant requests that the Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627), which records the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) she accepted on 30 July 1997, be removed from the restricted portion of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) fiche. The document will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by the following: (1) The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). (3) Army appeal boards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000806C070208
The appeal correspondence was directed to be placed in the applicant’s restricted fiche, and stated that promotion consideration was not applicable. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The applicant's contention that the NCOER, even as corrected, would be damaging to her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010909C070206
The applicant provides documents related to his court-martial charges, his removal from the drill sergeant program, a legal review of the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation, the final report of Training Abuse Allegation against the applicant, copies of sworn statements related to the accusations/charges against the applicant, counseling statements, the applicant’s rebuttal to the administrative removal from drill sergeant status, a copy of a congressional inquiry and documents related...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015076
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 11 July 2003, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The Military Justice regulation further stipulates that, with the exception of summarized proceedings, Article 15 proceedings are recorded on a DA Form 2627, which will be filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF on those Soldiers in the rank of sergeant...