RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           12 February 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089412


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Joann H. Langston             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II          |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant states that her rehabilitation is complete, she has
assumed responsibility for her actions, and she has learned from her past
mistake.  Since she accepted this NJP, she has been selected over her peers
to serve in numerous leadership positions without incident.  She has
mentored soldiers to become regional soldier of the year.  Senior
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and officers respect her ability as an NCO.
 Her peers and subordinates look to her for continuous direction.  She has
decided to make the Army a career and does not wish anything to keep her
from being all she can be.

3.  The applicant does not provide any documentation in support of her
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 May 1993 and was promoted to the
rank of sergeant.

2.  On 30 July 1997, she accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful command, and
for “commit[ting] an assault upon [a superior NCO] by pointing at him with
a dangerous weapon, to wit, knife with a six inch blade.”

3.  She was given an NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period covering
August 1998 through July 1999.  In that NCOER her rater stated “is not
aware that living your life as an example is the best way to instill in
others ethics and professional traits; lacks a sound understanding of the
mission of the section; shows a lack of concern for the section; and has
had trouble functioning under stressful situations.”  Her rater ranked her
overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater
responsibility as marginal, the lowest ranking in a three block rating.
The applicant’s senior rater stated “retain at the same grade; cannot
currently handle any higher responsibility; and soldier could improve
performance with more dedication.”  Her senior rater ranked her overall
performance and potential as fair, the next to lowest block in a five block
rating.

4.  She was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 1 January 2000.

5.  She was given an NCOER for the period covering August 1999 through
March 2000.  In that NCOER her rater stated that the applicant was
counseled for disrespect to an officer and senior NCO, and that she failed
to set the example.  Her rater ranked her overall potential for promotion
and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as marginal.  Her
senior rater stated “retain at present rank; recommend less responsibility;
failed to set the example; and shows lack of respect to officers and senior
NCOs.”  Her senior rater ranked her overall performance and potential as
fair, the next to lowest block in a five block rating.

6.  On 25 September 2000, the applicant again accepted NJP for assaulting a
fellow NCO by hitting him in the face with a closed fist; for wrongfully
appropriating property of the NCO she assaulted; for destroying the
property of the NCO she assaulted; and for making a false sworn statement.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-104, Military Personnel Information
Management/Records, paragraph 2–4, Changing the OMPF, states that:

      a. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of
that file. 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).
            (2) The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board
(DASEB).
            (3) Army appeal boards.
            (4) Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, PERSCOM.
            (5) The OMPF custodian when documents have been improperly
filed.
            (6) Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC–PDO–PO, as an approved
policy change to this regulation.
            (7) Chief, Appeals Branch, ARPERCEN.
            (8) Chief, Appeals Branch, National Guard Personnel Center.

      b. Documents designated for transfer from the P or S fiche will be
put on the R fiche, if authorized.

      c. When discovered by the custodian or requested by the soldier
concerned, transfer R fiche documents mistakenly filed on the P or S fiche
to the R fiche. Unless approved by DCSPER or PERSCOM Promotions Branch,
this action does not justify standby or special selection board
consideration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Regardless of the applicant’s current achievements, she committed a
serious act of misconduct for which she accepted NJP.

2.  The Army has a vested interest in maintaining the accuracy of its
records.  The applicant was properly offered NJP, she accepted NJP instead
of demanding trial by court-martial, and the NJP was properly filed in her
OMPF.  There is no error or injustice in that scenario.

3.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF shows that the behavior which led to
the NJP in question was not an aberration.

4.  As such, there is no basis in which to recommend removal of the NJP.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rjs ___  ____le __  ___jhl___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            __________Joann H, Langston_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003089412                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040212                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |