RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           8 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001231


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of
Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) from the restricted portion (R-Fiche)
of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it was not the imposing
commander’s intent to file the Article 15 in question on the R-Fiche of his
OMPF.  He claims the imposing commander was under the assumption that he
was administering a summarized Article 15, which would be filed locally.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Memorandum, Imposing Commander Memorandum of
Support and Brigade Legal Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Memorandum of
Support.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that at the time he submitted his
application to the Board, he was serving on active duty as a staff sergeant
(SSG).

2.  On 28 October 2002, while serving as a SSG at Fort Benning, Georgia,
the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating a lawful
general regulation by wrongfully providing alcohol to a person under the
age of 21.  The punishment imposed included a forfeiture of $526.00 that
was suspended for until 28 April 2003, 14 days of extra duty and 14 days of
restriction.  Item 4 of the DA Form 2627 shows the box indicating filing in
the R-Fiche of the OMPF is blacked out with the unit commander’s initials.


3.  On 20 April 2004, the unit commander completed a memorandum in support
of the applicant’s request.  He indicates that after he decided to impose
the NJP on the applicant, he requested the brigade legal NCO prepare an
Article 15 under summarized proceedings.   He further states that due to
the preparation of the wrong document (DA Form 2627) by the brigade legal
NCO, the applicant received a company grade Article 15 instead of the
summarized Article 15 he intended.

4.  The unit commander further contends it was never his intent to have
anything placed in the applicant’s OMPF.  He claims his purpose in
administering NJP was to express his displeasure with the applicant’s
actions, not to tarnish his exemplary career.  The unit commander finally
states that in his conversations with the applicant on 28 October 2002, he
assured the applicant that the Article 15 would remain filed locally and
would not follow him.

5.  On 20 April 2004, the current brigade legal NCO, for the applicant’s
unit at the time, prepared a memorandum supporting the applicant’s request.
 He confirms the original DA Form 2627 for the Article 15 in question and
allied documents are maintained in the applicant’s local personnel file at
his office, as required by the governing regulation.  He further states
that after conversing with the imposing commander, he determined that the
Article 15 in question was erroneously prepared and filed in the
applicant’s OMPF due to an administrative error on the part of his
predecessor.

6.  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, and Part V, MCM.  It states,
in pertinent part, that the decision whether to file a record of NJP on the
performance fiche (P-Fiche) of a Soldier's OMPF rests with the imposing
commander at the time punishment is imposed.

7.  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 P-Fiche or R-Fiche of the
OMPF on those Soldiers in the rank of sergeant and above.  Local filing of
these documents is authorized only for Soldiers in the rank of
corporal/specialist and below.

8.  Paragraph 3-16 of the Military Justice regulation contains guidance on
summarized proceedings.  It states that a commander may use summarized
proceedings if it is determined that should punishment be found to be
appropriate, it should not exceed extra duties for 14 days, restriction for
14 days, oral reprimand or admonition, or any combination of these
punishments.  It further indicates that summarized proceedings are
documented on a
DA Form 2627-1, which will be filed and maintained locally in NJP files
(file number 27-10f).  The regulation further stipulates the DA Form 2627-1
will be destroyed at the end of 2 years from the date of imposition of
punishment or on the Soldier's transfer from the unit, whichever occurs
first.
9. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and
procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army
members in individual official personnel files, ensure that unfavorable
information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is
not filed in individual official personnel files and ensure that the best
interests of both the Army and the soldiers are served by authorizing
unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from
official personnel files.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he was informed that the record of his
Article 15 proceedings would be filed locally was carefully considered and
found to have merit.

2.  By regulation, a record of a summarized Article 15 (DA Form 2627-1)
will be filed and maintained locally and destroyed at the end of 2 years
from the date of imposition of punishment or on the Soldier's transfer from
the unit, whichever occurs first.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was administered an
Article 15 that was documented on a DA Form 2627.  Given the applicant’s
rank at the time, this document had to be filed either on the P-Fiche or R-
Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF, local filing was not an option.

4.  However, in his supporting statement, the applicant’s unit commander
confirms it was his intent to impose a summarized Article 15 on the
applicant.  He further verifies that he told the applicant the document
would be filed locally and would not follow him during his career.  The
brigade legal NCO confirms that after conversing with the imposing
commander, he is convinced the Article 15 in question was prepared and
filed in the OMPF due to an administrative error on the part of his
predecessor.  He verifies a summarized Article 15 should have been imposed,
which would have resulted in the local filing of the
DA Form 2627-1.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to correct
the record to show this was a summarized proceeding.  Therefore, it would
serve the interest of justice to remove the Article 15 in question from the
applicant’s OMPF.
BOARD VOTE:

___MDM_  ___PMS_  ___BJE _  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
converting the Article 15 to a summarized proceeding and removing the
DA Form 2627, dated 28 October 2002 and allied documents from his OMPF.




            ____Mark D. Manning____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001231                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/03/08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  267  |123.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]