RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 FEBRUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001901


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer Prater               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Pagan                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Lapin                 |     |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 that a 1996 Record of Proceedings Under Article
15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) be expunged from the restricted
portion of his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File).

2.  The applicant states that his commander at the time placed the UCMJ
action on his restricted fiche “because he felt that the offense should not
hinder or stop the progression of [his] career.”  He also noted that the
commander suspended all of his punishment and “felt that just giving [him]
the article 15 itself would be punishment enough.”  He notes he was not
required to leave the aviation field.

3.  The applicant states the UCMJ action was given over 9 years ago and he
feels that it has served its purpose.  He cites his numerous personal and
professional accomplishments since receiving the UCMJ action and hopes that
the Board will remove the UCMJ action from his records.  He states he is
planning on making the Army a career.

4.  The applicant provides copies of three recent performance evaluation
reports and two letters of support.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty in October 1989 and has served on continuous active duty.  He
was trained as a helicopter repairman.  In May 2000 he executed an
indefinite reenlistment contract.

2.  In February 1996, while serving in pay grade E-5, the applicant was
punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for changing score numbers on two
Army test documents (FAST (Flight Aptitude Selection Test) Battery and
ASVAB (Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery)) between 1994 and 1996,
and submitting the falsified documents into official channels.  His
punishment included forfeiture of $735.00, which was suspended.  The
officer imposing punishment directed that the record of proceedings be
filed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMFP.  The applicant did
not appeal.

3.  The applicant’s April 1996 performance evaluation report noted that the
applicant’s “honesty and integrity [was] jeopardized recently when numbers
were changed on official records.”  He received a “needs improvement”
rating by his rater in the area of competence and the report contained
comments about the applicant’s integrity by both his rater and senior
rater.
4.  In October 1997 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6 and in
January 2002 he was promoted to pay grade E-7.

5.  The applicant’s recent performance evaluation reports, dating back to
May 2002 indicate that he has consistently been rated successful or
excellent in the various rating categories.  His raters have consistently
placed him “among the best” in overall potential for promotion, while his
senior raters have placed him the first or second block for overall
performance and in the top block for overall potential.  He has been
awarded several Army Achievement Medals, and Army Commendation Medals, and
one Meritorious Service Medal.

6.  The two letters of support, submitted by the applicant in support of
his petition to the Board, were authored in April 2004.  One letter was
from the applicant’s commander and the other from his battalion command
sergeant major.  Both individuals note that the applicant contributed to
the success of the aviation unit’s mission, that he was professional both
on and off duty, and that he is an outstanding Soldier who is admired and
respected by his Soldiers and his peers. Both recommended that the UCMJ
action be expunged from the applicant’s file.

7.  Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of
military justice.  It notes that NJP (nonjudicial punishment) is
appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive
measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  It is a tool
available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders who the
commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to
preserve a member’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of
court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing
of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-
martial.  It also provides that the officer imposing NJP determines whether
the report of NJP is to be filed on the individual’s restricted or
performance fiche.

8.  Army Regulations, which establish the responsibilities, policies, and
procedures for maintaining and controlling the OMPF, state that the
restricted fiche is the OMPF section for historical data that may normally
be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The
restricted fiche ensures that an unbroken, historical record of a member’s
service, conduct, duty performance, evaluation periods, and corrections to
other parts of the OMPF is maintained.  It is intended to protect the
interests of the member and the Army.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The UCMJ action was imposed in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations and policies.  The punishment imposed was neither unjust nor
disproportionate to the offenses, and there is no evidence of any
substantive violation of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The fact that the applicant’s current commander and battalion command
sergeant major note that the applicant is highly successful and an example
to others, that his record contains multiple personal awards, and that he
has continued to progress as a Soldier, is testament that the purpose of
the UCMJ action accomplished the goal for which it was established; that
NJP is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform
offenders.  The fact that the applicant has accomplished commendable
achievements and that his current chain of command supports his desire to
remove the record of NJP from the applicant’s OMPF is not sufficient to
conclude that its original filing was in error or unjust.  The mere passage
of time is not a basis to expunge a properly executed and properly filed
UCMJ action.

3.  Although the applicant may perceive that retention of the UCMJ action
on his restricted fiche might somehow be prejudicial to his career, there
is no basis to support that perception.  Rather, retention of the record
protects the applicant and the Army’s interest by ensuring that a complete
record of the facts are maintained.

4.  The UCMJ action is properly filed and as such no error or injustice
exists.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no
doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.








BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JP____  ___TP __  ___KL___  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.





                                  _____ Jennifer Prater_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001901                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050515                                |
|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.       |126.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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