RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           11 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106518


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings
under Article 15, UCMJ) be removed from his records.

2.  The applicant states that he was cleared of all charges during the
actual Article 15 proceedings which were imposed by Captain V___, who was
in command at that time.  None of the information on the DA Form 2627 is
true.  He only signed the document because Captain F___ and his chain of
command assured him the document would not leave the battalion.  The DA
Forms 2627 of Private First Class M___, Private First Class L___, and
Specialist F___, the other members involved, all have Captain V___'s
signature and will confirm that he (Captain V___) was the lawful authority.

3.  The applicant further states that it is more likely than not that the
DA Form 2627 should not have been included on the restricted portion of his
fiche.  He cites paragraph 3-37 [of Army Regulation 27-10] as the basis for
this contention.

4.  The applicant provides no supporting evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 1985.

2.  On 10 January 1986, while a Private First Class, the applicant accepted
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) for, with intent to defraud, falsely pretend to engage a taxi, then
well knowing that such pretenses were false and by means thereof did
wrongfully obtain from said taxi service of some value, to wit:  a taxi
ride.  His punishment was 14 days restriction (suspended) and 7 days extra
duty.

3.  Captain F___ initiated the proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ.  The
applicant indicated he did not demand trial by court-martial.  Captain F___
imposed the punishment and directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the
applicant's restricted fiche.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

4.  The applicant continued to serve on active duty and was promoted to
Staff Sergeant on 1 April 1997.  He is currently on active duty.

5.  Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes policies and procedures pertaining to
the administration of military justice.  The current version, dated 6
September 2002, states in paragraph 3-37b(1) that, for Soldiers Specialist
or Corporal and below (prior to punishment), the original DA Form 2627 will
be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment or unit personnel files.
Such locally filed originals will be destroyed at the end of 2 years from
the date of imposition of punishment or on the Soldier’s transfer to
another general court-martial convening authority, whichever occurs first.
Paragraph 3-41 states that records of nonjudicial punishment presently
filed in either the performance or restricted section of the Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF) will remain so filed subject to other
applicable regulations.

6.  Army Regulation 27-10 in effect at the time, dated 10 December 1985,
stated in paragraph 3-37b(1) that, for those records where punishment was
imposed on or after 1 November 1982, the decision to file the original DA
Form 2627 on the performance fiche or the restricted fiche in the OMPF
would be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment was
imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander was final.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant provides no evidence to show that he was cleared of all
charges during the Article 15 proceedings.  He provides no evidence to show
that Captain V___ was in command at that time.  He provides no evidence to
show that three other individuals received Article 15s for the same
infraction and that Captain V___, rather than Captain F___, imposed the
punishment in their cases. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
is presumed the applicant's nonjudicial punishment was imposed in
accordance with applicable law and regulations.

2.  The applicant's DA Form 2627 is properly filed in the restricted
portion of his OMPF.  The imposing commander made the decision to file the
form on his restricted fiche and his decision was final.  Paragraph 3-41 of
Army Regulation 27-10 states that records of nonjudicial punishment
presently filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF
will remain so filed.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __jtm___  __cak___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




            __Linda D. Simmons____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106518                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050111                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |126.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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