RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010164 


	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. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Jerome Pionk

Member

Mr. Edward Montgomery

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, that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) imposed on 2 June 2000 and a Letter of Reprimand, dated 7 April 1999, be removed from the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and transferred to his restricted section. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during the past six years his duties included Inmate Escort Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, desk sergeant, and now an assistant platoon sergeant forward deployed in Afghanistan.  He states the magnitude of these responsibilities best demonstrate his reliability and trustworthiness.  He points out that his letters of recommendation accurately reflect his trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment.  He states that he takes his job seriously and strives for professionalism and loyal dedication to his duty in accordance with Army regulations.  He further states that transferring these documents to his restricted section will allow him to further his military police career.   

3.  In a statement dated 17 July 2006, the applicant states, in effect, that the Letter of Reprimand is not based on any solid evidence that he engaged in prohibited conduct.  He contends that he did not engage in any sexual relations with either woman.  He also states that the punishment he received as a result of his nonjudicial punishment exceeded the level of misconduct.  He claims that there is no excuse for his actions but the circumstances surrounding his actions should be taken into account.  He states that the violation resulted from the pain, distress, and confusion he was suffering from after learning that his fiancé was calling off their wedding and was having an affair with another Soldier.      

4.  The applicant provides a statement, dated 17 July 2006, with 17 enclosures outlined in his statement; and a letter, dated 13 July “ZDDD.” 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a staff sergeant deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

2.  On 7 April 1999, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for conduct which departed from the standards of conduct expected of a noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army Military Police Corps.  (The Office of the Provost Marshal reviewed various allegations that the applicant had consensual sexual relations with two married women and that he visited one of these women while on patrol duty).  On 25 May 1999, the Commanding General directed that the reprimand with endorsements be placed permanently in the applicant’s OMPF, performance section. 

3.  DA Form 2627, dated 9 May 2000, shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant while he was a staff sergeant for disobeying a lawful order (he was told to refrain from attempting to contact a female in person, by phone, or through another person and he contacted 6 persons with the intent that these persons would contact the female).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 and a forfeiture of $966 per month for 2 months.  The issuing commander directed that the original DA Form 2627 be filed in the applicant's performance section of his OMPF.

4.  On 12 May 2000, the applicant appealed the punishment imposed by his commander.  On 2 June 2000, the appellate authority granted the applicant’s appeal in part by suspending the reduction to E-5.  However, since the commander did not vacate the proceedings, the Article 15 was properly filed in the applicant’s OMPF. 

5.  On 19 December 2005, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting the transfer of the DA Form 2627 and the Letter of Reprimand to his restricted section.

6.  On 12 January 2006, the DASEB voted to deny the applicant’s request to transfer of the Letter of Reprimand and the DA Form 2627 in question from the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF to the restricted portion of his OMPF.  The DASEB cited that the applicant had average duty performance records as proven by his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports dating back to 2000, that he had two instances of serious misconduct which were related and indicate he had a character/self discipline shortfall, and that he failed to provide any supporting statements from his current chain of command or imposing authority requesting to transfer these documents.  The DASEB concluded that given the pattern of misconduct, and lack of evidence indicating otherwise, it was not convinced that the DA Form 2627 and the Letter of Reprimand had served their intended purpose and that the evidence of a lack of self discipline is significant and should be reflected in the applicant’s OMPF.

7.  A review of the applicant’s performance section of his OMPF on the Personnel Electronic Records Management System revealed a copy of the Letter of Reprimand and DA Form 2627 in question.

8.  In support of his claim the applicant provided 8 letters of recommendation from his chain of command during the period 2000/2001.  In summary, they describe the applicant as professional, loyal, dedicated, trustworthy, responsible, and that he has outstanding work ethics.  

9.  He also provided 3 letters of recommendation, dated 2005, for a teaching position from his chain of command at the time in question.  In summary, they attest that the applicant has proven himself to be a highly skilled and exceptionally talented trainer of Soldiers, that he has received numerous awards and decorations for his exceptional duty performance, and that he is a professional.  One letter states that the applicant has been recognized by the Division Command Sergeant for excellence in training, that he has been commended for being an outstanding leadership role model.         

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the MPRJ (Military Personnel Records Jacket), the Career Management Individual file, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  Table 2-1 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a DA Form 2627 will be filed in the performance or restricted section of the OMPF as directed by the issuing commander (item 5 on DA Form 2627).  Table 2-1 also states that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed in the permanent section.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The letters of recommendation were noted.  However, it is noted that five of these letters reflect his character and military bearing during the period 2000/2001 and that three of the letters (dated 2005) were for recommendations for a teaching position.  There are no letters of recommendation to transfer the documents in question to the applicant’s restricted section.  

2.  The Letter of Reprimand, dated 7 April 1999, and the DA Form 2627, dated 
2 June 200, are properly filed in the applicant's military records in accordance with the governing regulation.  There is no evidence that they were improperly imposed.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request at this time. 









BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JA_____  __JP____  __EM____  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.



__James Anderholm_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060010164
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070206
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
134.0100
2.
126.0400
3.

4.

5.

6.