Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006450
Original file (20080006450.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  20 May 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006450 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) imposed on 4 June 1996, and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 14 June 1996, be removed from the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

2.  The applicant states that he feels the presence of these documents in the restricted portion of his OMPF are keeping him from being promoted to master sergeant.  He contends that all 23 documents pertain to the same incident which occurred 12 years ago.  He also points out that these documents were previously located in the performance section of his OMPF for a period of 11 years and have served their purpose.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted on 21 August 1987 and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  He is currently serving on active duty in the rank of sergeant first class.

2.  A DA Form 2627, dated 4 June 1996, shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for resisting apprehension in Turkey on 29 April 1996, drunk driving on 29 April 1996, and drunk and disorderly conduct on 
29 April 1996.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5.  The issuing commander directed that the original DA Form 2627 be filed in the performance fiche of the applicant’s OMPF.

3.  On 14 June 1996, the applicant received a GOMOR for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 29 April 1996 in Turkey.  The Commanding General directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

4.  On 29 June 2007, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting that the Article 15 imposed on 4 June 1996 and the 14 June 1996 GOMOR be removed from his OMPF.  

5.  On 19 July 2007, the DASEB voted to approve the transfers of the Article 15 imposed on 4 June 1996 and the 14 June 1996 GOMOR from the performance portion to the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  

6.  A review of the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF on the Personnel Electronic Records Management System revealed a copy of the DA Form 2627 imposed on 4 June 1996 and the 14 June 1996 GOMOR in question.  The restricted section of his OMPF also contains his appeal to the DASEB and the DASEB’s action (a total of 23 documents).    

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the 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).  Allied documents accompanying the Article 15 will be filed in the restricted section.  Table 2-1 of the regulation also provides, in pertinent part, that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed in the performance section.  

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 states, in pertinent part, that disciplinary information filed on the restricted portion of the OMPF will be provided to the Command Sergeant Major (CSM/sergeant major (SGM) promotion, SGM Academy selection, and CSM/SGM retention boards to ensure the best qualified Soldiers are selected for these positions of highest trust.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence that the DA Form 2627 or the GOMOR were improperly imposed.  The DA Form 2627 imposed on 4 June 1996 and the 14 June 1996 GOMOR were properly filed in the performance section of the applicant’s OMPF and then subsequently transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF as directed by the DASEB on 19 July 2007.  

2.  The applicant is currently a sergeant first class.  His desire to have a 12-year old Article 15 and GOMOR removed from his files for promotion purposes is understandable.  However, the restricted portion of his OMPF would not normally be provided to an E-8 selection board and so should not affect the chances for his next promotion.  His subsequent promotions attest to the Article 15 and GOMOR having served their purpose.  However, driving under the influence of alcohol is an extremely serious offense.  Promotion and school selection board members are experienced and capable of distinguishing between one youthful indiscretion and a "problem" record of service.  In the event a selection choice comes down between two Soldiers with an equal record of service, all information properly filed on an OMPF must be available to board members in order to equitably make their selection choice.  Given the above and the fact the Article 15 and the GOMOR were properly filed on his OMPF, and subsequently transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF as directed by the DASEB, it would not be equitable to remove the Article 15 or the GOMOR from the applicant's restricted fiche.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__xxx___  ___xxx__  __xxx___  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.


       _    __xxx__   ___
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006450





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006450



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061379C070421

    Original file (2001061379C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his August 1991 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). The 25 January 1990 edition of Army Regulation 27-10, which establishes the policies and provisions for the filing of DA Forms 2627, states that records of nonjudicial punishment for soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment files. b. by expunging all documents...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011755C070208

    Original file (20040011755C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated that sometime in 2002 or 2003, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) granted that all the NJPs be transferred to his Restricted Fiche. The evidence of record shows the Army Review Boards Agency in St. Louis transferred the applicant's Article 15 imposed on 17 October 1987 to the restricted portion of his OMPF without board action. There is no evidence of record which shows that any of the Article 15s were filed on his restricted fiche in error.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016908C070206

    Original file (20050016908C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Jeanette McCants | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance portion (P-fiche).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011754C070206

    Original file (20050011754C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, because the promotion boards can see his restricted fiche, the GOMOR has prevented him from being selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7. Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, serves as the authority for the conduct of selection boards. Promotion boards for selection to the pay grades of E-7 and E-8 are not routinely provided information from the restricted fiche of eligible Soldiers.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009850C071113

    Original file (20070009850C071113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 5 of this document also show that the commander directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF. Table 2-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that approved requests for the release of documents in the restricted section of the OMPF will be filed in the restricted section of the OMPF. The evidence of record shows that, with the exception of the command sergeant major/sergeant major selection and retention boards, HQDA enlisted selection boards...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084609C070212

    Original file (2003084609C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her 18 November 1986 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and her removal as a Drill Sergeant Candidate, filed on the restricted (R) fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), be expunged from her records. In support of her case, she submits a physician's recommendation for her return to Drill Sergeant Duty, a reinstatement authorization for the Drill Sergeant Program and orders awarding her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013556

    Original file (20070013556.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of Record of Proceedings under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (DA Form 2627), dated 6 June 2000, from the restricted fiche (R-fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). It states, in pertinent part, that the imposing commander will ensure that the soldier is notified of the commander's intention to dispose of the matter under the provisions of Article 15. It states, in pertinent part, applications for removal of an Article 15...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084425C070212

    Original file (2003084425C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 2002, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) approved the transfer of the applicant's GOMOR from the performance portion of his OMPF to the restricted portion based upon intent served. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003496

    Original file (20090003496.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 20 August 1984 and 14 May 1991, be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). Subsequently, the applicant elected not to appeal punishment and the imposing commander directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF. The evidence of record confirms that there are two 20 August 1984 DA Forms 2627...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025116

    Original file (20110025116.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. As a result of his reprimand and RFC OER he was not selected for battalion commander or promoted to colonel. [The applicant] was relieved of his duties as company commander because of his refusal to follow the orders of his battalion commander and his insubordinate belligerent behavior in the presence of his subordinates, peers and a superior officer. The CSM believes the battalion commander's decision to relieve the applicant was an impulsive act and a reflection of the battalion...