IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 June 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090001028 


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 the following documents be removed from her official military personnel file (OMPF):  Department of the Army (DA) Appointment Letter [APPT LTR], effective 2006-11-27; Application for Appointment [DA Form 61], Application for Active Duty [DA Form 160]; and Transcript of Credit for Civilian College/University/Trade/Business Schools [TRNSCPTS], effective 2003-06-23.

2.  The applicant states the DA Appointment Letter, the DA Form 160, and the DA Form 61 are filed in her OMPF in error.  She states she is not a warrant officer and has no desire to become a warrant officer.  She states the transcripts effective 23 June 2006 are inaccurate and should be removed because they will be replaced with her current transcripts.

3.  The applicant provides copies of correspondence with Personnel Electronic Records Management System Operations Control, U.S. Army Soldier Record Data Center, Indianapolis, in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military personnel records show she reenlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 2008 in pay grade E-6 for a period of 6 years.  She had previously completed 8 years and 11 days of active service.  She is currently assigned in the military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

2.  On 1 January 2005, the applicant was promoted to staff sergeant/pay grade E-6.
3.  On 27 November 2006, the applicant completed and signed a DA Form 61 for appointment as a warrant officer in the U.S. Army Reserve.  There is no evidence in the applicant's OMPF that her application for warrant officer one was approved.

4.  On 27 November 2006, the applicant also completed and signed a DA Form 160-R for 6 years of active duty if appointed as a warrant officer one.  There is no evidence of the final determination of this request.

5.  The document entitled APPT LTR, effective 27 November 2006, contains two documents, one of which is a Statement of Understanding for Appointment as a Warrant Officer signed by the applicant and dated 27 November 2006.  The other document is a Warrant Officer Application Checklist.  These documents appear to be a part of her application for appointment to warrant officer one.

6.  On 28 February 2008, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-6.

7.  The document named TRNSCPTS contains transcripts issued 30 September 2004 from Hawaii Pacific University.

8.  Correspondence from the U.S. Army Soldier Record Data Center directed the applicant to apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in order to remove the documents she requested from her OMPF.

9.  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.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF), in the case of a DA Form 61, that only those applications that are approved are filed in the OMPF.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in Table 2-1, that the DA Form 160 is only filed in the OMPF when accompanied by correspondence showing final determination of the request.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in Table 2-1, that for enlisted personnel, all transcripts will be filed in the Commendatory and Disciplinary portion of the OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence in the applicant's OMPF that her application for warrant officer one was approved.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 states that only approved DA Forms 61 are to be filed in the OMPF.  The fact that the applicant reenlisted in pay grade E-6 within 15 months of the date of application would indicate that she was not approved for appointment to warrant officer one.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence showing her application to warrant officer one was approved, it is appropriate to remove this form from her OMPF.

2.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 states the DA Form 160 is only filed in the OMPF when accompanied by correspondence showing final determination of the request.  There is no evidence of the final determination of the DA Form 160.  Therefore, it is appropriate to remove the DA Form 160 from her OMPF.

3.  The documents contained in the DA Appointment Letter, effective 27 November 2006, appear to be a part of the application for appointment to warrant officer one that was signed on 27 November 2006.  Therefore, in view of the removal of the DA Form 61, it is appropriate to also remove these documents.

4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides that all transcripts for enlisted personnel will be filed in the Commendatory and Disciplinary portion of the OMPF.  The applicant contends the transcripts, effective 23 June 2003, are inaccurate.  However, she has not indicated what the error or injustice is.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the transcripts with an effective date of 23 June 2003 are considered to be properly filed in the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the following documents from the applicant's OMPF:

	a.  both documents in APPT LTR, effective 2006-11-27;

	b.  document "DA 61"; and

	c.  document "DA 160."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the removal of TRNSCPTS, effective 2003-06-23.



      __________X_______________
       	     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)                                         AR20090001028



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090001028



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1