IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013843 


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 correction of her record by:

	a.  Setting aside the punishment imposed upon her under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 4 April 2011.

	b.  Restoration of her rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 to her original date of rank (DOR) of 1 June 2007.

	c.  Removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) and all associated derogatory documentation for the aforementioned punishment from the performance portion of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states her requested actions are based on the fact that she disputes each of the charges for which she was found guilty.  She contends that she:

* did not willfully disobey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) by failing to meet a suspense
* was not derelict in the performance of her duties
* did not render a false official statement with intent to deceive by modifying her service personnel record

3.  The applicant provides:

* Self-authored memorandum addressed to the Board
* DA Form 2627
* Commander's inquiry and associated proceedings
* DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard)
* DA Form 5790 (Record Firing Scorecard - Scaled Target Alternate Course)
* Several DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement)
* Several Memoranda for Record
* Enlisted Record Brief (ERB)
* Two DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER))
* DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Personnel Favorable Actions (FLAG))
* Social Security card
* DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER))
* Two Army Commendation Medal Certificates
* Response to a Congressional Inquiry
* Several DA Forms 1594 (Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer's Log)
* Email correspondence

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1995.  She completed initial entry training and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31L (subsequently converted to MOS 25L) (Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer).  At a later date, she received additional training and she was awarded primary MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist) and ultimately MOS 42A (Human Resources Specialist).  She has continuously served on active duty through a series of reenlistments and various assignments in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Korea.  She also deployed to Afghanistan for 1 year in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

2.  The applicant's record contains a memorandum rendered by the Commander, U.S. Army Element, Headquarters, U.S. Pacific Command (HQ, USPACOM), Camp Smith, HI, on 4 December 2007.  The purpose of this memorandum was to deny award of the Army Good Conduct Medal to the applicant for the period 14 October 2004 to 13 October 2007.  The commander stated the basis of this denial was the applicant's marginal performance, questionable integrity, and indebtedness while assigned to HQ, USPACOM from 7 July 2004 to 31 October 2007.  He further stated the applicant's performance declined and her last two 

NCOERs clearly indicated this.  Supporting comments from her rater indicated she had disregard for orders and she had become untrustworthy.  On several occasions the applicant presented misleading, sometimes false statements to her supervisor regarding personal (off-duty) activities and those of her family members resulting in General Officer involvement in her affairs.  It got to the point that the command had to take sworn written statements in order to get accurate information from her.  Furthermore, she was evicted from government housing due to family member misconduct.  The command also received numerous letters of indebtedness on her.  The commander concluded the applicant failed to meet the expectations of an NCO during the rating period.  She was not loyal to her supervisors, nor did she exemplify herself in a manner that distinguished her from her fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.  A copy of this document was furnished to the applicant at the time.

3.  On 15 December 2009, the applicant was counseled by her battalion command sergeant major (CSM) for disobeying a direct verbal order from the CSM and failing to prioritize her work in order to meet established suspenses.  The CSM advised the applicant that if her substandard performance continued, action may be initiated to separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).  The applicant agreed with the counseling and the corrective actions that the CSM instructed her to implement.

4.  On 13 January 2010, the applicant's battalion commander appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) to conduct an investigation under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) of the circumstances surrounding the applicant in falsifying official personnel records, input of false information into military database systems, and any other associated misconduct deriving from this investigation.  An investigation was conducted that resulted in the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the IO:

	a.  Findings:

		(1)  The applicant had ERBs, dated 9 April 2010 and 8 January 2011, that indicated an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) score of 230 in spite of the fact that she could only execute one event of the APFT and receive a maximum score of 180.  The applicant's ERB also reflected successful completion of the Unit Prevention Leaders (UPL) course, a course she admitted she did not attend. The applicant had accessed and updated her own ERB on 45 different occasions during the period 21 August to 22 December 2010 and she failed to correct this deficiency by restoring the proper data.
		(2)  The applicant admitted to updating her own records and that she knew it was not authorized to do so due to the questionability of the practice.  The applicant's electronic Military Personnel Office (eMILPO) transaction report also showed she had updated her own records on numerous occasions.

		(3)  The applicant started to make corrections to her ERB to reflect factual information once the chain of command started to raise questions about her activities.  Evidence showed she accessed the system database and deleted the UPL course from her ERB.

		(4)  Despite being a Human Resources Specialist for over 9 years, the applicant stated she needed to use her own record on 45 different occasions from 21 August to 22 December 2010 to help train herself.

	b.  Conclusions:  Based upon the evidence found in the investigation, the IO concluded the applicant knowingly and willfully altered her own records to reflect incorrect information.  The applicant was aware that the practice of altering her own records as a Human Resources Specialist is viewed as questionable and unethical.  Despite the fact the applicant worked with two other competent NCOs who could have shown her how to do whatever she needed to do, she chose to not only update her own records, she also used her own records for "training."  The applicant began making changes to her own record prior to consideration of her records by an upcoming centralized sergeant first class (SFC) promotion selection board.

	c.  Recommendation:  Based upon the findings of the investigation the IO recommended the applicant receive punishment under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as directed by the chain of command.

5.  A legal review of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was conducted by the Brigade Judge Advocate and it was found to be legally sufficient.  It was determined the proceedings complied with legal requirements, the IO's findings were supported by evidence, and his recommendations were consistent with the findings.  As a result, the applicant's battalion commander approved the findings and recommendations of the IO and indicated he intended to pursue nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of the applicant in the form of a Field Grade Article 15.

6.  On 28 January 2010, the applicant was counseled by her battalion CSM for numerous deficiencies that had been found in her office during the preceding 2 weeks.

	a.  The CSM reminded the applicant that as the NCO in charge (NCOIC), she was overall responsible for overseeing the day-to-day functions and ensuring they were being accomplished to standard and noted the following areas during her tenure had been subpar:  processing awards, processing NCOERs, managing the Unit Manning Report, issuing assignment orders, improper out-processing, managing leave control, mailroom inspection, inaccurate Unit Status Reporting, maintaining the eMILPO database, and validation of promotions.

	b.  The CSM informed the applicant there had been a complete leadership failure on her part and stated there were no systems in place to ensure the timely processing of anything within the realm of her office.  She had falsely informed the CSM on numerous occasions that everything was good to go, which gave the CSM reason to question her integrity.  The CSM informed the applicant that her dereliction of duty and incompetency had left her office in total disarray and as a result, she would no longer be directly responsible for areas within her office.  The battalion and subordinate units depended upon the applicant to ensure that Soldiers' actions were being taken care of in a timely and professional manner and this was not happening.

	c.  The CSM informed the applicant that she needed to be retrained in the aforementioned areas to show proficiency in her MOS and that her new NCOIC would be responsible for getting her to the level of proficiency commensurate with her rank and grade.  The CSM also informed the applicant she would be rated in a lower skill level position until she showed improvement.  Should she not show improvement, the CSM would consider requesting an administrative reduction board.

	d.  Once again, the CSM advised the applicant that if her substandard performance continued, action may be initiated to separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant disagreed with the counseling and contended she knew she was qualified to perform at the SSG/E-6 level.  She attested she trusted her subordinates to do their jobs and they failed.  She further contended she could only brief information that had been briefed to her.  She concluded she was loyal to the battalion and her integrity should not be doubted.

7.  On 26 March 2010, the applicant was counseled by her NCOIC for failing to track accurate deployment numbers that resulted in causing the Personnel Status (PERSTAT) report to be incorrect and the task force not having proper accountability of its personnel and their locations.  The NCOIC noted multiple sources at brigade and both task forces had reported the applicant would rather socialize, shop, and had spent 5 hours using a military vehicle to get furniture built for her room.  The NCOIC advised the applicant that if her substandard performance continued, she could be subjected to NJP under the provisions of 

Article 15 of the UCMJ or action could be initiated to separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant disagreed with the counseling and contended the NCOIC had been provided inaccurate information.  She contended she had borrowed the vehicle to relocate her furniture because someone else had taken occupancy of her room and she needed to relocate.  She also used the vehicle to pick up things for other people who did not have transportation and it did not take 5 hours for her to return the vehicle.  She further contended that she could only brief information that had been briefed to her.  She said she would like to accept her mistakes and move on.  She concluded she would minimize her socializing and concentrate more on the performance of her work and becoming a better Soldier.

8.  On 14 April 2010, the applicant was issued an administrative Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) from her battalion commander for dereliction of her duties between 24 July 2009 and 13 January 2010.  The commander specifically cited her failing to keep accurate personnel status reports of deployed Soldiers, improperly slotting Soldiers in the eMILPO database, improperly in/outprocessing Soldiers as they arrived/departed, improperly processing awards and NCOERs; incorrectly processing leave forms and flags, failing to meet multiple suspense dates, and failing to follow proper procedures for validating promotions.  The commander stated these actions had caused multiple Soldiers to be improperly promoted and created a state of confusion and disarray in the Task Force personnel office.  The commander further reprimanded the applicant for her disturbing lack of professionalism, maturity and judgment.  He stated her failure to properly execute her duties had betrayed the confidence and trust of her chain of command; it was inexcusable and would not be tolerated in the future.

9.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the MOR wherein she attested she had not been informed that she was receiving an MOR prior to its issuance, which was an example of the poor communication within the organization.  She further attested that she worked long and hard hours in order to accomplish the mission and take care of Soldiers.  She acknowledged that there were problems within her office, but essentially contended her section's shortcomings and missed suspenses could be attributed to being under-staffed and the failure of her subordinates to properly execute their responsibilities and provide her with accurate information.  She trusted her people to do their jobs and was unaware of all of the problems.  Her battalion commander reviewed the MOR, her rebuttal, and the chain of command recommendations.  After careful consideration, he directed the reprimand be filed in the applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).

10.  Her record contains (and she also provides) a DA Form 2627 that shows on 4 April 2011, having been afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel and understanding her rights, she elected to accept NJP under the provisions of Article 15, for violating:

	a.  Article 91, UCMJ by failing to obey a lawful order from her CSM to ensure a report was completed and available for the Battalion Commander's signature by an established suspense;

	b.  Article 92, UCMJ by being derelict in the performance of her duties by willfully failing to provide proper supervision to her subordinates, failing to keep accurate personnel status reports of deployed Soldiers, improperly slotting Soldiers in the eMILPO database, improperly in/outprocessing Soldiers as they arrived/departed, improperly processing awards and NCOERs; incorrectly processing leave forms and flags, failing to meet multiple suspense dates, and failing to follow proper procedures for validating promotions; and

	c.  Article 92, UCMJ by entering divers false statements into the eMILPO database with intent to deceive.

11.  The following punishment was imposed:

	a.  reduction to sergeant (SGT)/E-5;

	b.  forfeiture of $1,482 pay; suspended , to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 5 May 2011;

	c.  extra duty for 45 days; and

	d.  issuance of an oral reprimand.

12.  The applicant appealed and submitted additional matters.  Having been reviewed by the command legal office, and after consideration of all matters presented in the appeal, the appropriate authority denied her appeal.

13.  Review of the applicant's DA Forms 2166-8 for the period ending 31 May 2007, 31 August 2007, and 27 March 2009 revealed the following negative entries and comments:

	a.  Part IV - Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions (Rater).  "No" block checks for "Selfless Service," "Honor," and "Integrity" with following comments:

* "on several occasions, Soldier was deficient in keeping her chain of command informed of actions relevant to her duties"
* 
"made false statement to chain of command"
* "integrity is questionable"

	b.  Part IV (Rater) - Values/NCO Responsibilities.  "Needs some improvement" block checks for "Competence" and "Responsibility and Accountability" with the following comments:

* "disregard orders of supervisor"
* "unable to grasp the smallest details of assigned task; needs increase knowledge"
* "failed to comply with instructions of superiors on several occasions"

	c.  Part Vc - Senior Rater - Overall Performance "Fair" block check

	d.  Part Vd - Senior Rater - Overall Potential "Fair" block check

	e.  Part Ve - Overall Performance and Potential - Senior Rater Bullet Comments.

* "limited potential to perform a myriad of responsibilities"
* "showed lack of respect toward supervisor and Senior NCOs"
* "do not promote at this time; NCO has potential but still needs time to grow"
* "do not send to ANCOC [Advanced NCO Course] at this time until leadership skills have improved"
* "requires further mentoring and development before promoting"
* "requires constant supervision and repeated counseling when challenged with increased responsibilities"
* "recommend additional MOS training to enhance job proficiency and knowledge"

14.  The applicant submitted a self-authored memorandum addressed to the ABCMR wherein she rendered the following statements and allegations:

	a.  As a result of her Article 15 hearing she was found guilty of failing to submit a report to her battalion commander on or about 14 December 2009.  She disputes this finding based upon the facts that:

		(1)  she remained at work after hours to complete the report;

		(2)  she gave the report to the Charge of Quarters (CQ) runner for personal delivery to the office at which it was required;

		(3)  the CQ runner returned to report the office was locked and unoccupied;

		(4)  she directed the CQ runner to return to the office and slide the report under the locked door; and

		(5)  subsequent sworn statements were rendered to confirm the report was delivered in a timely manner.

	b.  As a result of her Article 15 hearing she was also found guilty of being derelict in her duties as a supervisor of the Personnel Administration Center (PAC).  She disputes this finding based upon the facts that:

		(1)  the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation indicated she had been a Human Resources Clerk for over 9 years when, in fact, she had received no formal training and she had only performed that role since she arrived at Fort Campbell in December 2007;

		(2)  aside from the Article 15 packet, there was no record of counseling in relation to poor performance of her supervisor duties and if her chain of command felt her supervision of the PAC was substandard, they should have counseled and trained her in a manner to improve;

		(3)  numerous statements (which were included as part of her initial appeal to the Article 15) were rendered by supported personnel that contained accolades regarding her performance, demeanor, and abilities; a sampling of which show she:

* provided "adequate personnel support"
* "is hard working and knows her job well"
* "kept to herself and did her job"
* was "easy to work with and motivated to accomplish her duties"
* "brought a new light to the office with her and this reflected through the smiles of her Soldiers and the customer service provided"
* "was willing to help others" and sacrificed her personal time to do so

	c.  As a result of her Article 15 hearing she was also found guilty of making a false statement on eMILPO regarding some entries on her ERB with intent to deceive.  She disputes this finding based upon her contentions that the transactions she entered into the database were intended to be temporary for the sake of training and that she had no intent to deceive.

	d.  Both her MOR and Article 15 state she is not competent to do her job as a 42A, yet she is currently working in the same position doing the same job that she was falsely accused of not being able to do and two junior Soldiers have been assigned under her supervision.  She poses the question:  If her chain of command feels she is substandard why did they entrust her with these responsibilities, the Unit Status Report, and training Soldiers instead of the other NCOs in her section?  She also wonders why she still works on the Unit Status Report (which requires a security clearance), has access to databases which require a security clearance, and was entrusted with the responsibilities of being an observer during unit drug testing in spite of the fact that her clearance has been suspended?

	e.  The punishment imposed upon her was reduction from SSG To SGT,
45 days extra duty, and forfeiture of half month's pay which was suspended.  However:

		(1)  she ended up doing 70 days of extra duty instead of 45;

		(2)  her request to attend her daughter's elementary school graduation, grandson's graduation from kindergarten, and daughter's wedding were denied;

		(3)  her life was further complicated by deployment:

* her ex-husband moved out with his girlfriend 2 weeks after she deployed, leaving her as a single parent
* her ex-husband did not pay the mortgage so her house went into foreclosure, leaving her homeless
* when she returned from deployment she only saw her five children for 1 day before they returned to Georgia with her ex-husband

		(4)  her numerous requests to be reassigned to another battalion have been denied;

		(5)  her permanent change of station reassignment to McGuire Air Force Base, NJ was cancelled due to the suspension of her security clearance and possible administrative discharge from the Army;

		(6)  upon completion of her extra duty, she requested a written counseling from her supervisor to document that all requirements pertaining to her Article 15 were satisfied, but her supervisor ignored her request and also informed her that she was not a priority to see the CSM on the Open Door policy;

		(7)  the punishment changed from professional to personal because her immediate supervisor has a vendetta against her;

		(8)  since her demotion and relief from duty as the NCOIC, the performance of her shop has deteriorated because the new NCOIC is not up to par;

		(9)  her chain of command is fully aware that the new NCOIC has been forging her signature on documents, but has not taken corrective action;

		(10)  her annual NCOER was completed, submitted, and uploaded into the system without her knowledge or signature because she was not afforded an opportunity to review or sign the document; and

		(11)  two of the adverse sworn statements included in the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation were rendered by people of questionable integrity with whom she had not interacted.

15.  The applicant provides a synopsis of her career in the Army wherein she highlighted her various duty assignments, military training, deployments, awards and decorations.  She also submitted numerous certificates and DA Forms 1059 to further corroborate her achievements.

16.  The applicant provides numerous DA Forms 2823 and memoranda rendered by her current supervisors, peers, and customers (past and present) wherein the authors favorably attest to her competence, dedication, honesty, helpfulness, and military bearing.

17.  The applicant provides a memorandum rendered by her battalion commander in response to a Congressional Inquiry on 31 October 2011.  The Battalion Commander informed the Member of Congress:

	a.  The applicant returned from deployment on 5 February 2011 and she received a Field Grade Article 15 on 4 April 2011.  The punishment for her Article 15 included reduction to SGT/E-5, forfeiture of $1,482.00 pay, 45 days of extra duty, and an oral reprimand.  The punishment took effect immediately, with her extra duty beginning on 4 April 2011 and ending on 18 May 2011.

	b.  The applicant appealed her Article 15 to the Brigade Commander, who after reviewing her appeal, agreed the punishment was appropriate for the three charges of misconduct the applicant was found guilty of on 4 April 2011.  In 

conjunction with this review, the Staff Judge Advocate also reviewed the
Article 15 and concluded all proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and the punishments imposed were neither unjust nor disproportionate.  During this process, all matters of defense, extenuation, and mitigation submitted by the applicant to the chain of command were reviewed and considered.

	c.  On 27 October 2011, the Fort Campbell Inspector General's (IG) office confirmed speaking to the applicant and referring her to the Trial Defense Service for a legal review of her Article 15 proceedings.  A detailed review of the documentation supporting the issuance of an Article 15 to the applicant on 4 April 2011 revealed that all regulations and guidelines outlined in Army Regulation
27-10 (Military Justice) regarding NJP were strictly followed.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with her defense counsel during the entire Article 15 process.

	d.  All evidence provided within the Article 15, her appeal, and the details provided by the applicant as part of this Congressional Inquiry indicate the
Article 15 and her punishment were administered justly, correctly, and in accordance with regulatory guidance.

18.  Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts-Martial.  It provides that a commander should use nonpunitive administrative measures to the fullest extent to further the efficiency of the command before resorting to NJP under the UCMJ.  Use of NJP is proper in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  If it is clear that NJP will not be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, more stringent measures must be taken.  Prompt action is essential for NJP to have the proper corrective effect.  NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier’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 less time and personnel than trial by court-martial.

	a.  Paragraph 3-6 addresses the filing of an NJP and provides, in pertinent part, that a commander’s decision whether to file a record of NJP in the performance section of a Soldier’s OMPF is as important as the decision relating to the imposition of the NJP itself.  In making a filing determination, the imposing commander must weigh carefully the interests of the Soldier’s career against 

those of the Army to produce and advance only the most qualified personnel for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility.  In this regard, the imposing commander should consider the Soldier’s age, grade, total service (with particular attention to the Soldier’s recent performance and past misconduct), and whether the Soldier has more than one record of NJP directed for filing in the restricted section.  However, the interests of the Army are compelling when the record of NJP reflects unmitigated moral turpitude or lack of integrity, patterns of misconduct, or evidence of serious character deficiency or substantial breach of military discipline.  In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance section.  

	b.  Paragraph 3-28 describes setting aside and restorations.  This is an action whereby the punishment or any part or amount, whether executed or unexecuted, is set aside and any rights, privileges, or property affected by the portion of the punishment set aside are restored.  NJP is "wholly set aside" when the commander who imposed the punishment, a successor-in-command, or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual under Article 15.  The basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice.  "Clear injustice" means that there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the Soldier.  An example of clear injustice would be the discovery of new evidence unquestionably exculpating the Soldier.

	c.  Paragraph 3-37b(2) states that for Soldiers in the rank of sergeant and above, the original will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF.  The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance section or restricted section of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by superior authority.   Additionally, records directed for filing in the restricted section will be redirected to the performance section if the Soldier has other records of NJP reflecting misconduct in the grade of SGT or higher that have not been wholly set aside and recorded in the restricted section.

	d.  Paragraph 3-43 contains guidance on the transfer or removal of DA Forms 2627 from the OMPF.  It states, in pertinent part, applications for removal of an Article 15 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the ABCMR.  It further indicates that there must be clear and compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly completed, facially valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier’s record by the ABCMR.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms that following an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, the commander administering the Article 15 proceedings determined the applicant committed the offenses in question during a closed Article 15 hearing after considering all the evidence submitted by the applicant.  By law and regulation, before finding a Soldier guilty during Article 15 proceedings, the commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Soldier committed the offenses.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial and opted for a closed
Article 15 hearing.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant accepted NJP and she was found guilty of three violations of the UCMJ.  She appealed her punishment and the higher commander acted on her appeal.  It was determined her NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show either her DA Form 2627 or her MOR is untrue or unjust.  Additionally, a review of her previous NCOERs revealed that these offenses were not isolated events.

3.  The ABCMR does not normally reexamine issues of guilt or innocence under Article 15 of the UCMJ.  This is the imposing commander’s function and it will not be upset by the ABCMR unless the commander's determination is clearly unsupported by the evidence.

4.  The applicant was provided a defense attorney, she was given the right to demand trial by court-martial, and she was afforded the opportunity to appeal her punishment through the proper channels.  The evidence submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to change the determination of guilt made by the commander.

5.  The applicant's contention that she was derelict in her duties because she should have been able to rely on her subordinates to provide her more timely and accurate information is duly noted.  However, as the NCOIC of her section, she was ultimately responsible for ensuring the timeliness and accuracy of the products and services provided.  The numerous statements of support provided by the applicant are also duly noted; however, the perception of people she associated with and/or provided services to are not sufficiently mitigating to overrule her chain of command's direct observations of her daily duty performance, her failure to comply with orders, or the fact that she intentionally entered falsified data into Army personnel databases.

6.  The basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice.  "Clear injustice" means that there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the Soldier.  There is none in her case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  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.



      __________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)                                         AR20110013843



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013843



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1