Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000176
Original file (20120000176.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120000176 


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, in effect, removal of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)).  He also requests the award of his first Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states he was given an Article 15 without his knowledge at the time and had no opportunity to rebut the charge made by Major F___, a visiting officer to the detachment in La Paz, Bolivia.  The major scheduled a meeting and each participant was supposed to be notified of the meeting.  However, he was not personally notified of any such meeting and therefore did not attend.

3.  At the time of his discharge he requested the Army Good Conduct Medal and was informed that he would not receive one because of an Article 15 regarding the meeting with Major F___.  He feels this action was totally unjustified.

4.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 February 1963 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72B (Communications Center Specialist).

3.  He was assigned to Communications Detachment 1 in La Paz, Bolivia, on 6 February 1964.  He was reassigned to the Strategic Communications (STRATCOM) Facility, La Paz, Bolivia, on 1 February 1965.  He was assigned as the communications supervisor on 30 April 1965.  On 30 June 1965, he was promoted to sergeant/pay grade E-5.

4.  A DA Form 2627-1, dated 4 January 1966, shows he was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to attend the facility commander's meeting as ordered.

	a.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 4 January 1966. 
He did not demand trial by court-martial and he did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense.

	b.  On 5 January 1966, his commander imposed NJP in the form of forfeiture of $50.00 and 14 days of extra duty.

	c.  On 5 January 1966, he appealed his NJP.  He felt it was excessive for his offense.  There were two meetings scheduled for 4 January 1966 and he admittedly did not attend the morning session.  He asked his supervisor if he would cover the communications center while he attended the afternoon session. 
He received a negative reply from his supervisor.  He realized he did not comply with his commanding officer's directive, but he did make an effort to alleviate his predicament and requested this be taken into consideration upon review of the NJP.

	d.  His commander submitted a statement with his appeal.  The commander stated the meeting on 4 January 1966 was held in two identical sessions in order to avoid conflict with shift schedules.  Personnel were required to attend either session.  The commander stated the applicant admitted that he was aware of the meeting prior to 4 January, but he forgot to attend the morning session when he was off duty.

	e.  On 7 January 1966, his appeal was denied.

5.  While assigned to the STRATCOM Facility in Bolivia, he received a conduct rating of "good."

6.  On 23 February 1966, he was released from active duty.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.  His DD Form 214 does not show he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

7.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 states that NJP is imposed to correct misconduct as a result of intentional disregard of or failure to comply with prescribed standards of military conduct in violation of the UCMJ.  NJP may be set aside or removed upon a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, a clear injustice has resulted.

	a.  A commander will personally exercise discretion in the NJP process by:

		(1)  evaluating the case to determine whether proceedings under Article 15 should be initiated,

		(2)  determining whether the Soldier committed the offense(s) where Article 15 proceedings are initiated and the Soldier does not demand trial by court-martial, and

		(3)  determining the amount and nature of any punishment if punishment is appropriate.

	b.  When NJP is imposed under Article 15, UCMJ, all action taken, including notification, acknowledgements, imposition, appeal, action on appeal, or any other action, would be recorded on a DA Form 2627.  The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance section or the restricted section of the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) will be made by the imposing commander at the time NJP is imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by any superior authority.  However, the superior authority cannot direct filing an Article 15 in the performance section when the imposing commander directed filing it in the restricted section.

	c.  The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance or restricted portions of the AMHRR will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.

	d.  Application for removal of a DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's AMHRR based on an error or injustice will be made to the ABCMR.  It further states there must be compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly-completed, facially-valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's record by the ABCMR.

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period was each 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ended with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.

9.  The Manual for Courts-Martial Table of Maximum Punishments, in effect at the time, shows the maximum punishment for failure to go to an appointed place of duty is:

* forfeiture of two-thirds of pay for 1 month
* confinement not to exceed 1 month

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he was given an Article 15 without his knowledge and he had no opportunity to rebut the charge.  However, the evidence shows he was notified of his commander's intention to impose NJP on 4 January 1966.  In addition, he appealed his NJP and provided a statement admitting he did not attend the meeting on 4 January 1966.

2.  While he felt the NJP imposed was harsh for the offense, he could have received much worse if he had been referred to a court-martial.

3.  He had been promoted to sergeant, a position of authority and responsibility.  In promoting the applicant to sergeant, the Army reposed special trust and confidence in his patriotism, valor, fidelity, and professional excellence.  As a leader who is supposed to provide a good example for his subordinates, his conduct was clearly prejudicial to good order and discipline.

4.  It is reasonable to conclude the officer imposing the applicant's NJP exercised discretion in the NJP process based on the applicant's offense and considered any mitigating factors and factors raised to cast doubt on the applicant's guilt.  The record establishes the commander determined the evidence was sufficient to find the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5.  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law, and regulations, the Article 15 was appropriately issued and filed in the applicant's AMHRR.  There is no evidence of error or injustice.  There is insufficient clear and compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly-completed, facially-valid DA Form 2627 from his AMHRR.

6.  He did not meet the requirement of having all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings for eligibility for the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He received a conduct rating of "good" from the STRATCOM Facility, Bolivia.  Therefore, he is not eligible for the award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

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 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)                                         AR20120000176



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120000176



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004691

    Original file (20130004691.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he received a conduct rating of "Gd" (Good) during the period 30 April 1965 to 13 February 1966. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service. Although he contends he was never given an opportunity to rebut the NJP offense, evidence shows he appealed the NJP on 5 January 1966.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012540

    Original file (20150012540.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction to her record to remove a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), from the restricted folder of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the official military personnel file (OMPF)). b. Paragraph 3-37a states the original DA Form 2627 will include allied documents, such as all written statements and other documentary evidence considered by the imposing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017665

    Original file (20130017665.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests: * removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 13 February 2007, belonging to another Soldier from his records located on the integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) * removal of two DA Forms 2627, dated 20 January 2007 and 13 August 2007, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * in the alternative, transfer of the Article 15 filed in the performance folder...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004527

    Original file (20120004527.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, removal of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 23 November 1966, from his Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). a. Paragraph 11 states that Army personnel attached to or embarked in a vessel could not demand a trial by court-martial in lieu of NJP. __________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015147

    Original file (20120015147.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests: * reinstatement of the applicant's rank/grade to specialist (SPC)/E-4 retroactive to the date of reduction with full back pay and allowances * removal of all documents referencing his administrative separation from the service from his records * removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) from his records 2. NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders whom the imposing commander determines...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006958

    Original file (20130006958.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 1 October 2004, from the restricted section of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). It further states that there must be clear and compelling evidence to support removal of a properly-completed, facially-valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's record by the ABCMR. The imposing commander directed filing the Article 15 in the restricted section...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106518C070208

    Original file (2004106518C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Captain F___ imposed the punishment and directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the applicant's restricted fiche. 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. He provides...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008409

    Original file (20130008409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 8 December 2009, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File, or transfer of the DA Form 2627 from the performance section to the restricted section of his AMHRR. The evidence of record confirms the commander administering the Article 15 proceedings determined the applicant committed the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013380

    Original file (20130013380.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests setting aside of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)), dated 8 August 2011. Moreover, the evidence of record shows the TDS attorney provided a memorandum to the battalion commander requesting consideration of specific matters when reviewing the applicant's Article 15. b. However, the evidence of record shows the applicant's TDS attorney for the appeal provided a memorandum to the brigade commander requesting...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009709

    Original file (20130009709.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), be removed from: * the performance and restricted folders of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * all civilian law enforcement databases 2. NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who...