IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 22 January 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018949
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 removal of a document titled "UNFAVORABLE INFORMATION OF WHICH THE MEMBER CONCERNED HAD PRIOR OFFICIAL KNOWLEDGE" with an effective date 8 March 2007. (Note: The interactive Personnel Electronics Record Management System (iPERMS) entry of this title is not a single document but a series of documents related to his permanent disqualification under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).)
2. The applicant states he did not go back in the program because he had permanent change of station (PCS) orders within 45 days. Also, his evidence wasnt available to him until after the required date.
3. The applicant provides a copy of a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 24 February 2007.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant, now a staff sergeant, initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 October 2001.
2. On 23 February 2007, the applicant, then a sergeant, had an altercation with his wife in base housing that resulted in him grabbing her and shoving her out of the housing unit.
3. On 28 February 2007, his command notified him that he was being processed for permanent disqualification from the PRP, in accordance with Army Regulation 50-5 (Nuclear and Chemical Weapons and Materiel - Nuclear Surety). The certifying official stated he felt the applicant was no longer qualified to perform PRP duties based on the Simple Assault charges stemming from the 23 February 2007 incident with his spouse.
4. On 28 February 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Notification of Intent to Permanently Disqualify him under the PRP. He indicated he would be submitting a written explanation/rebuttal not later than 6 March 2007.
5. On 8 March 2007, based on the applicant's failure to submit a statement, the certifying official stated he felt his decision to permanently disqualify the applicant from the PRP was still valid and referred the case to the reviewing official.
6. On 8 March 2007, the reviewing official approved the permanent disqualification.
7. On 27 March 2007, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for simple assault for the incident. His punishment was reduction to specialist (E-4) and forfeiture of $989.00 pay for one month. Both were suspended but were automatically vacated on 26 May 2007.
8. The 24 February 2007 document submitted by the applicant relates to the charge of simple assault. His wife clarified that although the applicant had grabbed her and pushed her, he had not struck her. At no time did she feel threatened by her husband and believed the incident was blown out of proportion
9. Army Regulation 50-5, paragraph 2-30 states when the certifying official determines that an individual does not meet the reliability standards of this chapter, the certifying official will terminate access to nuclear reactor facilities, special nuclear material, and positive control material, remove the individual from nuclear duties, and permanently disqualify the individual from the PRP. The certifying official will advise the individual in writing, within 15 working days, of the determination, to include the reasons for initiating permanent disqualification procedures and the requirement for review by the reviewing official. This written notification will cite specific circumstances that support the certifying officials decision to disqualify.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. On 23 February 2007, the applicant and his wife were involved in a domestic dispute that resulted in the applicant shoving her out of their base housing unit. This in turn resulted in his receipt of an NJP and the PRP disqualification.
2. In order to warrant a reversal of PRP disqualification, the processing of the disqualification must be shown to have been flawed or that it was unjust nor disproportionate to the alleged cause for the disqualification.
3. The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence to show the action that resulted in both the NJP and the PRP disqualification was improper or inappropriate.
4. Based on the above facts and finding no relief is warranted.
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) AR20140018949
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018949
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004917
On 15 August 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for abuse of alcohol, and its effect. He was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 13 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011026
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 12 September 1978, for 4 years.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2010-03242
The Squadron Commander advised him that she would be recommending his separation from the Air Force. After thoroughly conducting our independent review of the evidence of record, to include the responses to the applicant’s two separate IG complaints, and noting his contentions, we are not persuaded that he was discharged based on his permanent PRP decertification. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the decision to discharge him was based on a force management decision rendered by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072881C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: It states, in pertinent part, that the Enlistment Bonus is an enlistment incentive offered to those enlisting in the Regular Army for duty in a specific MOS. Army Regulation 601-280 sets forth the basic authority for the Army Enlistment Program for all military personnel of the Active Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004933
In a memorandum, dated 13 January 1989, the applicant was advised by a general officer that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty because of substandard performance of duty, as evidenced by his release from the 60th Ordnance Company due to unsatisfactory performance, his permanent disqualification from the PRP, and his inability to separate his personal life from his professional life. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 November 1987 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (personality disorder). It indicates that "personality disorder” is the appropriate narrative reason for discharge when the authority is "AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13."
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01968
As a result of the surgery, the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certifying official permanently decertified the applicant from PRP duties. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the DPSFM advisory confirms that there was no definitive policy or guidance concerning LASIK surgery for Space and Missile Operators. The evidence of record...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01484
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 26, Separation Code, JHF and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction be corrected to accurately reflect his characterization of service. Only after he completed these final evaluations and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073824C070403
Army Regulation 611-201 provides the enlisted MOS structure for the Army and provides the qualifications and training necessary for award of the applicable ASI for each MOS. The regulation outlines the criteria for award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL) and provides, in pertinent part, that the GCMDL is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service. Although there is no evidence in the available records to show that he was awarded the ASI of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04595
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04595 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her removal from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and subsequent security clearance and weapons handling disqualification be removed from her records. SGPS further states at the time of her separation the applicant was found disqualified for...