1.  The applicant requests that the letter of reprimand he received in 1988 and the Article 15 he received in 1987 be transferred from the performance section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to his restricted fiche.  He states, in effect, that these actions were injustices done to him.  A board of officers did recommend that he be retained on active duty.

2.  The applicant’s military records show he was initially inducted into the Army on 16 April 1965 and was honorably separated on or about 30 August 1968.  He then entered the U.S. Army Reserve, was voluntarily ordered to active duty on 19 November 1979 and entered the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program on     30 September 1980.

3.  On 7 October 1987, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a general regulation by failing to properly perform the end-of-the-day security check and for being derelict in the performance of duty by failing to provide for the repair of a damaged security container.

4.  On 15 March 1988, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for being derelict in the performance of his duties by knowingly processing a fraudulent pay voucher and signing the signature of two persons to official finance and personnel documents without their permission.  He rebutted the charges, stating, in effect, he had permission to sign such documents and the pay voucher was not fraudulent.  His lieutenant colonel commander directed the letter be filed in his OMPF.  (The letter and its allied documents are also already filed in his restricted fiche.)

5.  Sometime in 1988, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 14, Misconduct, Army Regulation 635-200.  (The separation packet is not available.)  A board of officers considered the case and recommended that he be retained on active duty.  On 21 November 1988, the appropriate authority approved this recommendation.

6.  On 25 April 1994, the applicant received a Department of the Army Qualitative Management (DA QMP) bar to reenlistment.  (The supporting documentation giving the reasons for the bar is not available.)  The applicant appealed the QMP bar (the appeal is not available) and supported his appeal with three letters of recommendation from two lieutenant colonels and one major general.  After careful review of the total record and supporting documents, Headquarters, DA approved his appeal and removed the DA bar to reenlistment.

7.  The applicant’s non-commissioned officer evaluation reports (NCO-ERs) have been mostly above average to excellent, the most recent version of the NCO-ER being mostly “success” with a good number of “excellent” ratings.  His NCO-ER for the period covering both the Article 15 and the letter of reprimand gave him a total of 123 out of 125 points.

8.  Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  In pertinent part, it states that commanding officers have authority to give admonitions or reprimands either as an administrative measure or as non-judicial punishment.  A commander’s decision whether to file a record of non-judicial punishment on the performance fiche of a soldier’s OMPF is as important as the decision relating to the imposition of    non-judicial punishment itself.  The 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

10.  Chapter 14 further states that retention should be considered only in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interest of the Army.

11.  Army Regulation 640-10 states that upon approval of a QMP appeal, the approval document and allied papers will be filed on the restricted fiche and the QMP letter will be transferred to the restricted fiche.

12.  The applicant is currently still in the AGR program.

CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  This Board cannot know the complete circumstances behind the commander giving the applicant the Article 15 or the letter of reprimand.  From the timing of the Chapter 14 action, it seems apparent that the letter of reprimand triggered it. However, the board then certainly considered the letter and the Article 15 in its deliberations and determined either that they were not sufficient cause to separate him for misconduct or that there were reasonable doubts as to their propriety.  In either case, the board recommended the applicant be retained on active duty.

2.  This Board does not know HQDA’s full reasons for imposing a QMP bar to reenlistment on the applicant.  The Article 15 and the letter of reprimand almost certainly were considered.  The applicant successfully appealed his bar despite having these derogatory documents on file.  Once the appeal was approved, the QMP letter should have been transferred to his restricted fiche.

3.  Since the applicant successfully overcame two major obstacles to his continued career that were triggered, at least in part, by these two derogatory documents, this Board acknowledges that there is reasonable doubt as to the justice of their having been imposed in the first place.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  transferring the Article 15 and its continuation sheet and the QMP letter from the applicant’s performance fiche (located on fiches 01, 04 and 05) to the restricted section of his OMPF; and

     b.  deleting the letter of reprimand and its allied documents from the applicant’s performance fiche (located on fiches 01 and 04).

2.  That the records of the individual concerned be made available to the next scheduled Standby Advisory Board for promotion consideration to MSG under the 1995, 1996 and 1997 criteria after the above corrections are made.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

			                                                                         				 	                                    CHAIRPERSON