APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, from 2 November 1995 be transferred from his performance fiche to his restricted fiche.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the purpose of the NJP has been served.  His service since that time has been exemplary as evidenced by subsequent evaluations and commendations and awards.  Its presence on his performance fiche could now be restricting his potential to serve the Army in a higher capacity.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 12 September 1963.  He enlisted on 29 April 1981 and has served on continuous active service since that time.  He was promoted to E-6 on 1 September 1995.

On 2 November 1995, while assigned to Fort Polk, LA, the applicant received NJP for operating a passenger car while drunk.  He had submitted matters in defense, extenuation and/or mitigation and requested individuals speak on his behalf.  The officer imposing punishment directed that the record be filed on the performance fiche of his Official Military Performance File (OMPF).  The applicant did not appeal the NJP.

Since receiving that NJP, the applicant has been awarded the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal and has received a Certificate of Achievement.

The three non-commissioned officer evaluation reports the applicant submits in support of his application show him to be an average soldier.  The raters have given him a total of four “Excellence” ratings and 11 “Success” performance ratings; two “Fully Capable” and one “Among the Best” potential ratings.

The applicant appealed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for transfer of his NJP to his restricted fiche.  On 27 December 1997, the DASEB recommended the applicant’s appeal be denied, stating the record shows he denied responsibility for the misconduct cited when confronted by his chain of command.  The DASEB is concerned that the appellant         side-steps the issue of responsibility in his current appeal and expresses no remorse for potentially fatal misconduct.

Army Regulation 27-10 provides that the officer imposing NJP was to determine whether the report of NJP (DA Form 2627) was to be filed on the individual’s restricted or performance fiche.  In making a filing determination, he 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 and the fact that the filing decision is not subject to direct appeal.  The interests of the Army are compelling when the record of nonjudicial punishment reflects …substantial breach of military discipline.  In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance fiche.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error.

2.  The subject NJP was neither unjust or disproportionate to the offense involved.  The imposing commander directed that the NJP be filed on the applicant performance fiche, considering it a matter of substantial breach of military discipline.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director