2.  The applicant requests that the Article 15 she received in April 1997 be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and she be reimbursed the $1,000.00 forfeiture she paid as punishment.  She states, in effect, she was unjustly given the Article 15 for violation of a policy that 42 other soldiers in the same unit had never seen, either.  The only reason she accepted the Article 15, which she did appeal, is that the Red Cross had sent word that her daughter in the States was ill and she was in a hurry to get home.

3.  The applicant’s military records show she enlisted in the Army on 15 January 1985.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71M (Chaplain’s Assistant).  She was promoted to Staff Sergeant on 24 April 1995.  She has no record of any other type of disciplinary actions.

4.  A unit policy memorandum dated 24 February 1997 prohibited an individual from visiting another individual in his/her room in the several barracks after 2300 hours during the weekday or 0200 on weekends.  The applicant was given an Article 15 for failing to obey this policy by wrongfully being in an officer’s quarters after the 2300 hours visitation curfew.

5.  The applicant appealed this Article 15.  She stated this was not the policy posted in the Charge of Quarters (CQ) or Staff Duty book.  It never appeared on the bulletin board nor was it announced in formation.  She included a sworn statement from 42 members of the unit who stated they did not know about the policy change.  The new policy made it the responsibility of the barracks residents to ensure their visitors complied with the visiting hours policy.  She was not the resident of the barracks which she visited.  She visited the officer’s room at such a late hour only because it was the scheduled meeting place for a birthday party for herself and one other individual and she was to be given a plaque for her work with the local Masonic organization at the party.  (The party was originally scheduled for the Warrior Club but was canceled at the last minute).  She was late arriving at the room, the party was already over, she picked up her plaque and departed.  The appeal was denied and her punishment was a forfeiture of $500 pay for two months.

6.  The applicant received a Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (DA QMP) bar to reenlistment about August 1997.  The basis for the bar was the Article 15.  She appealed the bar.  Her commander, brigade commander and commanding general supported her appeal.  On 23 March 1998, after a careful review of the bar and supporting documents, HQDA approved her appeal and removed the DA bar to reenlistment.

7.  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.

8.  In the processing of this case, an opinion was obtained from the legal advisor to this Board.  While the legal advisor stated the Article 15 appeared to be legally sufficient, he found there were equitable grounds for removing it from her files and for reimbursing the monies she had to pay as a forfeiture.  It seemed to be excessive to impose a field grade Article 15 for a first-time violation, especially for a policy which was not widely known.  Also since the visited officer was the senior of the two, if a punishment had to be meted out he should have been held solely at fault and the enlisted member been absolved of responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  There appears to be ample evidence that the applicant visited the officer’s room for a valid reason, to attend a birthday party and receive a plaque for her work with the local Masonic organization.  Through no fault of her own, she arrived after visiting hours were over.  She departed as soon as practicable thereafter.

2.  There appears to be ample evidence that the visiting hours policy, which was apparently established only two weeks earlier, had not been disseminated in a proper manner and was not widely known by the affected personnel.  In any case, the policy made the resident of the barracks, not the visitor, responsible for ensuring the policy was followed.  

3.  The applicant successfully overcame the HQDA QMP bar to reenlistment that was triggered solely by this Article 15.  

4.  This Board acknowledges that there is serious doubt as to the justice of the Article 15 having been imposed in the first place.

5.  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.  deleting the Article 15 from the applicant’s OMPF; and

     b.  reimbursing the $1,000.00 forfeiture she paid as punishment under this Article 15.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

			                                                                         				 	                                    CHAIRPERSON