MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037788

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the Article 15 on the performance fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be transferred to the restricted fiche.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it has been seven years since that one isolated incident.  Its intended purpose has been served.  She would like the opportunity to show that she can perform in a higher capacity.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 July 1986.  She was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 1 July 1989 and to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 August 1992.  

On 15 April 1993, while at Fort McClellan, AL, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for soliciting $500.00 in loans from a subordinate; for selling Home Interiors products to her subordinates; for dishonorably failing to repay the $500.00 loan; and for failing to repay a $15.05 loan from another subordinate.  

On the applicant’s non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period May 1992 through April 1993, she received a “no” check in part IVa5, maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty, with a corresponding comment of “Personal conduct needs improvement.”  In part IVf, responsibility and accountability, her rater rated her as “needs some improvement” with the corresponding comment “needs training on standards of conduct.”  Her senior rater included the comment “Possesses ability to become a good leader.”

On the applicant’s NCOER for the period May 1993 through April 1994, her rater gave her five “success” ratings in five categories of values/NCO responsibilities (with a rating range of “excellence,” “success,” “needs some improvement” and “needs much improvement”) in part IV.  Her rater gave her a potential rating of “fully capable” (with a rating range of “among the best,” “fully capable” and “marginal”) in part V.  Also in part V, her senior rater rated her performance as a “1” (with a rating range from a high of “1” to a low of “5”) and her overall potential as a “1.”

On five subsequent NCOERs, the applicant received almost all “excellence” ratings in part IV, all “among the best” ratings in part Va and all except one “1” ratings for performance and potential ratings in part V.

On an unknown date, a Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program was initiated on the applicant citing the Article 15 and the NCOER ending April 1993 as the basis for the action.  She appealed the bar and on 11 July 1994 her appeal was approved.  

The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) denied the applicant’s request for transfer of the Article 15 to her restricted fiche on              4 February 1994, 6 November 1994, 10 September 1996, and 15 October 1999.  In her 1999 appeal, she stated that the incident was an isolated one and the only derogatory matter in her 13 years of service.  The incident occurred 6 years previously when she was new to the Army and newly promoted to SSG.  She was promoted to Sergeant within 2 ½ years and to SSG with only 5 years of service.  At that time she was unaware of the Army policies and procedures and was new to the ranks.  

The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (4th oak leaf cluster) on 31 March 1999.

Army Regulation 27-10 prescribes policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  Paragraph 3.43B states that to support a request for transfer of an Article 15 to the restricted fiche, the person must submit substantive evidence that the intended purpose of the Article 15 has been served and that transfer is in the best interest of the Army. 

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the DASEB.  The DASEB noted that in her previous appeals the applicant provided no supporting statements from the issuing authority of the Article 15 or any other personnel in her chain of command and provided no supporting evidence other than her OMPF.  They again recommended denial of her request.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  She provided letters of support from the Commander, 10th Combat Support Hospital, her first sergeant and her detachment sergeant.  The hospital commander noted the applicant consistently displayed a superior military bearing and exemplary job performance and eagerly accepted additional responsibilities.  Her first sergeant noted that her attitude, duty performance and leadership ability have never been less than outstanding.  Her detachment sergeant noted her character is without question, her integrity steadfast, her duty performance exemplary and her leadership ability without peer.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, 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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s good service subsequent to her receiving the Article 15.  However, the Board also notes the seriousness of the incidents for which she received the Article 15.  A soldier does not need to be a sergeant major with 20 years in service to know that one does not borrow money from subordinates (especially in sums of hundreds of dollars) or to know that if you borrow money, you pay it back.  So the Board is dubious about her contention in her 1999 appeal to the DASEB that she was new to the Army and newly promoted to SSG.  She had almost 7 years in service at the time the incidents occurred and should have known of these fundamental facts of NCO responsibilities no later than the time she was promoted to Sergeant in 1989.  

3.  The Board has considered the applicant’s letters of support from her current chain of command but notes that not one of them refers to the incidents mentioned in the Article 15.  Only the letter from her detachment sergeant even mentions “character” and “integrity” and then only in a generic manner.  The Board cannot determine from these letters if her chain of command is aware of what was in the Article 15 and, if so, that they would still recommend transfer of the Article 15 as in the best interest of the Army.  

4.  Without further evidence, the Board concludes that transfer of the Article 15 at this time is not in the best interest of the Army.

5.  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:

__jev___  __sk____  __jpi___  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037788	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000531	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	126.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.