PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           08 NOVEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058202

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that the record of nonjudicial punishment under      Article 15, UCMJ, that he received in 1976 be transferred from the performance portion of his official military personnel file (OMPF) to the restricted portion; or that the record be expunged entirely from his OMPF.   

3.  The applicant states that the punishment occurred 24 years ago during his active Army service.  Since then he was honorably discharged from active duty, a civilian for 11 years, and a member of the Army Reserve in 1987 and on Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status in 1988.  He made a bad decision in 1976.  The intended purpose of the punishment has been well served, as evidenced by his successful career on AGR duty.  His record speaks for itself.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered on active duty on          10 September 1971 and was discharged on 28 October 1973 in order to reenlist. He attained the rank of sergeant.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment on 26 April 1976 for attempting to steal 5 gallons of grease and wrongfully appropriating a 21/2 ton truck while stationed in Korea.  He appealed the punishment on 21 May 1976.  His appeal was denied.  The applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service on 29 November 1976.  His awards included the Good Conduct Medal and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.  

5.  The applicant served in the Kansas Army National Guard from May 1980 to May 1981 and again from June 1985 to June 1986.  In July 1987 he enlisted in the Army Reserve and was ordered to active duty in an AGR status in April 1988. Since that time he has been assigned to recruiting duty in Kansas City and Wichita, Kansas; and has been assigned to the 104th Division (Training) and the 396th Combat Support Hospital, both located in Vancouver, Washington, all in an AGR status.  The applicant has completed numerous training courses, including the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC).  He was promoted to his present rank of sergeant first class on 1 October 1995.  His NCO evaluation reports since 1988 show that he was considered either a fully qualified NCO or among the best qualified NCOs by his rating officials.  His report ending in June 1998 shows that his senior rater stated that he should be promoted immediately and groomed for command sergeant major.  His report ending in February 2001 was no less glowing.  The applicant has received numerous certificates of achievement and commendation, has been awarded the Army Commendation Medal on two occasions, and has received numerous recruiting awards.  He has also received four awards of the Good Conduct Medal.  

6.  Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 provides that nonjudicial punishment ( NJP) is appropriate in 

all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-martial.  It also provided that the officer imposing NJP determines whether the report of NJP (DA Form 2627) is to be filed on the individual's restricted or performance fiche.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 states, in pertinent part, that the performance fiche of the OMPF is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. It states that the restricted fiche is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  Its release is highly controlled.  The restricted fiche is intended to provide an unbroken historical record of an individual’s service while protecting the interests of both the soldier and the Army.

8.  That regulation also states that once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s military service from 1988 has been commendable as evidenced by his evaluation reports, the awards that he has received, the training he has completed, and by his promotion to his current rank.  He received the nonjudicial punishment 25 years ago.  Its intended effect has been served.  Nonetheless, the record of that punishment should be maintained.  Consequently, and in the best interest of justice, the record of the Article 15 should be transferred to the restricted portion of the soldier’s OMPF.

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by transferring from the performance fiche to the restricted fiche of the OMPF of the individual concerned the record of proceedings dated 26 April 1976, and all documents related thereto.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__FNE __  __BJE   _  __KYF   _  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn ___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058202	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011108	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	126.00	
2.	277	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.