MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 October 2003    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090450

	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.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 his Article 15 dated 24 January 1988 be removed from his records.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant makes no additional statement.  He indicated that a memorandum was attached to the application; however, no documents were attached to the application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1985.  He has had continuous service since.  

On 24 January 1988, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey an order not to have alcohol in his billets area.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended); a forfeiture of $208.00 pay; and extra duty for 14 days.  The Article 15 was directed to be filed on the restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File.

The applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 August 1999.

Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies for filing documents on the OMPF. 
The version with change 11 effective 9 November 1987 stated that, for Article 15s issued on or after 10 August 1987, the DA Form 2627 for soldiers in grade  E-4 or below with less than 3 years of service at the time of imposition will be filed only in local nonjudicial punishment files.  

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.  The Board notes that, as an E-4 with more than 3 years of service, the applicant’s Article 15 was properly filed in his restricted fiche in accordance with regulation and the determination of the imposing commander and there is no evidence of error.

2.  The applicant is currently a staff sergeant, E-6.  Disciplinary information from his restricted fiche will not be routinely provided to selection boards until the time he is considered for promotion to E-9 or attendance at the Sergeants Major Academy.  His desire to have a 15-year old Article 15 removed from his files based upon his subsequent service record is understandable.  However, promotion and school selection board members are experienced and capable of distinguishing between one youthful indiscretion and a “problem” record of service.  In the event a selection choice comes down between two soldiers with an equal record of service, all information properly filed on an OMPF must be available to board members in order to equitably make their selection choice.  Given the above and the fact the Article 15 was properly filed on his OMPF, it would not be equitable to remove the Article 15 from the applicant’s restricted fiche.  

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

__kan___  __le____  _jtm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090450	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031003	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	126.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.