IN THE CASE OF: . BOARD DATE: 11 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012000 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) imposed on 4 January 1988 be removed from the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the DA Form 2627 was misfiled in the restricted section of his OMPF. He contends that in accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-37, the DA Form 2627 was not supposed to be filed on his OMPF. 3. The applicant provides a copy of the DA Form 2627. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 December 1984. He is currently serving on active duty in the rank of sergeant first class (platoon sergeant). 2. A DA Form 2627, dated 4 January 1988, shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant (a specialist four at the time) for signing a false official record. His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction. The issuing commander directed that the original DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF. 3. A review of the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF on the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System revealed a copy of the DA Form 2627 in question. 4. Paragraph 3-37b (Distribution and filing of DA Form 2627 and allied documents) of Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), currently in effect, states, in pertinent part, that for Soldiers specialist or corporal and below the original DA Form 2627 will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment or unit personnel files. 5. Paragraph 3-6 (Filing Determination) of Army Regulation 27-10, in effect at the time, stated in pertinent part, that a commander’s decision whether to file a record of nonjudicial punishment on the performance fiche of a Soldier’s OMPF was as important as the decision relating to the imposition of nonjudicial punishment itself. 6. Table 3-1 (Composition of the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ)) of Army Regulation 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records), in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, that for Article 15s issued on or after 10 August 1987, the Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627) for Soldiers in grade E4 or below with less than 3 years of service at time of imposition would be filed only in local nonjudicial punishment files. The DA Form 2627 would not be filed in the MPRJ or the OMPF of these Soldiers. 7. Table 3-1 of this regulation also stated that for Article 15s issued on or after 1 November 1982, copy 1 would be filed on the OMPF performance fiche if the issuing commander indicated in item 5 of the DA Form 2627 that the Article 15 be filed there. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records), currently in effect, prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Table 2-1 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a DA Form 2627 will be filed in the performance or restricted section of the OMPF as directed by the issuing commander (item 5 on DA Form 2627). Allied documents accompanying the Article 15 will be filed in the restricted section. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that his 1988 DA Form 2627 was misfiled in the restricted section of his OMPF. Evidence of record shows the applicant was a specialist four with over 3 years of service at the time his Article 15 was imposed. The governing regulation in effect at the time stated that Article 15s issued after 1 November 1982 would be filed on the OMPF as directed by the issuing commander. The issuing commander directed that the original DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF. 2. There is no evidence that the DA Form 2627 was improperly imposed. The DA Form 2627 imposed on 4 January 1988 was properly filed in the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___xx___ ___xx___ ___xx___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _xxxx______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012000 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012000 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1