IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120006142 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 the removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP)) dated 6 September 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (now known as the Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR)). 2. The applicant states he received NJP in September 2001 and it was directed to be filed in the restricted section of his AMHRR; however, in reviewing his records for his first selection for Sergeant First Class he noticed that the record of NJP was filed in the performance section of his AMHRR. Accordingly, he requests that the record of NJP be removed from his records so that he may continue to advance in the Army. He also states his evaluation reports will show he is a fully capable member of the Army who has faithfully executed his duties and excelling in most. 3. The applicant provides copies of his evaluation reports. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 March 1995 for a period of 8 years and training as a ground surveillance radar operator. He completed his training and was returned to his unit. 2. On 23 May 1996, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe. 3. On 6 September 2001, while stationed in Germany, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty, violation of the commander’s visitation policy in the barracks, and for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties due to the wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs. The applicant did not appeal his punishment and the imposing commander directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of his AMHRR. 4. The applicant remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 November 2010. He was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one on 27 April 2011 with a concurrent call to active duty and serves as an unmanned aerial surveillance standardization officer. 5. A review of his AMHRR shows that the record of NJP dated 6 September 2001 is filed in the restricted section of his AMHRR. 6. Army Regulation 27-10, in effect at the time, stated in pertinent part, that the decision to file DA Forms 2627 on the performance fiche or the restricted fiche of the AMHRR would be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment was imposed. The filing decision of the imposing commander was final and was to be indicated in item 5, DA Form 2627. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-104 serves as the authority for the filing and release of documents authorized for filing in the AMHRR. It states, in pertinent part, that the restricted fiche is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers. Documents on this fiche are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier’s service, conduct, duty performance, evaluation periods, corrections to other parts of the AMHRR, record investigation reports, record appellate actions and to protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army. The release of information on this fiche is controlled and will not be released without written approval from the Commanding General, Human Resources Command or the Headquarters, Department of the Army selection board proponent. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The record of the subject NJP was properly filed, or at least is now properly, filed, on the restricted fiche of his AMHRR as directed by the imposing commander and there appears to be no good reason to remove it. 2. It is noted that the applicant was promoted to the ranks of sergeant, staff sergeant, and sergeant first class and was appointed to the rank of WO1 with the NJP in his AMHRR. It is also noted that selection boards are not routinely provided access to the restricted section of the AMHRR. However, should a selection board be granted access to the restricted section of his AMHRR, it would serve to not only document a complete record of the applicant’s service, performance and conduct, but would also serve to show that he has not had any further incidents of misconduct throughout his career and would allow the selection board to make informed decisions on who is the best qualified officer for promotion or schooling. 3. The Army has an interest in maintaining such documents and the applicant has not shown sufficient reasons why it should not remain a matter of record, even after considering his entire record. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X___ ___X____ 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. ___________X__________ 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) AR20120006142 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120006142 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1