MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            19 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031280

	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. Richard H. Allen 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  In effect, removal of a DA Form 2627 (Report of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), from his “Personnel File and OMPF.” (Note:  His Official Military Personnel File). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that under the provisions of Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-l7b, dated January l989, his DA Form 2627 should not have been filed in his OMPF.  He submits a copy of the DA Form 2627, a copy of his performance fiche (P-Fiche) from his OMPF (dated 14 April l998), a copy of the cited Army regulation, and a copy of his Leave and Earning Statement in effect at the time he received the nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, UCMJ.  

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

He has been serving on active duty since 19 June 1984, and is currently holding the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, with a date of rank of 6 February 1996. His military occupational specialty (MOS) is MOS 63E (Recovery Specialist/
NCO).

On 1 May l986, during his first term of service, the applicant accepted NJP for use of marijuana on or about 18 December 1985.  His rank at the time was private first class, pay grade E-3.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $167 pay and extra duty and restriction for l4 days.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On the DA Form 2627, the commander marked item 5 of the form and directed that it be filed in the “performance fiche” of the applicant’s OMPF.  

On some date in May l987, the applicant’s unit commander sent him a DA Form 2496, Disposition Form, Subject:  Recommendation for Award of the Good Conduct Medal, in which he stated that it was his intent to disqualify the applicant for the award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL)  for the period l9 June l984 through 18 June l987, since he received an NJP on 1 May l986.  The applicant acknowledged notification on 12 May 1987 and made no rebuttal.  On this same date, the unit commander took final action to disapprove the award and directed filing of the document in his OMPF.  It is filed on the applicant’s P-Fiche along with a copy of the DA Form 2627.

In connection with the current application, his request was referred to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) for review and any appropriate administrative action.

That board, acting within it’s regulatory authority, has seen fit to direct that the NJP action and the two pieces of correspondence concerning denial of the award of the GCMDL be moved from the P-Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF and be transferred to the restricted fiche (R-Fiche) of his OMPF.  In their opinion to this Board (COPY ATTACHED), the DASEB essentially found that these documents had been properly filed in the P-Fiche, but that they had served their purpose.  Therefore, it was appropriate to move these documents to the R-Fiche.  However, no residual benefits are gained by this action and the DASEB has stated that no promotion or other retroactive personnel actions will be taken.  

Further, in their opinion, the DASEB noted that Army Regulation 27-10, at paragraph 3-17b, concerning local filing of DA Forms 2627 on personnel in pay grade E-4 and below, with less than 3 years service at the time the punishment is imposed was not applicable at the time the NJP action was taken.  This change in Army regulations was at a later date and was not retroactive.  Therefore, the filing of the applicant’s NJP action of 1 May l986 in the OMPF was proper.  

Army Regulation 640-10, in chapter 4, outlines the usage of the P-Fiche, the Service or S-Fiche and the R-Fiche in the OMPF.  The P-Fiche is the section of the OMPF used for filing performance, commendatory and disciplinary data.  The P-Fiche is routinely used by career managers and selection boards.  The S-Fiche is the OMPF section where general information and service data are filed.  It is routinely used by career managers and may be provided to selection boards upon request.  The R-Fiche is the OMPF section for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  This latter fiche will not be released to these officials except under special conditions as approved by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) or the ODCSPER.  

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the action taken by the DASEB to transfer the DA Form 2627 and the record of denial of the GCMDL to the applicant, dated in l986 and l987, from the P-Fiche to the R-Fiche in the applicant’s OMPF.

2.  The Board concludes that the action taken is a reasonable solution to the applicant’s request. These documents have served their purpose to record an incident of misconduct early in the applicant’s career.  He has been promoted and advanced in his Army career and is now a productive soldier.  

3.  Notwithstanding this, the Board has found no evidence of error or injustice at the time these documents were created or with the personnel actions taken at the time.  These documents were properly filed in the OMPF.  Therefore, the Board concludes that no basis has been established by the applicant that the NJP action should be entirely removed from his OMPF.  The DASEB action retains the material for historical purposes, but removes it from routine review by promotion selection boards and personnel managers.

4.   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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RVO__  ___CLG_  __BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031280	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	134.02	
2.	126.01	
3.	107.00	
4.		
5.		
6.