PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 March 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12565
	                                    AR1999014968

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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 his Article 15 non-judicial punishment be expunged from his military records.

3.  The applicant states that the subject Article 15 was unjust and given based on personal biases of his chain of command.  The applicant exhibited absolutely no contempt for authority as charged.  Evidence indicates total compliance with all orders given and AR 670-1 regulatory requirements on haircut.  The actions taken by his chain of command were unjust and unwarranted.  The applicant provides a detailed statement concerning the Article 15 charges and provides seven witness statements including statements from a SFC who gave him a haircut to standards on 26 June 1992, and from the Post Barber that gave him a haircut to standards on 29 June and 30 June 1992.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that the applicant received an Article 15 nonjudicial punishment on 6 July 1992 at Medical Holding Company, Fort Ord, California.  At the time of the Article 15, the applicant was a Staff Sergeant with over 21 years service.  He was a Supply NCO assigned to the Medical Holding Company.  He had served in Vietnam, Korea, and Desert Storm in addition to service at Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, and Fort Ord.  He has 9 service medals,
7 Good Conduct Medals, 3 Army Achievement Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals, and a Meritorious Service Medal.  He retired honorably on 31 January 1993 with over 22 years of service.  His military record is quite honorable.  He has no other disciplinary action in his military record except the one Article 15 in question.

5.  The applicant was given the Article 15 for six counts of disobeying orders from his superior NCOs to get a hair cut on three different days within a 5 day period, one count of failing to go to his place of duty, and one count of going from his place of duty.  The applicant elected to accept the Article 15 than request a court-martial.  Punishment was imposed of reduction to SGT E-5 (suspended), a fine of $754, and extra duty for 45 days.  The applicant appealed the Article 15 but the appeal was denied.

6. The suspended reduction to E-5 was vacated and the applicant reduced to E-5 when his commander judged that he had violated his 48 hours quarters directive for an illness when he took his sick young son who had a fever to the hospital emergency room (his wife being at work) and then stopped on his way back home at the legal assistance office across the street from the hospital to pick up his Article 15 appeal packet.  This reduction was previously appealed to the ABCMR as unfair and unjust.  The ABCMR agreed that the reduction was unfair and unjust under the circumstances, voided the reduction, and restored the applicant's rank.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was charged with two counts of disobeying orders from superior NCOs (both SFC, one the acting First Sergeant and the other a section supervisor) on 26 June 1992 to get a haircut.  In defense, the applicant provided a witness statement from another SFC who cut the applicant's hair to regulation standards on Friday, 26 June 1992.

2.  The applicant was due to go on an approved leave on Monday, 29 June 1992, but his acting First Sergeant pulled the leave authorization on Sunday, 28 June 1992, to have the applicant get another haircut.  He was charged again with two counts of disobeying orders from his two senior NCOs to get a hair cut.  In defense, the applicant provided a witness statement from the Post Barber that he cut the applicant's hair to standard on 29 June 1992.

3.  On 30 June 1992, the applicant was again charged with two counts of disobeying orders from superior NCOs to get a haircut.  In defense, the applicant provided a witness statement from the Post Barber that he cut the applicant's hair to standard again on 30 June 1992.

4.  It appears from the forgoing that requiring the applicant to get three successive haircuts on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday when all haircuts were given by qualified hair cutters who knew the military haircut standards, and the pulling of approved leave to require 2 more haircuts, that the applicant was being harassed by his superior NCO's.  When the applicant tried to bring the matter to the attention of the Post Sergeant Major, he was referred back to the same NCO's apparently without appropriate investigation.  When the applicant went to meet with the Post Sergeant Major with whom he had an appointment on his open door policy, he was charged by his supervising NCO with going from his place of duty without authorization.  The applicant states that he filed IG complaints on the situation but there is no record of the IG action taken.  The applicant also provides copies of complaints he filed with his Congressmen and Senator but there is no record of the command's investigation or response to these congressional inquiries.

5.  Concerning the charge of failing to go to his place of duty on 26 June 1992, the applicant returned to his place of duty after getting the first haircut as ordered, but his supervising NCO was not at the place of duty and from the record apparently did not accept the note that the applicant left to verify his return as ordered.

6.  It appears that the senior NCOs were not fair or just in their leadership of the applicant and that the command accepted the senior NCOs' version even when on the surface the number and nature of the charges is questionable and considering the applicant's otherwise outstanding military record.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

	a.  setting aside the Article 15 issued on 6 July 1992 and adjudicated on 17 July 1992 removing it from the applicant's military record and blotting it out on his Restricted Data Microfiche in his Official Military Personnel File; and

	b.  restoring the $754 forfeiture of pay to the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12565/ar1999014968	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19993031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT )	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.