PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           5 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076725

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, in effect, that the Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627), dated 23 December 1982, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

3.  The applicant states In effect, that he does not deny performing the act identified in the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action, but he feels that he was singled out for prosecution in order to be made an example.  He states that his team consisted of four members, and that the team leader was a specialist four (SP4), who upon his arrival in the team introduced horseplay with an unloaded weapon.  He claims that he knows that his actions were wrong, but that peer pressure at that age was intense, and he did it in order to be accepted by the team.  He claims that since his departure from the military, he has been a law abiding and upstanding member of his community, doing volunteer work, raising a family, attaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, and being close to finishing the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Software Engineering.  He states that the reason he is requesting this action, is that he would like to obtain a position in the Information Technology sector within the Federal government, and this is the only blemish on his otherwise exemplary career.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 16 November 1984, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of expiration term of service, after completing 3 years of active military service. 

5.  The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4) on that date.  It also verifies that he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police), and that during his active duty tenure he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

6.  On 21 December 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for assaulting a soldier by pointing a .45 caliber weapon at him.  The applicant elected to have his case considered by his unit commander in a closed hearing.  He also requested that an individual be allowed to speak in his behalf and he indicated that he would provide matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense at the hearing.  Subsequent to the hearing, after considering all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and in extenuation, the unit commander imposed the following punishment:  reduction to the pay grade E-2 (suspended); a forfeiture of $150.00 pay for 6 months (suspended); and 14 days of extra duty.

7.  At the conclusion of the closed hearing, the unit commander elected to direct the filing of the original DA Form 2627 in the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of the applicant’s OMPF.  The applicant elected not to appeal the punishment.

8.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 implements and amplifies Article 15, UCMJ, and Part V, MCM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the decision whether to file a record of NJP on the performance fiche of a soldier's OMPF rests with the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed. 

9.  Paragraph 3-37, currently in effect, provides instructions on the disposition of the DA Form 2627.  It states, in pertinent part, that for soldiers in the rank of 
SPC or CPL and below, the DA Form 2627 will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment files.  Such locally filed originals will be destroyed at the end of 
2 years from the date of imposition of punishment or on the soldier's transfer to another GCMCA, whichever occurs first. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the DA Form 2762, dated
21 December 1982 should be removed from the R-Fiche portion of his OMPF, and it finds merit in his request.  

2.  Although properly filed in accordance with the imposing commander’s intent and in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, the records of NJP accepted by the applicant in 1982, while serving in the rank of PFC, would be filed in the local unit file and would be destroyed after 2 years under current regulatory standards.  The Board finds that given the passage of time, the intended purpose of the NJP has been served.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would appropriate to apply these current standards and remove the 
DA Form 2627, dated 21 December 1982, from the applicant’s OMPF at this time. 

3.  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 removing the DA Form 2627, dated 21 December 1982, from the OMPF of the individual concerned. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__MHM__  __ENA __  __JTM__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Melvin H. Meyer__
		      CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076725	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	123.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.