MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 August 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081221

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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, that the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) that she received in May 2000 be removed from her restricted fiche and that all related documents pertaining to the NJP be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the NJP that she was administered was due to an isolated incident in which she failed to use sound judgment.  The incident in no way reflects her true integrity and character.  Her performance has been neither diminished, nor stifled.  She has demonstrated a high level of proficiency throughout her career and her efficiency reports reflect such.  She requests that the Board take into consideration the total soldier and not just the one isolated incident.  The applicant submits copies of the following documents in support of her request:  her packet, with five letters of support, submitted to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting that the subject NJP be transferred to her restricted fiche; a memorandum from the DASEB, dated 10 May 2002, granting her request; an approved recommendation for award of the Army Achievement Medal; orders for award of her sixth Good Conduct Medal; four Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports, dated between 1998 and 2001; an Enlisted Record Brief, dated 25 April 2002; and a portion of her Personnel Qualification Record.

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

She is a sergeant first class (SFC/E-7) assigned to Germany and serving as a logistics staff (S-4) non-commissioned officer-in-charge (NCOIC) in a signal battalion.  Her military occupational specialty (MOS) is 92Y, Unit Supply Specialist.

On 8 May 2000, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for stealing a gold-colored ring, of a value of $39.95, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Belgium.  Her punishment included the forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for 2 months.  The applicant's commander directed that the NJP be filed on her performance fiche.

On 20 April 2001, a Department of the Army (DA) E-8 Promotion Selection Board identified the applicant for a DA Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The applicant was notified that the NJP was the basis for the DA Bar to Reenlistment.

The applicant appealed the DA denial of continued active duty service under the QMP and, on 18 December 2001, a DA Standby Advisory Board approved her request for continued active service.  The applicant was informed that this approval did not preclude future imposition of a denial of continued active duty service should her record continue to warrant it.  However, she was told the subject NJP could no longer be the sole basis for a future QMP determination.  

The applicant petitioned the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for transfer of the NJP from her performance fiche to the restricted portion of her fiche.  On 10 May 2002, after a second appeal, the DASEB approved the transfer of the NJP to the restricted portion of the applicant's fiche.

Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 provides that NJP is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-martial.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant's NJP was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.  The punishment imposed was neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offense and there is no evidence of any violation of the applicant's rights.

3.  The DASEB transferred the record of NJP to the applicant's restricted fiche and stated that it could no longer be used as the sole basis for a DA QMP bar.  The Board, therefore, believes that there is no basis for removing it from the applicant's OMPF.

4.  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

__lls__  __clg___  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081221	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030805	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.