ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190015606 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 14 October 2016, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S, Code, Section 1552) * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 4 October 2019, subject: Appeal DA Form 2627, 14 October 2016, (Applicant), with 16 enclosures – * Enclosure 1 – DA Form 2627, dated 14 October 2016 * Enclosure 2 – DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 14 June 2016 (temporary) * Enclosure 3 – DA Form 3349, dated 26 August 2015 (permanent) * Enclosure 4 – Memorandum, Headquarters Support Company, 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, dated 13 July 2016, subject: Appointment as Investigating Officer (IO) – Commander's Inquiry into Allegations of Falsifying Documents by (Applicant) * Enclosure 5 – Memorandum, Headquarters Support Company, 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, dated 15 July 2016, subject: Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigation into Allegations of Falsifying Documents by (Applicant) Report of Investigation * Enclosure 6 – email, Major (MAJ) H____, Senior Defense Counsel, dated 24 October 2016, subject: Rebuttal Matters * Enclosure 7 – DA Form 4126 (Bar to Continued Service), dated 18 November 2016, and DA Form 4846 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 18 November 2016 * Enclosure 8 – Memorandum, Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility, dated 18 May 2017, subject: Intent to Revoke Eligibility for Access to Classified Information and/or Assignment to Duties that Have Been Designated National Security Sensitive * Enclosure 9 – Memorandum, Distribution Company, 1st Battalion, 361st Brigade Support Battalion, 5th Armored Brigade, dated 20 July 2017, subject: Appeal the Intent to Revoke Access to Classified Information for (Applicant) * Enclosure 10 – Memorandum, DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, dated 20 July 2017, subject: Favorable Security Determination after Due Process * Enclosures 11A-L – 12 Character/Recommendation Letters * Enclosures 12A-J – 10 DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report)/DA Forms 2166-9-2 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report), covering the periods 1 January 2010 through 20 April 2019 * Enclosure 12K – Enlisted Record Brief, dated 24 October 2019 * Enclosure 13 – Letter, Army Review Boards Agency, dated 21 February 2018 * Enclosure 14 – Email Notification, dated 15 May 2017, subject: New Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) Document(s) in Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) * Enclosure 15 – Memorandum, Commander, Headquarters, Combat Aviation Brigade, subject: Removal of Article 15 Documents from OMPF for (Applicant), and DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 14 November 2018 * Enclosure 16 – Memorandum, Deputy Commanding General, Headquarters, 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, dated 5 February 2019, subject: Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant) REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established by other regulations or directives. a. Paragraph 3-10a (General) states a finding is a clear and concise statement of a fact that can be readily deduced from evidence in the record. It is directly established by evidence in the record, or it is a conclusion of fact by the IO or board supportable by the evidence in the record. Negative findings (for example, that the evidence does not establish a fact) may be appropriate. The number and nature of the findings required depend on the purpose of the investigation or board, and on the instructions of the appointing authority. The IO or board normally will not exceed the scope of the investigation authorized by the appointing authority without approval, but should address issues encountered during the investigation that are related to policies, procedures, resources, or leadership, if the IO or board determines that those issues are relevant to the matters under investigation. It might be appropriate for the IO or board to recommend additional inquiry into issues that are outside the scope of the investigation. b. Paragraph 3-10b (Standard of Proof) states unless another regulation or directive, or an instruction of the appointing authority, establishes a different standard, the findings of investigations and boards governed by this regulation must be supported by a greater weight of evidence than supports a contrary conclusion (such as, by a preponderance of the evidence). The weight of the evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses or volume of exhibits, but by considering all the evidence and evaluating factors such as the witness's demeanor, opportunity for knowledge, information possessed, ability to recall and relate events, and other indications of veracity. 3. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to administration of military justice. a. Chapter 3 provides that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is imposed to: (1) correct, educate, and reform offenders whom the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; (2) preserve a Soldier's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and (3) further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial. b. Paragraph 3-28 (Setting Aside and Restoration) states this is an action whereby the punishment or any part or amount, whether executed or unexecuted, is set aside and any rights, privileges, or property affected by the portion of the punishment set aside are restored. NJP is "wholly set aside" when the commander who imposed the punishment, a successor-in-command, or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual under Article 15, UCMJ. In addition, the imposing commander or successor in command may set aside some or all of the findings in a particular case. If all findings are set aside, then the Article 15, UCMJ, itself is set aside and removed from the Soldier's records. The basis for any set-aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the imposition of the Article 15, UCMJ, or punishment has resulted in a clear injustice. "Clear injustice" means there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the Soldier. An example of clear injustice would be the discovery of new evidence unquestionably exculpating the Soldier. Clear injustice does not include the fact that the Soldier's performance of service has been exemplary subsequent to the punishment or that the punishment may have a future adverse effect on the retention or promotion potential of the Soldier. c. Paragraph 3-37 (Distribution and Filing of DA Form 2627 and Allied Documents) states the original DA Form 2627 will include allied documents, such as all written statements and other documentary evidence considered by the imposing commander or the next superior authority acting on an appeal. For Soldiers in the ranks of sergeant and above, the original will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF. The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance or restricted folder in the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time NJP is imposed. The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by superior authority. 4. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), in effect at the time, set forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Paragraph 7-2a (Appeals for Removal of OMPF Entries) stated once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. Normally, consideration of appeals is restricted to grades E-6 and above, to officers, and to warrant officers. Although any Soldier may appeal the inclusion of a document placed in his or her file under this regulation, the appeals of Soldiers in grades below E-6 will only be considered as an exception to policy. This does not include documents that have their own regulatory appeal authority such as evaluation reports and court-martial orders. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. b. Paragraph 7-2b (Appeals for Transfers of OMPF Entries) stated only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) includes, but is not limited to, the OMPF, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. FACTS: 1. The applicant states he did not forge or falsify any documents. The findings against him were based on both substantive and administrative errors. Information and communication weren't transparent during and after the Commander's Inquiry. All correspondence wasn't given to the imposing authority after he submitted an appeal, which was denied. The current imposing authority states the punishment was clearly unjust and requests removal of all documents from his OMPF. The first general officer in the chain of command also supports removal of the documents. 2. The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Army. 3. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2010 (enclosure 12A) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote ahead of peers * send to Senior Leaders Course immediately * fast track this talented and multi skilled leader to Sergeant First Class * leads from the front; outstanding role model 4. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2011 (enclosure 12B) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote now and send to First Sergeant Course immediately * standing epitome of a Senior Noncommissioned Officer; select for battle staff course now * unlimited potential; assign to positions of greater responsibility * an outstanding logistician; I would fight to have this working and supporting Noncommissioned Officer in my ranks again 5. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 1 July 2011 through 16 April 2012 (enclosure C) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * a definite select for promotion to Master Sergeant now; exhibits the traits to be a First Sergeant * epitome of a Senior Noncommissioned Officer; send to Battle Staff immediately * a proven asset to the battalion, brigade and Fort Lee; already performs at the next higher grade and skill level * unlimited potential; he will excel at the most difficult and challenging positions 6. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 17 April 2012 through 16 April 2013 (enclosure 12D) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote to Master Sergeant now * send to 1SG Course immediately * unlimited potential for advancement; this exceptional noncommissioned officer will undoubtedly excel in any position of greater responsibility; definitely a future sergeant major * one of the best logisticians I have served with of any rank to date; outstanding duty performance with integrity and competence beyond reproach 7. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 17 April 2013 through 16 April 2014 (enclosure 12E) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote to Master Sergeant now * send to school to further Military education * possesses unlimited potential: displays an untiring desire for excellence and will make an excellent First Sergeant * top 25% of all logisticians I have served with of any rank to date 8. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 17 April 2014 through 16 April 2015 (enclosure 12F) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote to Master Sergeant now * send to Military Advanced Courses now * demonstrated the ability to perform outside of his MOS and at a higher level than his current grade * one of the best logisticians I have served with of any rank to date; outstanding duty performance with integrity and competence and will make an excellent First Sergeant 9. The applicant's DA Form 3349, dated 26 August 2015, shows he was assigned a permanent physical profile for bilateral knee pain and contains the following entries (enclosure 3): * block 9 (Name, Grade, and Title of Profiling Officer) – M____, Major, Physician Assistant * block 10 (Signature) – electronically signed on 21 August 2015 * block 12 (Name, Grade, and Title of Profiling Officer) – S____, Major, Medical Doctor * block 13 (Signature) – electronically signed on 28 August 2015 10. The applicant's DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 17 April 2015 through 2 November 2015 (enclosure 12G) shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/1" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * promote to Master Sergeant now * send to Joint Logistics Course now * unlimited potential to exceed standards in any position; will make an excellent First Sergeant * one of the best Senior Noncommissioned Officers I have served with in my military career 11. The applicant's DA Form 3349, dated 14 June 2016, shows he was assigned a temporary physical profile for a knee injury with an expiration date of 13 July 2016 and contains the following entries (enclosure 2): * block 9 (Name, Grade, and Title of Profiling Officer) – C____, Captain (CPT), Osteopathic Physician * block 10 (Signature) – electronically signed on 14 June 2016 12. The Headquarters Support Company, 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, memorandum, dated 13 July 2016, subject: Appointment as IO – Commander's Inquiry into Allegations of Falsifying Documents by (Applicant), appointed an IO to conduct an Army Regulation 15-6 administrative investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant allegedly falsifying documents (enclosure 4). 13. The Headquarters Support Company, 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, memorandum, dated 15 July 2016, subject: Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation into Allegations of Falsifying Documents by (Applicant) Report of Investigation, states (enclosure 5): a. On 13 July 2016, CPT N____, Commander, Headquarters Support Company, was reviewing the list of Headquarters Support Company Soldiers who were due for an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in July and verifying physical profiles. During the physical profile verification, CPT N____ noticed the applicant's temporary physical profile, effective 14 June 2016 with an ending date of 13 July 2016, was issued on the old DA Form 3349, which was obsolete as of 1 June 2016. CPT N____ checked with the battalion flight surgeon, CPT C____, to determine whether he renewed the applicant's temporary physical profile. CPT C____ asked CPT N____ to scan and send him a copy of the physical profile in question. After reviewing the scanned copy of the physical profile, CPT C____ responded that he did not issue the June through July physical profile to the applicant as the eProfile system will not allow him to generate a physical profile using the old form. He did, however, issue him a temporary physical profile from 4 May 2016 to 3 June 2016, which had already expired. CPT C____ sent a copy of the applicant's expired temporary physical profile to CPT N____. b. The IO found: (1) The DA Form 3349 assigning the applicant a temporary physical profile effective 14 June 2016 with an expiration date of 13 July 2016 that was given to CPT N____ on 13 July 2016 was forged. The physical profile was not issued by the applicant's primary care manager, CPT C____; there was no record of it in the eProfile system. Additionally, the font in block 11, which is the date that the document was signed, is slightly larger and different from the font found in the same block on the one that was issued to the applicant by CPT C____ in May from the eProfile system. During his interview with the Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP) provider who saw the applicant on 2 June 2016, the IO asked if the DA Form 3349 could be obtained from the Army Publishing Directorate website and she answered no. The IO watched her search for the form on the website with no return and an Internet search did not return an Adobe Acrobat fillable version of the form. (2) All fillable Adobe Acrobat portable document format DA Forms with a signature block will not allow a name to be typed in as shown in block 10. It would have to be hand written or digitally signed using a common access card. The signature as it appears in block 10 is unique to the eProfile system. This proves the original version which expired on 3 June (not available for review) was copied and altered. The 204th Military Intelligence Battalion has the professional version of Adobe Acrobat XI installed on all their computers. The professional version provides tools which make it easy to falsify a document, even one that is scanned. To prove the ease with which a scanned document can be altered, the IO was able to insert text on a scanned document and manipulate the font to look similar to the original using Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. (3) The applicant's temporary physical profile dated 14 June to 13 July 2016 was indeed forged based on the preponderance of the evidence. The applicant was in possession of the forged document for a period of 21 days. At no point in time did he contact his primary care manager to verify the physical profile, knowing very well the original physical profile issued to him by his primary care manager expired on 3 June 2016. The SRP Case Manager, Staff Sergeant W____, who saw the applicant due to the temporary physical profile that made the applicant non-deployable, was an Army Reserve Soldier serving a 1-year active duty assignment at the SRP Center and has demobilized and could not be reached for interview. The IO found no reason or motive for Staff Sergeant W____ to falsify a document for the applicant and there is no evidence that she did. (4) There is no evidence to support the applicant's claim that he received the physical profile from the SRP Center when he returned to clear on or about 21-23 June 2016. Since the applicant did not go through the front entrance, there is no record of him having been there on or about 21-23 June 2016. Based on contractor C____'s sworn statement, it is possible that someone dropped off the folder that contained the applicant's forged physical profile at the SRP Center "final out" desk. The applicant was fully aware that CPT C____ did not issue him the physical profile for the period 14 June 2016 to 13 July 2016. If the physical profile was indeed issued by someone at the SRP Center as claimed by the applicant, it would have been by a medical provider and a record of it would be in the eProfile system, which was not. (5) The applicant was advised by the SRP Center medical provider, R____, to see case management about being non-deployable due to the temporary physical profile in the system, followed by his primary care manager. According to R____, SRP Center medical providers are not allowed to issue temporary physical profiles or renew existing physical profiles, except perhaps having physical profile limitations under exceptional circumstances. First Sergeant (1SG) P____ instructed the applicant in May to see CPT C____ for a temporary physical profile in order to be excused from taking the APFT. The applicant claims that had he not been told to get a temporary physical profile by 1SG P____, he would not have obtained one since he already had a permanent physical profile in the system for the same condition. He assumed the permanent physical profile covered him for the APFT until told otherwise by 1SG P____. c. The IO recommended issuance of a brigade-level administrative letter of reprimand to the applicant. 14. The DA Form 2627, dated 14 October 2016, shows the applicant received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for presenting an official document (DA Form 3349) to the company commander on or about 14 June 2016 with the intent to deceive (enclosure 1). He did not demand trial by court-martial; he requested a closed hearing and was present to submit matters in defense, extenuation, and/or mitigation. The imposing commander, Lieutenant Colonel M____, found him guilty of all specifications and directed filing the original DA Form 2627 in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,002.00 pay per month for 2 months and an oral reprimand. The applicant indicated he elected to appeal and submit additional matters. On 16 October 2016, the approving authority denied his appeal. 15. The email from MAJ H____, Senior Defense Counsel, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Bliss, dated 24 October 2016, subject: Rebuttal Matters, states pursuant to Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-31, the applicant appeals the NJP imposed against him, though he has no allegation of legal error in this case (enclosure 6). After conducting a thorough investigation on behalf of his client, he was unable to find any legal deficiencies. However, he notes the following factual issues for the superior authority's consideration regarding the evidence presented against the applicant: a. Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-18, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to impose punishment. Although a reasonable fact finder could find that the standard has been met in this case, the applicant asks that the superior authority consider the lack of motive for submitting a false DA Form 3319. As a sergeant first class (SFC) with 12 years of active service, the applicant has never failed an APFT. He was already assigned a temporary physical profile from 4 May 2016 and would have had an additional 60-day recovery period prior to being required to take a record APFT. Furthermore, the applicant passed the next record APFT he took subsequent to the expiration of the temporary physical profile. The applicant was already assigned a permanent physical profile for his knee, which should cause one to question why an SFC with 12 years of active service would put his career in jeopardy for a test he reasonably knew he would pass. b. The evidence in this case shows whoever falsified the DA Form 3349 must have had a digital copy of the form and likely used Adobe Acrobat Pro or similar software to modify the valid 4 May 2016 temporary physical profile. During a conversation MAJ H____ had with CPT C____, although he said he sometimes transmits a digital copy of the physical profile to the applicable Soldier, he checked his computer and noted he had not sent a digital copy of the physical profile to the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has no access to the e-Profile system and this physical profile was not available to him to be downloaded from the Medical Protection System. As such, the applicant had no opportunity to modify the three relevant dates on the 4 May 2016 physical profile to create the falsified physical profile form. c. Contrary to the findings of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, although medical providers are automatically directed to the new physical profile system effective 1 June 2016, (which generates a new form), the old system is still available to anyone who knows the website address. This system can still be used to generate physical profiles using the old form after 1 June 2016, which the applicant had no access to. d. The applicant requests the superior authority consider the totality of his service to our country and notes that allowing the NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, to stand will effectively end his career, as it must be filed in his OMPF. In the alternative, if the superior authority is unwilling to set aside the NJP, the applicant requests conversion to a summarized Article 15 to avoid having the DA Form 2627 permanently filed in his OMPF. 16. The applicant's DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 10 November 2015 (should read 3 November 2015) through 8 November 2016 (record copy – not included with application) shows in: a. Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance): "Did Not Meet Standard"; b. Part IVj (Comments): "an adequate NCO [noncommissioned officer] who is consistent in his performance"; c. Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential): "Qualified"; and d. Part Vb (Comments): "[Applicant] performed satisfactorily during this period, but demonstrated a lack of integrity and poor decision making by providing an unverified medical profile. This NCO requires mentorship and oversight to correct deficiencies in order to continue service." 17. The DA Form 4126 and DA Form 4846, dated 18 November 2016, show a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant on 18 November 2016 due to UCMJ action during the current term of service (enclosure 7). 18. The DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility memorandum, dated 18 May 2017, subject: Intent to Revoke Eligibility for Access to Classified Information and/or Assignment to Duties that have been Designated National Security Sensitive, states a preliminary decision was made to revoke the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information and/or assignment to duties that have been designated national security sensitive (enclosure 8). 19. The applicant's memorandum, dated 20 July 2017, subject: Appeal the Intent to Revoke Access to Classified Information for (Applicant), states he was preparing for a deployment to U.S. Southern Command that he requested through the 204th Military intelligence battalion (enclosure 9). a. He has had a permanent physical profile since 2015 for both knees. He conducted SRP (medical screening) on 2 June 2016. The temporary physical profile in question was for knees. The company 1SG was on convalescent leave during this time. He informed the company commander, CPT N____, that he was issued a temporary physical profile by the SRP Center and the form had the unit medical provider's name on it (CPT C____). CPT N____ took the DA Form 3349. When the company 1SG returned to duty in July, he was informed that an investigation was initiated into the DA Form 3349 that he informed the company commander about, so he had no issue. When he was interviewed by the IO, he was informed that he was being investigated for submitting a forged document. He was informed by the company commander that she forgot the conversation they had when he brought the document to her attention. He believed he was doing the right thing by informing his commander of an issue he discovered. He now believes he should have sent the correspondence to the company and battalion command team via email so everyone would be informed of the situation. He was trying to have the situation looked into at the lowest level. b. The physical profile was digitally signed and dated by the unit medical provider. During the interview, he provided names, locations, and hand-picked each individual who assisted him during the SRP. Some individuals provided statements to the IO, but all of the statements were not submitted after the investigation that was conducted within the unit. In the findings, the IO stated he failed to come clean, but he informed the IO of every detail that happened from the time he reported to the SRP Center to the time he informed the company commander of the situation. c. He received UCMJ action, which resulted in an oral reprimand and forfeiture of 1/2 month's pay per month for 2 months. He appealed the decision so it could be investigated outside of the battalion. The brigade headquarters is located at Fort Gordon, GA, so the appeal went to a different division at Fort Bliss, TX. The appeal was denied and the battalion-recommended brigade letter of reprimand was reduced to an oral reprimand. He is currently submitting an appeal to the ABCMR concerning the UCMJ actions. He was informed of possible revocation of his security clearance while he was in-processing with his new unit. He inquired about the situation to the new company and battalion command team who had no idea because they were not briefed on the situation by the old command team. d. He strives to be the best man, Soldier, senior noncommissioned officer, and leader he can possibly be, not only for himself but for his family and the Soldiers in today's military worldwide. He loves and enjoys being in the Army. He has not done anything to question his integrity, trust, or leadership abilities. 20. The DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility memorandum, dated 20 July 2017, subject: Favorable Security Determination after Due Process, shows a favorable determination was made; however, he was strongly cautioned that receipt of any derogatory information would be cause for immediate reconsideration (enclosure 10). 21. The applicant's DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 9 November 2016 through 8 November 2017 (enclosure 12H) shows in: a. Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance): "Far Exceeded Standard"; b. Part IVj (Comments): * demonstrated the ability to perform his duties tremendously with zero oversight; within the top 5% of all Noncommissioned Officers that I have served with during my career * mentored Soldiers the way a Senior Noncommissioned Officer and First Sergeant should on a daily basis c. Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential): "Most Qualified"; and d. Part Vb (Comments): "Phenomenal work by a Senior Non-commissioned [sic] officer. [Applicant] out performs not only those of his same rank but two levels higher as well. He is a gifted communicator who is already performing at the Master Sergeant level and will absolutely be a CSM [command sergeant major] someday. Promote now and send to Master Leader Course followed by immediate placement in a Sustainment First Sergeant position." 22. The applicant's DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 9 November 2016 (should read 9 November 2017) through 20 April 2018 (enclosure 12I) shows in: a. Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance): "Met Standard"; b. Part IVj (Comments): "constantly uses his vast knowledge, past experiences and social abilities to ensure the G4 mission succeeds despite the units [sic] high operational tempo"; c. Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential): "Qualified"; and d. Part Vb (Comments): "Rated noncommissioned officer unavailable for signature. [Applicant] possesses the potential for advancement with supervisor oversight. Send to MLC [Master Leader Course] when available and continue groom for Master Sergeant." 23. The Headquarters, Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Armored Division, memorandum, dated 14 November 2018, subject: Removal of Article 15 Documents from OMPF for (Applicant), and DA Form 2627, states the commander recently reviewed the applicant's Article 15 proceedings and discovered that several necessary documents and information were not included in the company commander's inquiry or provided to the Combat Aviation Brigade (enclosure 15). The punishment that was imposed upon the applicant was clearly an injustice. Per Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-28, as the imposing authority, he directed removal of the DA Form 2627 and allied documents from the applicant's OMPF. 24. The memorandum from the Deputy Commanding General, Headquarters, 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, dated 5 February 2019, subject: Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant), states he recommends the applicant's career progression in the U.S. Army (enclosure 16). The Deputy Commanding General fully supports removal of the derogatory documents from the applicant's OMPF to allow him to progress in the U.S. Army. The applicant has proven his unlimited potential for further service and promotion. 25. The applicant's DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 21 April 2018 through 20 April 2019 (enclosure 12J) shows in: a. Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance): "Far Exceeded Standard"; b. Part IVj (Comments): * ranks #1 of all SFC's that I have rated and in the top 5% of all NCO's [noncommissioned officers] that I have worked with in my career * exceptionally superior performance as the Senior Supply Sergeant; exceeded all expectations * a creative and dedicated Senior NCO [noncommissioned officer]; always took initiative to achieve the Commander's intent c. Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential): "Highly Qualified"; and d. Part Vb (Comments): "[Applicant] is the #1 NCO that I senior rate on the entire BDE [brigade] staff. He is a dedicated and hardworking professional who is ready to be a 1SG now. Promote to MSG [master sergeant] now and send to advanced schooling at the earliest opportunity. [Applicant] has unlimited potential." 26. The applicant's memorandum, dated 4 October 2019, subject: Appeal DA Form 2627 dated 14 October 2016, (Applicant), states he did not forge or falsify any medical documents. The findings against him were based on both substantive and administrative errors. As a result of these errors, the Article 15 punishment should be removed from his OMPF. 27. The 12 character and recommendation letters in support of the applicant state they agree he is a solid leader. He improved the sustainment systems, the climate, and professionalism in the division artillery. The applicant is a natural leader who is trustworthy and dedicated to his organization and the Army. He projected the Army values throughout his daily operations, in and out of uniform. The applicant's work ethic is more than anyone can ask of a senior supply sergeant. He was a loyal and dedicated senior noncommissioned officer. The applicant is a highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and consummate supply professional. Several of the senior leaders placed him in the top 5 percent of logisticians (enclosures 11A-L). BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the requested relief is warranted. 2. The Board agreed that the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of the charge against him. The Board also noted the supporting statements provided by senior leaders recommending the derogatory information be removed from his record, the numerous character references and recommendation letters attesting to his adherence to the Army Values, and his outstanding record of performance prior to and after the incident in question. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the DA Form 2627, dated 14 October 2016, and all allied documents should be removed from his AMHRR and the punishment imposed should be set aside. 3. The Board also determined that the negative comments and box checks on the applicant's DA Form 2166-9-2 for the period ending 8 November 2016 were solely based on the applicant having received NJP during the rating period. With the record of NJP removed, the Board agreed that this DA Form 2166-9-2 should also be removed from his record and replaced with a statement of non-rated time. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the non-judicial punishment imposed against him on 14 October 2016 was set aside, paying him any monies he is due as a result of setting aside the punishment, and removing from his Army Military Human Resource Record: * the DA Form 2627, dated 14 October 2016, and all allied documents * the DA Form 2166-9-2 for the period ending 8 November 2016 (replaced with a statement of non-rated time) 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (continued) AR20190015606 17 1