ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008840 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), 26 February 2015, from her records in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). 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) * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), 17 May 2017 * Letter of Appreciation, 14 June 2017 * Delaware National Guard Joint Force Headquarters Memorandum for Record (Verification of Security Clearance), 5 November 2017 * Lateral Promotion to First Sergeant (1SG), 19 August 2019 * Sergeant Major (SGM) Promotion List Approval and Publication, 24 May 2019 * three Email Messages, 6 and 8 November 2020 * DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), 9 November 2020 * State of Delaware Department of Military Affairs – Delaware Army National Guard (DEARNG) Memorandum (SGM Academy Enrollment), 7 January 2021 * seven Recommendations for Removal of 2015 DA Form 2627 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states it is unjust for the DA Form 2627 to continue to impact her career. Removal of the DA Form 2627 would eliminate the barrier imposed by her State and afford her the opportunity to train for the next level in her career. It has been almost 6 years since the punishment phase was completed. a. There is no other detrimental information in her iPERMS records. All of her noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs), academic evaluation reports, and awards show she is a dedicated and hardworking Soldier. She has received no referred or negative NCOERs or any other adverse action during her career. She respectfully asks that the Board take into account her decades of honorable service and allow for removal of the DA Form 2627 based on the "retribution equity" served. b. On 12 April 2015, she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for improperly accessing an individual's physical profile rating and discussing the same with her full- time leadership. At the time she was serving as the battalion senior human resources NCO and in performing her duties, she performed duties outside of her scope/authority. Since then, she has completed additional training to ensure she thoroughly understands the regulatory guidance and has not had any further issues. c. When the NJP was administered to her, the current Chief of Staff for Delaware said that the record/files would be retracted at the expiration of 2 years from the date of punishment. The NJP phase ended when she paid the $200.00 fine on 15 June 2015. She believes the NJP has served its intended purpose and she requests its removal from her iPERMS records as it is having an unjust lasting effect on her career. d. In 2018, the enrollment procedures changed for the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy Non-Resident Course. The published guidance added that all nominees would undergo a personnel suitability screening prior to enrollment in the SGMs Academy. In October 2020, she was selected by the Command Sergeants Major (CSMs) Advisory Council for enrollment in the SGMs Course and was counseled. Shortly thereafter, she was told by her State CSM that her packet would not move forward because of the NJP. He later followed up via a memorandum, 7 January 2021, endorsing the request to remove the DA Form 2627 from her records. It was at this time that she realized the injustice of the record DA Form 2627. 3. The applicant is currently serving in the ARNG Active Guard Reserve Program. 4. Her NCOER covering the period 1 December 2008 through 10 April 2009 shows in: * Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best" * Part Vc and d (Senior Rater Overall Performance and Potential) – "Successful/2" and "Superior/1" * Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) – * is one of the hardest working NCOs in the DEARNG; promote ahead of peers * experience and work ethic provided a positive impact to the G3 Office * has completed all required education for a[n] SFC [sergeant first class] * one of the best NCOs in the DEARNG; brings success at all levels 5. The DA Form 2627, 12 April 2015, shows she accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of Article 92, UCMJ, as authorized by Delaware Code, Title 20, for: * specification I – on diverse occasions or about 7 January 2015, violate a lawful general regulation, Army Regulation 40-66 (Medical Record Administration and Health Care Documentation), chapter 2, by wrongfully reviewing and printing the physical profile rating of Staff Sergeant (SSG) C____ for which there was no valid medical reason * specification II – on diverse occasions or about 7 January 2015, violate a lawful general regulation, Army Regulation 40-66, chapter 2, by wrongfully discussing and showing SSG C____'s medical profile rating to Master Sergeant (MSG) D____, who was not within her chain of command and not for a valid medical reason to know the information * specification III – on diverse occasions or about 7 January 2015, violate a lawful general regulation, Army Regulation 40-66, chapter 2, by wrongfully discussing SSG C____'s medical condition with an individual, SSG R____, who was not within her chain of command and who did not for a valid medical reason to know the information a. She did not demand trial by court-martial. b. She requested a closed hearing; a person to speak on her behalf; and indicated she would present in person matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation. c. The imposing commander, Colonel F____ III, found her guilty of specifications I and II, specification III was lined through. Her punishment consisted of a $200.00 fine. The imposing commander directed filing the original DA Form 2627 in the restricted folder of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). d. She elected to appeal and not submit additional matters. e. On 12 April 2015, the approving authority denied her appeal. 6. DEARNG Joint Force Headquarters Orders 342-502, 8 December 2015, promoted her to the rank of MSG/E-8 effective 6 December 2015. 7. Her NCOER covering the period 15 December 2015 through 14 December 2016 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "[Applicant] has unlimited potential. She will excel in any position within the DEARNG and must be promoted ahead of her peers. Assign her to our most demanding positions. Select for company 1SG and then for Sergeant Major's [sic] Academy." 8. On 6 July 2017, she was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for exceptionally meritorious service and performance while accomplishing a variety of critical duties as the State Quota Source Manager and Digital Training Management System Administrator. The applicant's remarkable drive, resourcefulness, tenacity, and professionalism is in keeping with the highest standards of the U.S. Army's mission to train Soldiers. 9. On 9 August 2017, the applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (4th Award) for her service from 25 April 2012 through 24 April 2015. 10. Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Permanent Orders 256-1703, 13 September 2017, awarded her the bronze U.S. Army Excellence in Competition Badge (Pistol) for preeminent individual marksmanship performance with her service pistol on 6 August 2017. 11. Her NCOER covering the period 6 December 2016 through 5 December 2017 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Far Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "[Applicant's] potential is unlimited. She is by far the Best NCO that I rate. [Applicant] has the technical and tactical knowledge to be an outstanding 1SG. Select for 1SG and groom for sergeant major." 12. Her NCOER covering the period 6 December 2017 through 30 April 2018 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "Of all the E-8s I have known in 28 years of service, this Soldier is in the top 10%. Outstanding organizational and leadership skills; promote ahead of peers. Select for leadership training and promote ahead of peers." 13. Her NCOER covering the period 1 May 2018 through 14 July 2019 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Far Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Most Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "[Applicant] possess the potential to rise into the most senior ranks of the NCO Corps. Her dedication to her position, willingness to learn and work ethic are amongst the best I have witnessed. [Applicant] should be assigned as a 1SG in order to challenge her and evaluate her potential as a[n] SGM. Promote ahead of peers." 14. The applicant received a letter of appreciation, 14 June 2017, from the National Guard Bureau ARNG Operations Division for being an invaluable asset during the ARNG annual training for the Fiscal Year 2018 validation team. She was a subject matter expert who willingly worked long hours. She provided insight on initiatives that will have positive effects on the future capabilities and applications of the Annual Training Program and the Army Training Management System. 15. On 6 July 2017, shows she was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with 1st oak leaf cluster in Delaware National Guard Permanent Order Number 187-002 for exceptionally meritorious service and performance while accomplishing a variety of critical duties as the State Quota Source Manager and Digital Training Management System Administrator during the period 1 April 2015 through 31 May 2017. 16. The Delaware National Guard Joint Force Headquarters memorandum for record (Verification of Security Clearance), 5 November 2017, states she was granted a Secret security clearance from 29 March 2016 through 9 March 2026. 17. On 24 May 2019, she was ranked number 1 on the SGM Promotion List that would be used effective 1 June 2019. 18. On 19 August 2019, the applicant was laterally promoted to the rank of 1SG. 19. On 10 January 2020, shows she was awarded the Army Achievement Medal in Delaware National Guard Permanent Order Number 352-005 for exceptionally meritorious service while serving with the Sustainment Training Branch. The applicant's leadership and selfless devotion to duty enhanced operational support and ensured mission accomplishment during the period 1 January 2019 through 1 October 2019. 20. Her NCOER covering the period 15 July 2019 through 14 July 2020 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Far Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Most Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "[Applicant] will make an outstanding Sergeant Major. Send to SMC [SGMs Course] and promote now. She has unlimited potential and will excel in any position. [Applicant] demonstrated her aptitude for operations as she positioned the 193rd RTI [Regional Training Institute] to undertake a student load increase for AC ALC/SLC [Active Component Advanced Leader Course/Senior Leader Course] in FY22-26 [Fiscal Years 2022-2026]. Her in-depth analysis of the requirement identified manning and funding needed to ensure success." 21. On 6 November 2020, the applicant received an email from SGM H____, congratulating her for being nominated to attend the SGMs Course. 22. The DA Form 4856, 9 November 2020, shows she was counseled for being selected by the CSMs Advisory Council to attend the Non-Resident SGMs Course. 23. The Department of Military Affairs, DEARNG, memorandum (SGM Academy Enrollment), 7 January 2021, states: * DEARNG SGMs Course seats are allocated each year based on a review of the organization's current and projected needs * once the needs are understood, the CSMs advisory committee and the State CSM will review the list of current 1SGs/MSGs to determine who can best meet those needs * once the CSMs Advisory Committee and the State CSM determine they have enough Soldiers to meet the current and projected needs in the pipeline to attend, enrolled, or graduated from the course they consider Soldiers in sequence from the Standing Enlisted Promotion System List * the CSM of the element to which each Soldier they select for attendance counsels that Soldier on the enrollment process, which includes a personnel suitability screening * based on the NJP the applicant received, the CSMs Advisory Committee and the State CSM did not feel it was in the best interest of the organization or her to submit her name at this time * if she is selected for promotion before she is enrolled in the course, she will be submitted for the course as soon as the next enrollment opportunity arises 24. Her NCOER covering the period 15 July 2020 through 6 February 2021 shows in: * Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Far Exceeded Standard" * Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified" * Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – "[Applicant] has an astute awareness of the developmental needs of her subordinates and continues to improve all work and processes in the unit. She has unlimited potential and will excel in any position she is placed. Consider this Soldier for leadership positions, send to SMC and promote as soon as eligible." 25. The applicant provided six recommendations for removal of the 2015 DA Form 2627 from her records in iPERMS: a. Colonel S__ states his recommendation is based on several factors, to include the positive trajectory of the applicant's career since receiving the NJP. It is clear and apparent that this NJP was not intended to stymie her career. It is equally clear that in the face of this NJP that the applicant has demonstrated great resilience in her professional life. As the senior officer in her full-time supervisory chain, he emphatically stated he has not seen a reason to question her decision making or her integrity. b. Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) B_ III states the applicant is an exceptional noncommissioned officer who is among the most dedicated and professional Soldiers he has had the privilege of serving with in over 21 years of military service. It is in his personal belief that she is a proven leader, which is clearly evident by the significant contributions demonstrated in her current assignment as the 193rd Regional Training Institute 1SG. c. LTC M_ states she was the applicant's supervisor during the Article 15 proceedings. She witnessed first-hand the professionalism and resilience the applicant displayed during and after this difficult time. The applicant has continually demonstrated that she is an exceptional leader who makes sound judgments and has excelled and exceeded expectations in every assignment. The applicant is one of the best noncommissioned officers she has ever served with and should be given the opportunity to train toward the next level as an SGM. She has the potential, aptitude, and care to serve at the next level and beyond. d. Colonel B_, Jr., states the applicant has worked directly for him in several positions. She has consistently demonstrated that she is an extraordinary leader who makes sound judgment calls and has excelled and exceeded expectations in every assignment, regardless of the challenges presented. He routinely relied on her advice and opinions with respect to administration, readiness, and training issues. She is a subject matter expert on all administrative and training matters. She grasps complex issues and synthesizes approaches to readily develop solutions. Her depth and breadth of experience in the DEARNG make her an ideal candidate for nearly any position in the State. e. CSM C_, Delaware State CSM, fully endorses the applicant's request to remove the DA Form 2627, 12 April 2015, from her AHMRR. This document has met its purpose, but its existence continues to punish an outstanding noncommissioned officer. f. Major General B_, Delaware State Adjutant General, strongly supports removal of the DA Form 2627, 12 April 2015, from the applicant's iPERMS records based on her displayed growth, ability to overcome adversity, and exceptional performance since the incident that occurred 6 years ago. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. Board members believed despite the seriousness of her offense regarding personal health information, the applicant has shown regret and remorse, has progressed in the Army, receiving positive evaluations and personal decorations. She supported in her endeavor by The Adjutant General of her state. Although the Article 15 is neither untrue nor unjust, Board members believed it has served its purpose in that it corrected, educated, and reformed the applicant; and voted to remove it from her restricted fiche. This action is neither retroactive nor qualifies her for promotion consideration prior to this decision. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 XX: XX: XX: 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 removing the Article 15, dated 26 February 2015, from her records in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), effective 3 November 2011, prescribed the policies and procedures pertaining to administration of military justice and implemented. the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, and the Rules for Courts-Martial contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial. a. Chapter 3 provided that NJP was imposed to: (1) correct, educate, and reform offenders whom the imposing commander determined could not 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 3-37 (Distribution and Filing of DA Form 2627 and Allied Documents) stated 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. 3. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), effective 20 January 1987, 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. 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. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), effective 7 May 2014, prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The Army Military Human Resource Record 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 Army Military Human Resource Record, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (continued) AR20210008840 1 1