IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 19 January 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002055 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 1 May 2012, from the restricted file of his service record. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report) 

• Six (6) DA Forms 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report) 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States 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, in effect: 
 
a. The Article 15 was a result of poor judgment when he was 21 years old as a young noncommissioned officer (NCO). Since that time, he has had a flawless career, was selected to be a Warrant Officer of the Unites States Army and has since been promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3), all while setting a stellar example for everyone to follow. However, during the CW3 Promotion Selection Board where he was selected, he was placed on scroll hold due to a post-board review seeing that he had received the Article 15 from during his enlisted time. The board assessed him favorably and was granted the promotion; however, he fears that this is going to be an issue again when he is eligible for the chief warrant officer, four (CW4) Promotion Selection Board. I 


 
b. It has been 11 years since this Article 15 was imposed and his work performance has been well beyond what is expected ever since. By removing this Article 15 it will ensure that he is able to continue giving his all to the (remaining part of the statement was not visible). 


3.  The applicant provides: 
 
a. DA Form 67-10-2, period covered 26 August 2021 through 30 March 2022, Change of Rater, Principal Duty Title of Standardization Pilot. Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Most Qualified,” with the accompanying comments, “[The applicant is #4 of 13 CW3s in the battalion and remains the #1 CW2 I senior rate. [The applicant] possesses maturity and judgement well beyond his years. He is poised, focused and articulate in every situation. His potential in the Army is unlimited. Undoubtedly a future CW5.” 


 
b. Six (6) DA Forms 67-10-1 as follows 


 
(1) Period covered 25 June 2020 through 25 August 2021, Extended Annual, Principal Duty Title Senior Instructor Pilot, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Most Qualified,” with the accompanying comments, “[The applicant] is #1 of 45 CW3s in the battalion. [The applicant] is a true professional. His competence and ability to make sound decisions is nothing short of phenomenal. He is exactly the leader junior warrant officers deserve in their formation. Undoubtedly a future Army Aviation senior leader. Promote to CW3 below the zone.” 
 
(2) Period covered 22 December 2019 through 24 June 2020, Senior Rater Option, Principal Duty Title Senior Instructor Pilot, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Most Qualified,” with the accompanying comments, “[The applicant] is the BEST (#1) of 51 CW2s in the battalion and is among the top 5% of Warrant Officers with whom I have served. His technical and tactical proficiency has been essential to the battalion’s ability to generate combat power and conduct the most challenging air assault operations. As an officer of boundless potential, promote ahead of peers and send to the Senior IP and WOAC without delay.” 
 
(3) Period covered 22 December 2018 through 21 December 2019, Annual, Principal Duty Title Senior Instructor Pilot, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Most Qualified” with the accompanying comments, “[The applicant] ranks #1 of 41 CW2s in the battalion and is my best platoon level Instructor Pilot. He is a selfless servant and gifted aviation trainer whose technical and tactical proficiency is well above his rank and has directly impacted the battalion’s ability to fight tonight. Boundless potential, promote to CW3 ahead of peers and send to the Instrument Evaluators Course.” 
 
(4) Period covered 24 October 2017 through 21 December 2018, Extended Annual, Principal Duty Title Senior Instructor Pilot, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Most Qualified” with the accompanying comments, “[The applicant] ranks #6 of 47 CW2s in the battalion and is among the top 10% of the Warrant Officers with who I have served. [The applicant] increased the Wild Card’s readiness by relentlessly performing his duties as an Instructor Pilot. He continues to display his distinct ability to execute the 
commander’s intent at a level well beyond his current rank. As an officer of limitless potential, promote to CW2 ahead of peers and send to Warrant Officer Advance Course immediately.” 
 
(5) Period covered 27 May 2017 through 23 October 2017, Change of Rater, Principal Duty Title UH-60 Pilot in Command, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Highly Qualified,” with the accompanying comments, “Continued outstanding performance from one of the most committed young officers in the battalion. [The applicant] remains in the top 20% of all CW2swho I senior rate and continues to build unimpeachable trust with his leadership and the ground forces he supports. Given his superior performance and unlimited potential, I moved him to fill a critical gap in another flight company where he has already had a lasting impact. Promote to CW3 ahead of peers and sent to Instructor Pilot Course and Warrant Officer Advanced Course immediately.” 
 
(6) Period covered 7 May 2014 thru 26 May 2017, Extended Annual, Principal Duty Title UH-60 Pilot, Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “Highly Qualified” with the accompanying comments, “Superb performance. [The applicant] is clearly in the top 20% of all CW2s who I senior rate and has built lasting trust with the many ground forces the Wild Card Battalion has supported as an air assault pilot in command and unit trainer. Displaying unlimited potential for continued success, promote to CW2 ahead of peers and send to the Warrant Officer Advance Course immediately.” 
 
  (7)  DA Form 67-10-2, period covered 13 January 2023 through 30 June 2023, Part V (Immediate Rater) states, “[the applicant] is in the top 10% of warrant officer that I have worked with in my 11 years of service He is an extremely competent instructor and leader who possesses the tremendous potential to succeed as a senior warrant officer. He is a must select for CW4.” Part VI (Senior Rater) reflects he was “highly qualified,” with the accompanying comments, “#1 of 6 Platoon Instructor Pilots in the Battalion.”  
 
4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows: 
 
a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 July 2008 as a 15T, UH-60 Helicopter Repairman. 


 
b.  On 1 May 2013, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he is considering whether he should be punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for the following misconduct: In that he, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Colonel [Name] to wit: paragraph 5b, Policy Letter #12, Social Media, dated 17 February 2012, an order which it was your duty to obey, did, at or near FOB Wolverine, Afghanistan, on or about 11 April 2012, fail to obey the same by posting information about results of operations and equipment status on his Facebook page. This is in violation of Article 92, UCM. 
 c.  The applicant consulted with counsel, declined trial by a court-martial and opted for a closed hearing with a person to speak on his behalf.  
 
 d.  The imposing commander found him guilty of said offense (having knowledge of a lawful order issued by COL [Name] an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near FOB Wolverine, Afghanistan, on or about 11 April 2012, fail to obey the same by posting information about results of operations and equipment status on his Facebook page. His punishment included a reduction to specialist (E-4), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 30 June 2012. Item 4b indicates the imposing authority directed the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) filed in the restricted section of the OMPF. The applicant elected not to appeal. 
 
 e.  The applicant was honorably discharged from (enlisted) active duty on 6 May 2014. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorable discharged to accept commission or warrant in the Army (Separation Code KGM and Reentry Code 1). He served 5 years, 9 months, and 14 days of net active service this period. Item 18 (Remarks) indicates he served in a designated imminent danger pay area, Iraq (9 September 2009 – 21 July 2010) and Afghanistan (16 January 2012 – 12 January 2013). 
 
 f.  He was appointed a Reserve warrant officer and executed an oath of office on 7 May 2014. He was subsequently ordered to active duty, effective 7 May 2014, with an active duty commitment of 6 years upon successful completion of Warrant Officer Candidate Course (WOCC).  
 
 g.  The applicant was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer, Two (CW2) on 7 May 2016 and later promoted to Chief Warrant Officer, Three (CW3) on 1 June 2022. 
 
5.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed from an individual’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The evidence of record confirms the applicant, while a SPC, violated the UCMJ and subsequently accepted NJP on 1 May 2013 for violating a lawful order. The imposing commander directed this Article 15 be filed in the restricted section of his AMHRR. The applicant elected not to appeal. His NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and his NJP was properly filed as directed by the imposing commander. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides no evidence to 
show that the DA Form 2627 is untrue or unjust. However, the applicant was discharged and later became a warrant officer, and since he received his NJP, he has revealed nothing but a progressively noteworthy advancement both in achievements and maturity. Not only was he was appointed as a warrant officer he went on to serve in a variety of assignments, and he rose in the rank of CW3. In other words, despite the setback, he Soldiered on with a strong desire to serve and grow. As such, given the applicant's appointment, performance over the years, and potential to the Army, as a matter of equity and in the interest of justice, the Board determined this Article 15 should be removed from the restricted section of his AMHRR.  
 
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 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 1 May 2012, from the restricted file of his service record. 
 
  12/19/2023

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 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed from an individual’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 
 
a. Paragraph 3-2a states unfavorable information will not be filed in the official personnel file unless the recipient has been given the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and make a written statement or to decline, in writing, to make such a statement. 


 
b. Paragraph 6-2e states, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) makes determinations upon appeal of unfavorable information filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR.  The DASEB may determine to revise, alter, or remove such unfavorable information if it is determined to be untrue or unjust, in whole or in part (see chap 7). 


 
c. Paragraph 6-2f states, the DASEB makes determinations, upon appeal, on requests to transfer unfavorable information from the performance to the restricted portion of the AMHRR (see chap 7).  The DASEB may recommend the transfer of those administrative memoranda of reprimand when such transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  Transfer of such memoranda is further subject to the stipulations stated in paragraph 6–1d, paragraph 6–1e, and chapter 7. 


 
d. Paragraph 7-2d(2) (Removals) states: 


 
(1)  There is no time restriction for submitting an appeal for removal of unfavorable information from the AMHRR. 
 
(2)  The recipient has the burden of proof to show clear and convincing evidence to support an assertion that the document is either untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. 
 
(3)  Evidence submitted in support of the appeal may include, but is not limited to: an official investigation showing the initial investigation was untrue or unjust, decisions made by an authority above the imposing authority overturning the basis for 
the adverse documents, notarized witness statements, historical records, official documents, and/or legal opinions. 
 
3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), effective 7 May 2014, prescribed policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to: the OMPF, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. 
 
a. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. 


 
b. Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the AMHRR and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) shows the original DA Form 2627 will be filed locally in unit NJP or unit personnel files for Soldiers in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 or corporal/E-4 and below (prior to punishment). Such locally filed originals will be destroyed at the end of 2 years. For all other Soldiers, 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 folder or the restricted folder will be made by the imposing commander. Records of NJP presently filed in either the performance or restricted folder of the OMPF will remain so filed, subject to other applicable regulations. 


 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//