MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          10 April 2003                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002075865  

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by removing the following documents from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF):  a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR); a Relief for Cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) that he received subsequent to the GOMOR; and documents revoking  his Drill Sergeant Qualification Badge.  If the above actions are granted, the applicant is also requesting promotion to master sergeant/E-8 with appropriate credit for time in grade, and reinstatement in the Drill Sergeant program.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes the actions taken against him were unjust because the command fostered an environment of gossip following a sexual harassment allegation.  This resulted in the leveling of unfounded charges that could not be proven, but which still led to his removal from the Drill Sergeant Program.  He states he believes the command impeded the investigation by not allowing him the opportunity to gather statements for his defense, and that the Military Police Investigators (MPI) conduct a biased investigation.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of this case on 3 December 1998 (AC97-11784/AR1998009135) and reconsideration of this case on 14 May 2002 (AR2001065493).

The applicant submits a four-page, self-authored statement, dated 3 July 2002, in which he once again details his contentions; a copy of the Military Police Report; newspaper clippings of the investigation; and a videotape of an interview regarding the allegations of sexual improprieties conducted by a local television station in Columbia, South Carolina.  These submissions are new evidence and/or argument that require Board consideration.  The rest of the applicant’s submissions were previously submitted or available to the Board at the time of his last submission.  

On 21 November 2001, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of an earlier appeal to this Board.   On 12 May 2002, this Board denied the applicant’s request indicating that the applicant had not provided any substantial convincing evidence that the GOMOR’s removal or transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.

The latest submissions, although considered new evidence, basically reiterate the applicant's previous refutation of the allegations made against him which resulted in the above administrative actions under appeal.

Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing unfavorable information in the OMPF.  Paragraph 7.2.B.b(1) states that GOMOR’s 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. 

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.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that his chain of command fostered an atmosphere where rampant gossip led to unsubstantiated charges against him.

2.  There is no evidence of record showing that the military police investigation was biased against the applicant or that his chain of command impeded the investigation by not allowing him to gather information refuting the charges against him.

3.  While the applicant has once again detailed his contentions, he has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the Army acted correctly by imposing the GOMOR.  Furthermore, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the process of imposing the GOMOR and in the subsequent appeals process.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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

________  ________  __le____  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fne___  _mjnt___  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075865	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030410	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.0200	
2.	134.0100	
3.	134.0400	
4.		
5.		
6.