IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 January 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020073 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a general court-martial order from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states he was passed over for promotion to O-4 because of a file that should not be there. The court-martial file has not affected his officer evaluation reports (OER's) and is 2 years old. His promotions should be evaluated by his OERs, schooling, and education. He received his letter of reprimand and paid the fine. The case is closed and should no longer be in his OMPF. 3. The applicant provided no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having prior service in the U.S. Army, the applicant's records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 on 25 August 1997. He was appointed as a second lieutenant in the USAR and executed the oath of office on 16 December 1998. He subsequently served in various positions on active duty and with his Reserve unit. 2. On 11 March 2004, he was promoted to the rank/grade of captain/O-3 in the USAR as a military intelligence (MI) officer. He is currently assigned to the 2300th MI Group, Charlottesville, VA. 3. On 4 September 2008, he was found guilty contrary to his pleas by a general court-martial of the following: * one specification of signing official documents with false lodging costs from on or about 1 September 2005 to 31 December 2007 * one specification of stealing $15,000.00 from on or about 1 September 2005 to 31 December 2007 * one specification of making use of false papers for the purpose of obtaining payment of claims against the U.S. Government in an amount over $60,000.00 from on or about 1 September 2005 to 31 December 2007 4. On 4 September 2008, the sentence was adjudged and he was sentenced to be reprimanded and fined $15,000.00. 5. Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, General Court-Martial Order Number 5, dated 5 March 2009, was filed in the performance section of his OMPF. The sentence of reprimand and fine of $15,000.00 was approved and he was reprimanded for larceny of an amount over $15,000.00 and filing false and fraudulent claims against the United States in an amount over $60,000.00. The reprimand stated, in part, "Your conduct represents a serious departure from the expected behavior of an officer in the U.S. Army. You have completely failed in your responsibilities and discredited yourself and the U.S. Army." 6. On or about 23 July 2010, Headquarters, USAR Command, notified him by memorandum that he was not selected for promotion to O-4 (first time) and if he remained eligible he would be considered for promotion next year. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides the principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required to support maintaining the OMPF. Chapter 2 provides detailed guidance and instructions with regard to the initiation, composition, maintenance, changing, access to, and transfer of the OMPF. Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) shows that general court-martial orders are filed in the performance section of the OMPF when there is an approved finding of guilty on at least one specification. If all approved findings are not guilty, the order is filed in the restricted section of the OMPF. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority. 2. The Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. As required by the applicable regulation, the court-martial order is properly filed in the performance section of his OMPF. There does not appear to be an error or an injustice. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant him the requested relief. 3. Notwithstanding his OERs for the periods covered by the court-martial charges, the record of the court-martial conviction is an important entry that must serve to protect the integrity of the officer promotion system. Removing this document would give him an unwarranted and unfair advantage over officers who have served faithfully and without the blemish of a court-martial conviction. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ____X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020073 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020073 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1