APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That a relief-for-cause evaluation report for the period July 1993 through February 1994 and a 20 January 1994 memorandum of reprimand (MOR) be expunged from his records.  Additionally, he asks that he be reinstated into the Drill Sergeant Program with restoration of his Drill Sergeant Identification Badge and special qualification identifier.

APPLICANT STATES:  His removal from the drill sergeant program and associated adverse actions (relief-for-cause evaluation and LOR) “were unjust and not supported by substantive evidence.”

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The applicant was titled in a military police investigation report as having known about and “actively assisted two drill sergeants in the “scheme” to engage in sexual activities with two female trainees” and ultimately did not report the activities.  He notes there is no evidence to support that allegation and “there simply is no evidence that [the] applicant suspected such behavior.”  He contends that the reputations of the female trainees were questionable, that they were, in effect lying, and that the applicant’s “strong military record” serves as a basis to conclude that the applicant would never knowingly condone such behavior.  He maintains the applicant was unaware of the events which transpired between the two drill sergeants and the female trainees.

Counsel also contends the Fort Jackson regulation which covers the responsibilities of drill sergeants to report improper relationships is “vague and overboard, and therefore violates [the] applicant’s rights.”  He notes the use of the regulation in this case “created injustice” that has followed the applicant and hence the administrative sanctions imposed against the applicant should be expunged from his records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He entered active duty on 11 January 1983 and served continuously until October 1997.  In July 1992, following 


successful completion of drill sergeant training, he was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

A 2 November 1993 military police report notes that on 
16 September 1993 the applicant was performing duties as the charge of quarters (CQ) for B Company 1/26th Infantry Regiment when he “discovered” two other drill sergeants and two female trainees in the unit’s day room and “failed to report the incident.”  Although the applicant rendered a written statement denying the incident occurred the report concluded there was sufficient evidence to “title” the applicant with failing “to obey a lawful order or regulation” based on a Fort Jackson regulation prohibiting improper association between trainees and drill sergeants and which required “all suspected violations of this regulation” to be reported.

Statements rendered by the two female trainees, on 
27 September 1993, both indicate the applicant saw them in the unit’s day room with the two male drill sergeants and confirm that “pool cues” were used to bar the day room door from the inside.  The statements note the trainees were with the drill sergeants from approximately 7:30PM until 12:15AM.

In an undated written statement the applicant indicated while on CQ he saw the day room light on, went to check who was in there and discovered the door barred with a pool cue. He stated he called out to those inside who opened the door. He indicates he “went inside” and spoke to the drill sergeant who said they’d had a bad day and were playing pool.  Subsequently, about an hour later, he noticed the lights still on, knocked on the door and was told by the two drill sergeants that they were just about to leave.

In a subsequent statement, dated 13 October 1993, the applicant related he did “not remember entering the day room” and that he did not see the female trainees in the day room.  He responded that he could not remember to several other questions and concluded by saying “I don’t remember a lot of things pertaining to that evening because it was over a month ago….”


There are no statements from the two other drill sergeants included with the application and attempts by a member of the Board’s staff to obtain the complete investigation file from Fort Jackson were not successful.

On 20 January 1994 the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for “misconduct and poor judgment.  The MOR noted the applicant’s “actions reflect misconduct and exceptionally poor judgment which disgrace your status as a drill sergeant.”  The applicant appealed the MOR but his appeal was denied and the imposing officer directed filing in his OMPF.

On 15 March 1994 the applicant received a relief-for-cause evaluation report for the period July 1993 through February 1994.  His rater noted the applicant’s positive qualities but also indicated he “needs to do what is right at all times” and “needs to take more responsibility for his own actions.”  He was rated as needing improvement in the responsibility and accountability area and given a “no” in response to “has the courage of convictions and the ability to overcome fear-stands up for and does what’s right.”  His potential for promotion and service in positions of greater responsibility was rated as “fully capable.”  There was no senior rater as the individual in that position did not meet the minimum qualifications to render a rating.

His formal appeals of the NCOER and MOR were both denied in 1995.

Army Regulation 623-205 states that a relief-for-cause evaluation report is defined as the removal of a NCO from a ratable assignment based on a decision by a member of the NCO’s chain of command or supervisory chain that the NCO’s personal or professional characteristics, conduct, behavior, or performance of duty warrant removal in the best interest of the U.S. Army.  The minimum rater and senior rater qualification and the minimum rating period for a relief-for-cause evaluation is 30 days.  A rater must be senior in either grade or date of rank to the ratee.  It also notes 



that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an NCO is presumed to be administratively correct, was been prepared by the proper rating officials and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.

Army Regulation 600-37 (unfavorable information) provides in pertinent part, that administrative letters of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the soldier.  The letter must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before filing determination is made.  Letters of reprimand may be filed in a soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer level authority and are to be filed on the performance fiche.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF then the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7.

Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part,  that a properly prepared administrative letter of reprimand is to be filed on the performance fiche of the individual's OMPF along with any referral correspondence and the member's reply.  All other associated documents are to be filed on the restricted fiche.

In the processing of this application advisory opinions (COPIES ATTACHED) were provided by the Enlisted Special Review Board (NCOER action) and the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) (MOR action).  Both opinions recommended the applicant’s request be denied.  In both cases the opinions noted the applicant had not provided any convincing evidence that either action was in error or 



unjust.  (Note:  In October 1997 the applicant’s counsel was provided an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion but to date has not provided any input.)

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The MOR and NCOER were both issued in accordance with applicable laws and regulations with no evidence of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  While the applicant questions the motives and character of the two female trainees by maintaining that changes in their statements is evidence that they were lying he does not explain the variation in the two statements he rendered regarding the incident.  In one statement he admits entering the day room and subsequently emphatically denies doing so.

3.  Conspicuously absent from the applicant’s request, and in documents submitted by the applicant, are copies of statements rendered by the two drill sergeants involved in the incident.

4.  The applicant received the MOR, relief-for-cause NCOER and was removed from the drill sergeant program because his chain of command was convinced that he had violated the trust placed in him as a drill sergeant.  The applicant has not submitted any definitive evidence that his command’s conclusions were wrong.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

6.  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          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION


						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director