| Mr. | John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Thomas N. Kuhn | Member | |
| Ms. | Celia L. Adolphi | Member |
| Mr. | Karl F. Schneider | Acting Director | |
| Mr. | Jessie B. Strickland | Examiner |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, the removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (MOR) from the restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
3. The applicant states, that the MOR has literally destroyed his military career and that he has tried on two consecutive occasions to have the MOR removed. He further states that the he was not informed or notified that an investigation into alleged recruiting malpractice was conducted until he returned from the Persian Gulf in November 1992. He further states that the final disposition was imposed against him on 29 October 1992 which prevented further inquiry on his part. He also states that he was found guilty before he could rebut the findings of the Article 15-6 investigation and that he was denied due process.
4. The applicant’s military records show that the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1989.
5. On 29 October 1992 a general officer MOR was imposed against the applicant from the commanding general of the Recruiting Command for his being grossly negligent in advising an applicant. At the time the MOR was imposed, the applicant was no longer assigned to the Recruiting Command and there is no evidence in the available records to show that the MOR was actually referred to the applicant for rebuttal or comment. His records do show however that the applicant received an award of the Army Commendation Medal for his performance as a recruiter when he departed the Recruiting Command in June 1992 to Fort Hood, Texas.
6. The applicant appealed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board on two separate occasions to have the MOR moved to the restricted fiche of his OMPF and on both occasions his requests were denied based on the lack of sufficient time elapsed and proof that the intent of the MOR had been served.
7. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the DASEB. It opined that the applicant’s performance record had been good and noted not only that the MOR had been filed without the applicant’s rebuttal, but that the applicant had not been relieved for cause nor did he receive an adverse NCO evaluation report. Therefore, the DASEB accepted the applicant’s application to the Board as a request to have the MOR moved to the restricted fiche of his OMPF and elected to approve his request at this time based on intent served.
8. Army Regulation 600-37 prescribes the policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files. It states, in pertinent part, that the authority to issue and direct the filing of a MOR is restricted to the recipient’s immediate commander or a higher commander in his or her chain of command. It further states that the unfavorable information will be referred to the recipient for information and acknowledgment of his or her rebuttal opportunity. The acknowledgment and or rebuttal documents will be filed with the MOR.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board agrees with the DASEB that the applicant was denied due process by placing the MOR in his OMPF without referring it to him for comment.
2. Not only was the applicant not under the command of the imposing officer at the time the MOR was issued (had departed 5 months prior), there is no evidence in the OMPF to show that the MOR was actually referred to the applicant.
3. The Board notes that the issue in this case is simple due process, an issue the Board does not take lightly. Furthermore, it is an issue that should have been known by all concerned before the MOR was issued and filed in the applicant’s OMPF as a matter of official record.
4. While the Board cannot determine if the applicant would have been selected for promotion, he should be afforded the opportunity to compete for promotion without the presence of the MOR in his records.
5. Therefore, the Board finds that the MOR should be removed form the applicant’s records and that the applicant should be afforded promotion reconsideration by all promotion selections boards that considered the applicant for promotion after the MOR was placed in his OMPF and failed to select him for promotion.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by removing the MOR dated 29 October 1992 and all documents related thereto from the OMPF of the individual concerned; and
b. by submitting his records, as thus corrected, to a duly constituted special selection board(s) convened under the appropriate criteria of the boards that nonselected him until he is either selected for promotion or has been afforded all promotion reconsideration to which he is entitled as a result of this corrective action.
2. That if he is selected for promotion, he be promoted with an appropriate date of rank, or if those NCO’s already selected have not yet been promoted, that he be assigned an appropriate sequence number.
3. That in accordance with paragraph 21e, Army Regulation 15-185, following completion of the administrative corrections directed herein, the proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this appeal be returned to this Board for permanent filing.
BOARD VOTE:
TNK JS CLA GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079840C070215
The applicant’s unit, battalion, and brigade commanders, after reviewing the applicant’s rebuttal letter, all recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the P-Fiche portion of the applicant’s OMPF. On 5 December 2001, the applicant was notified that the DASEB had deliberated on his petition to remove the GOMOR, dated 10 March 2000, from the P-Fiche portion of his OMPF, and after careful consideration had denied his request. The DASEB case summary indicated, in effect, that the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083656C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of this NJP is filed on the applicant's R fiche.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001574C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Performance (P) fiche and transferred to his Restricted (R) fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The last Colonel's promotion board did not select him for promotion, and he believed that despite his otherwise outstanding record, this GOMOR was the reason for his non-selection. Letters (memorandums) of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009267C070206
The applicant requests that a memorandum of reprimand imposed by a general officer (GOMOR) and associated documents be expunged from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant acknowledged the GOMOR and provided a rebuttal in which he maintained that he was not intoxicated under German law because his blood alcohol content (BAC) was only .054 at 0036 hours and .060 at 0038 hours and that German law provided that a BAC of .080 was considered evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509403C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In two applications, the removal of a memorandum of reprimand (MOR) dated 12 June 1992 and an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 1 June 1992 through 13 June 1992 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), or as an alternative that they be transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF. The applicant submitted rebuttals to both the MOR and the contested OER on 19 June 1992, the contents of which were essentially the same. The applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071763C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his two Memorandums of Reprimand (MOR) be removed from his Performance (P) fiche, Disciplinary Data Section, and transferred to his Restricted (R) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). APPLICANT STATES : That his two MORs have served their purpose, remained in his record for more than 4 years, and since receiving his MORs his military performance has been nothing but stellar. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066984C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: However, the Board notes that the OMPF provided to the Board, dated 24 January 2002, the MOR in question is filed in the R-Fiche, along with the applicant’s rebuttal statements and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085330C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was unlawfully non-selected for promotion to LTC by two Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) convening in December 2000 and May 2001 under 1998 and 1999 criteria, when the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) failed to properly expunge derogatory documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF) microfiche. The applicant appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 1 August 1995 to be retained on active duty as an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010271C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 600-37, also provides that a LOR or MOR, regardless of issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer. In April 2006, based on a request by the applicant for removal of the MOR from his OMPF or transfer of the OMPF to his R-fiche, the DASEB concluded that the MOR had served its intended purpose and it would be in the best interest of the Army to transfer the document to the R-fiche.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067512C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of a Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (DA Form 2627) dated 9 March 1999, an Administrative Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) dated 2 April 1999, a memorandum from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) dated 13 July 2001, and a MOR dated 1 February 2001, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). He did not appeal the punishment and the imposing commander directed that it be filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF. After...