| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records by removing the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 September 1998, and all related documents from his records. He also requests that all documents concerning his removal from the 1998 Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Army Promotion List be removed, that he be reinstated on the promotion list and promoted to LTC with a date of rank of 1 March 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that Brigadier General (BG) C_____ failed to give him a fair opportunity to defend himself, issued the GOMOR based on false or incomplete information, and imposed excessive punishment for an offense he did not commit. He avers that the BG prejudged him and showed that he had already made his decision when he did not consider Colonel (COL) F_____’s comments. He contends that the additional statement from COL F_____ supports this contention.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2000048254) on 6 February 2001.
The applicant submits an additional statement from COL F_______ that states, “While I was serving as the Chief of Staff at 7th Army Training Command, Grafenwoehr, I was contacted by several fellow officers in regards to Maj. M_____’s integrity, including an officer I had served with in a previous assignment. All had said that his integrity was unquestionable.” He states that, in his opinion, the BG’s punishment was too severe and that he believes that the applicant should be retained, restored to the lieutenant colonel promotion list and promoted.
The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board review.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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. COL F_____’s opinion, that the results of the incident constitute unduly harsh punishment, does not show an error or injustice in this case.
2. There is no evidence that BG C____ failed to follow proper procedures or prejudged the applicant prior to issuing a GOMOR and having it placed in the applicant’s official record.
3. The Board concludes that the GOMOR was appropriate and fully justified.
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
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_LLS____ _RWA __ __TLP___ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001059459 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020108 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 134.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005447
The applicant requests: * the removal from the performance folder of his official military personnel file (OMPF) of a General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) and all related documents * promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by a special selection board (SSB) under the fiscal year 2012 (FY12) criteria * as an alternative, the GOMOR and all related documents be moved to the restricted folder of his OMPF 2. He asserted that: (1) The appellant received one officer evaluation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000392
The applicant requests complete removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period from 6 June 2003 through 30 April 2004 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his records. On 11 November 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal of the contested OER. He also believes that the contested OER was inaccurate when it stated that the applicant negatively impacted unit climate and morale; e. in her statement, dated 29 September 2008, a LTC, Chief...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014314
A memorandum, dated 15 August 2006, appointed COL S____ as an investigating officer (IO) pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 to investigate allegations that the 353rd EN GP MT's abused RST's; violated command policies regarding ATA's, overtime, and compensatory time; and violated pay input internal controls. A second memorandum, dated 25 September 2006, appointed COL D____ as an IO pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 to investigate allegations that the 353rd EN GP MT's abused RST's; violated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016408
The applicant requests reconsideration of the portion of his previous application pertaining to: * promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 under the criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and FY 2009 * reconsideration of his application for appointment as an Engineer Branch warrant officer 2. The Board further determined there was no evidence showing he had completed the required military education to be considered for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006076
The advisory official's key points of emphasis include * the NEARNG requested a determination by the AGDRB of the highest grade satisfactorily served by the applicant * the AGDRB determined the applicant's service in the grade of COL was unsatisfactory based on the fact that the applicant was relieved from brigade command * the applicant received selection of eligibility for promotion to BG (O-7) on 5 August 2010; however, he did not serve as a BG and could not meet the statutory TIG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007248
She dated and married MSG BFK while both were working for the same USAR unit. A short time later, they (the applicant and MSG BFK) informed the chain of command of their relationship. The evidence of record confirms the applicant received a GOMOR in November 2011 for fraternization after an AR 15-6 investigation determined the applicant, a 1LT, was living with MSG BFK.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009479
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records by removing a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 27 October 2010, from the restricted folder of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The applicant states: * the majority of the Board in the original proceedings believed the GOMOR was issued unjustly due to a lack of evidence substantiating the allegation * the majority of the Board gave significant weight to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020433
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's request for correction of his records as follows: * Removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 25 April 2007, from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * Removal of the Secretary of the Army's (SA) Letter of Censure, dated 30 July 2007, from his OMPF * Reissuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing his rank/grade as lieutenant general (LTG)/O-9 * Back pay and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000813
The applicant argues: * BG T_____'s finding that he altered documents to make it appear he was on the convoy attacked on 8 January 2006 is untrue * BG T____ in his GOMOR endorsed the investigative finding that he (the applicant) falsified LTC R_____'s signature * BG T_____ issued him a GOMOR based on incomplete information * LTC R_____ indicated the CAB packet in question was one of several documents he signed prior to his departure * he does not believe that an administrative error...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017281
The applicant states, in a 29-page brief, that: a. He was a senior officer in the NYARNG as the Commander, 10th Brigade, from May 1993 to October 1996. Furthermore, although the CI determined that this OER contained administrative and substantive errors and recommended its removal from his records, and although it is noted that the rating officials did not complete the contested OER in a timely manner, that an OER support form was submitted with this report, and that the applicant was...