| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the DA Form 4833, Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action, generated as a result of her committing adultery, be expunged from Criminal Records Division.
APPLICANT STATES: That the contested form, and supporting documents, are over six years old and contain information that has blocked her from becoming a drill sergeant. She contends that the report, which generated the contested form, is irrelevant, untimely, and unduly prejudicial. She explains that she had been legally separated from her husband when she had a sexual relationship with a man she believed was legally separated and pending a divorce. When she was questioned about her relationship with this man by the Military Police investigator, she was upfront and honest, that she had a sexual relationship with the man and didn’t learn until later that he was not separated or divorced. She adds that the issue of her adultery was dropped after she admitted to having an affair with the man in question to the Military Police investigator. Since the contested report was generated, her divorce was finalized, she was promoted to pay grade E-6, she was deployed to Bosnia as a team chief, she served in Korea as a section sergeant, and she taught advanced individual training. She said that despite numerous memoranda of recommendation from command sergeants major and one memorandum of recommendation from the Commanding General of Fort Gordon, Georgia, her appeal of the denial of her application for entry into the drill sergeant program was denied based on the DA Form 4833 she wants removed from Criminal Records Division’s files.
In support of her application, she submits the letters of recommendation she references, along with the memorandum from the Total Army Personnel Command denying her appeal. In that denial she was informed that, “Despite the fact that your current performance of duty is outstanding, all Army leaders are held accountable for past personal conduct. Moreover, all noncommissioned officers screened for both drill sergeant and recruiting duty are held to a very high standard of personal conduct. As you know, these are extremely sensitive duty positions. Any founded report of unfavorable information that meets the established criteria will result in disqualification of the soldier. The memorandums of support provided with your exception to policy request are indeed impressive, but do not deny the fact that the incident occurred. When you were asked to provide a copy of your separation agreement, it was discovered that one did not exist, and for this reason I am unable to act favorably on your request.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 February 1989, was awarded the military occupational specialty of mobile subscriber equipment transmission system operator, and was promoted to pay grade E-6. At the time she submitted her application to the Board she was serving on active duty in pay grade E-6.
On 6 July 1995, a DA Form 4833 was completed on the applicant which showed that she was under investigation for committing adultery in violation of Article 134, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, from 1 April 1994 to 21 February 1995. In the remarks section of this form it is stated “Soldier was given counseling statement and advised not to have any further contact with the other soldier involved in this incident.”
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. While the applicant states that she was legally separated from her husband and she believed that the man she had the relationship with was legally separated, she has not submitted any evidence to substantiate those claims.
2. The PERSCOM, the command with responsibility for determining the standards for entry into the drill sergeant program, had been presented with essentially the same evidence and argument as has been provided to the Board. It is apparent from the PERSCOM denial that the applicant’s memorandums of recommendation were given careful consideration, but did not outweigh the applicant’s adulterous behavior. It is noted that the PERSCOM mentioned that, while the applicant stated that she was separated at the time she had an affair with the soldier in question, she did not provide a copy of the separation decree.
3. The Board concurs with the PERSCOM, that the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that she was legally separated at the time she had an affair with the man in question, and has not provided any evidence to show that she was led to believe that he was legally separated. Without such documentation, 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
___mhm__ ___alr__ ____kak _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065498 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020618 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006754
The applicant also submits two Memorandums for Record (MFRs), authored by the IO dated 16 June 2005, regarding the AR 15-6 Investigation and a false official sworn statement made by the applicant pertaining to adultery; four copies of MFRs, authored by the IO dated 16 June 2005, regarding the AR 15-6 investigation and statements made by another Soldier admitting to adultery and making a false official Sworn Statement; a MFR, authored by the applicant's first sergeant dated 16 June 2005,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018792
The applicant requests that the officer evaluation report (OER) she received for the period 31 May 2004 to 11 February 2005 be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or, as an alternative, that it be transferred to the Restricted section of her OMPF. It is also noted that the issue that led to her receiving the contested report revolved around the GOMOR she received for her conduct unbecoming an officer and at the time, she was afforded the opportunity to submit matters in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004219
The only alleged evidence of adultery was a phone call between the investigating officer (IO) and a woman who never provided a statement for this investigation. f. the applicant and Mrs. D.V. made allegations against the applicant regarding adultery with Mrs.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083222C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. At the time, they were informed that the incident would remain in their record for five years, provided there were no further incidents. The evidence of record confirms that the results of a CID investigation provided a sufficient legal basis for the subjects to be titled.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015992
The applicant states: * he questions the necessity of back-to-back investigations into the same allegations * the first investigation found proof that his former wife lied in her sworn statements * his former wife's later statements were viewed as credible despite the findings she previously lied * the second investigating officer (IO) based his findings on supposition and conjecture and not fact * his matters for consideration were never answered * the legal sufficiency review of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000795
Counsel requests correction of the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) by removing a: * General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 December 2009 * DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 1 February 2009 through 20 November 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) 2. The GOMOR was correctly filed. d. The applicant and his counsel did not provide clear and compelling evidence that shows the ratings in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016931
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He provided a statement, dated 28 August 2012, from the other party involved. She attests: * that no adulterous/sexual relationship existed between her and the applicant * the charge of adultery is simply not true and based on an incorrect assumption * on at least two occasions during the time when the applicant was in the process of being charged by his chain of command she attempted to make an appointment with the commander and her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009431
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's previous request to remove a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rated period 1 February 2009 through 20 November 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from the applicant's Official Military Personnel Record (OMPF). The applicant's rater for the contested NCOER, Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) WS denied writing the report and stated on several occasions he refused to write a relief for...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00328
In support of his appeal, applicant submits Article 15 documentation which was placed in his Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) folder, a request for mitigation of the Article 15, EPRs and response to the referral EPR. AFPC/DPPPAB did not return the application because the applicant does not have evaluator support, as required by AFI 36-2401. The relationship simply did not “detract from the authority of superiors.” Contrary to the language of the Article 15, applicant never served in the...
In support of his appeal, applicant submits Article 15 documentation which was placed in his Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) folder, a request for mitigation of the Article 15, EPRs and response to the referral EPR. AFPC/DPPPAB did not return the application because the applicant does not have evaluator support, as required by AFI 36-2401. The relationship simply did not “detract from the authority of superiors.” Contrary to the language of the Article 15, applicant never served in the...