| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by removing the following documents from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF): a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR); a Relief for Cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) that he received subsequent to the GOMOR; and documents revoking his Drill Sergeant Qualification Badge. If the above actions are granted, the applicant is also requesting promotion to master sergeant/E-8 with appropriate credit for time in grade, and reinstatement in the Drill Sergeant program.
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the actions taken against him were unjust because the command fostered an environment of gossip following a sexual harassment allegation. This resulted in the leveling of unfounded charges that could not be proven, but which still led to his removal from the Drill Sergeant Program. He states he believes the command impeded the investigation by not allowing him the opportunity to gather statements for his defense, and that the Military Police Investigators (MPI) conduct a biased investigation.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of this case on 3 December 1998 (AC97-11784/AR1998009135) and reconsideration of this case on 14 May 2002 (AR2001065493).
The applicant submits a four-page, self-authored statement, dated 3 July 2002, in which he once again details his contentions; a copy of the Military Police Report; newspaper clippings of the investigation; and a videotape of an interview regarding the allegations of sexual improprieties conducted by a local television station in Columbia, South Carolina. These submissions are new evidence and/or argument that require Board consideration. The rest of the applicant’s submissions were previously submitted or available to the Board at the time of his last submission.
On 21 November 2001, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of an earlier appeal to this Board. On 12 May 2002, this Board denied the applicant’s request indicating that the applicant had not provided any substantial convincing evidence that the GOMOR’s removal or transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.
The latest submissions, although considered new evidence, basically reiterate the applicant's previous refutation of the allegations made against him which resulted in the above administrative actions under appeal.
Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing unfavorable information in the OMPF. Paragraph 7.2.B.b(1) states that GOMOR’s may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.
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. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that his chain of command fostered an atmosphere where rampant gossip led to unsubstantiated charges against him.
2. There is no evidence of record showing that the military police investigation was biased against the applicant or that his chain of command impeded the investigation by not allowing him to gather information refuting the charges against him.
3. While the applicant has once again detailed his contentions, he has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the Army acted correctly by imposing the GOMOR. Furthermore, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the process of imposing the GOMOR and in the subsequent appeals process.
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
________ ________ __le____ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fne___ _mjnt___ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002075865 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030410 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 134.0200 |
| 2. | 134.0100 |
| 3. | 134.0400 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001148
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests removal of a March 2006 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from his record. The applicant provides: * his personal description of the circumstances surrounding the reprimand * an October 2014 request for the Adjutant General, Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) to remove the GOMOR * the PAARNG Adjutant Generals response directing the applicant to apply to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002285
On 28 September 2006, upon his return to Fort Polk, LA, by memorandum, the applicant's commander notified him of his temporary suspension of command and pending adverse action based on numerous incidents of poor judgment regarding the use of government vehicles and personnel for personal use and the investigation that substantiated allegations of a hostile work environment and gender bias. If the senior rater decides that the comments provide significant new facts about the rated Soldier's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711784
The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment with the support of his chain of command to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board at the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC). The DASEB denied his request. The applicant received a reprimand from his company commander and a letter of concern from his battalion commander and was counseled on several occasions by his commanders regarding his conduct in these matters.
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 | CY2015 | 20150003594
The applicant requests removal of two General Officer Memoranda of Reprimand (GOMORs) and a Relief for Cause (RFC) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his record. The applicant provides copies of: * a 9 page personal brief titled "Brief in Support of Application for Discharge Upgrade" * an 8 September 2011 AR 15-6 (Procedures For Investigating Officers And Boards Of Officers) investigation with attachments * a 19 November 2014 Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASAB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012380C070206
In the memorandum dated 20 November 2001, the applicant informed the Commander, III Corps, that an AR 15-6 investigation had been initiated on 2 August 2001, and that an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to investigate the individuals involved for potential fraud. On 11 March 2002, a Command Climate investigation was conducted in the 15th Finance Battalion and the 13th Finance Group and the IO's overall assessment for the 15th Finance Battalion was that morale was very low based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02770A
A complete copy of the applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. Since the Article 32 ROI was not obtainable when the applicant’s appeal was first reviewed and based on what appeared to be excerpts of the ROI in his latest submission, on 28 Mar 03 the AFBCMR Staff requested he provide a complete copy of the Article 32 ROI for the Board to examine when his case was reviewed for possible reconsideration. Also provided is a 4 Oct 00 letter from the wing commander dismissing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018083
On 29 April 2009, the Garrison Commander reprimanded the applicant for inappropriate contact with a child under the age of 12 and for allowing the child to possess alcohol. On 21 May 2009, after reviewing the GOMOR imposed against the applicant and the rebuttal statement, the Garrison Commander directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. However, they are also insufficient evidence to support removal of the applicant's GOMOR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016386
The applicant requests removal of his Relief for Cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 30 June 2012 through 30 July 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant provides copies of the following documents: * an extract from Army Regulation 623-3 * the contested NCOER * two Enlisted Record Briefs (ERB) * an article from the NCO Journal magazine * six NCOERs rendered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016386
The applicant requests removal of his Relief for Cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 30 June 2012 through 30 July 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). • an extract from Army Regulation 623-3 • the contested NCOER • two Enlisted Record Briefs (ERB) • an article from the NCO Journal magazine • six NCOERs rendered for the period 1 September 2007 through 29 June 2012 • a...