MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 19 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002086389

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member
Mr. William D. Powers		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: The transfer of a general officer letter of reprimand (GOLOR) from the performance fiche to the restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES: That prior to receiving the GOLOR, he abused alcohol on a regular basis and upon receiving his first offense for driving under the influence (DUI), he informed his supervisor, who elected not to act on his misconduct. As a result, this led him to believe his behavior was acceptable, so he made no changes to his lifestyle. After a mere 3 months, he received a second DUI and realized that he had a problem and had to make some serious changes. He goes on to state that he informed his chain of command and enrolled in an alcohol treatment program. He continues by stating that the GOLOR has had a negative impact on his career for the past 4 years; however, it taught him many lessons and has made him a better soldier and leader. He also states that he intends to continue serving the Army for many years to come; however, with the GOLOR on his performance fiche, he will be restricted from excelling to his full potential. In support of his application he submits statements from his former commander, his former battalion adjutant, his former supervisor at the time, his current commanding general, his current chief of staff, his current Secretary to General Staff (SGS), his current command sergeant major, his current first sergeant and a letter of completion of a 20-hour alcohol impact early intervention course.

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

The applicant enlisted in Columbus, Ohio, on 16 June 1992, for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks, and training under the airborne infantry enlistment option. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 28 February 1995, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and training as an administrative specialist. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 February 1996, while serving as a personnel administration clerk in Korea. A review of his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) while assigned to Korea indicates that he performed additional duties as the Unit Alcohol and Drug Abuse Noncommissioned Officer (NCO).

Upon his departure from Korea in September 1996, he was assigned to a Recruiting Battalion in Maine for duty as the Battalion Truckmaster. He also had additional duties as the Unit Alcohol and Drug Coordinator and his first NCOER rendered in June 1997, indicates that he developed and implemented the battalion's safety, drug and alcohol standard operating procedures (SOP).

In his next NCOER, again rating him as the battalion truckmaster, with additional duties as the unit alcohol and drug coordinator, his rater indicates that he received an Army Commendation Medal for achievement as battalion soldier of the year and an Army Achievement Medal for providing outstanding logistical support during a conference. His rater also gave him an "excellence" rating for exercising diligence in managing the battalion's alcohol and drug program and ensuring 100% testing of the battalion personnel.

His next NCOER rendered in September 1998 evaluated him as an administrative clerk in the same battalion with additional duties as the Unit Alcohol and Drug Coordinator. His rater again gave him an "excellence" rating for achieving 100% testing of battalion personnel during the fiscal year.

On 15 March 1999, the applicant received a GOLOR from the Deputy Commanding General of Recruiting Command. The GOLOR reprimanded the applicant for DUI on 27 November 1998, while he was on a suspended license for a previous DUI offense on 23 August 1998, which he failed to properly report.

On 25 March 1999, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOLOR in which he asserted that he understood the seriousness of his actions and regretted each of his decisions to drive while intoxicated. However, he was under a lot of personal stress at the time, had attended an alcohol impact course and he had always been a dedicated soldier. He requested that the imposing official not file the GOLOR in his OMPF.

The applicant's battalion commander at the time recommended that the GOLOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF and made handwritten comments to the effect that he made his recommendation with regret because the applicant had been and continued to be an outstanding soldier. Unfortunately, his lack of judgment could not be underwritten.

The imposing official, after reviewing the applicant's rebuttal and the chain of command's recommendations, directed that the GOLOR be filed in his OMPF.

His next NCOER ending in September 1999 evaluated him as the battalion motor sergeant responsible for the management, maintenance and usage of 218 vehicles. He no longer had additional responsibilities as the unit Alcohol and Drug Coordinator but had additional duties as the battalion safety NCO.

In September 2000, he received an NCOER evaluating him as an administrative sergeant with additional duties as the Safety NCO.

He was reassigned to the Army Evaluation Center in October 2000 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 March 2001.

On 14 September 2001, he submitted an appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting that the GOLOR be transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF. The DASEB denied his request on 30 October 2001.

The supporting statement submitted by the from his former battalion commander during the incident in question, supports his request to transfer the GOLOR based on intent served. The former commander indicates that the GOLOR was appropriate at the time and contends that it has now served its purpose, as evidenced by the applicant's continued outstanding performance of duty.

All of the remaining letters of support indicate that the GOLOR has served its purpose and recommend approval of the applicant's request.

Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing of unfavorable information in the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive Memorandum of Reprimand or admonition will be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general officer or the officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient. If the general officer elects not to place the letter in the OMPF, it will be returned to the individual.

Army Regulation 600-37 also provides that an officer who directed the filing in the OMPF of an administrative letter of reprimand, admonition, or censure may request its revision, alteration, or removal, if later investigation determines that it was untrue or unjust, in part or in whole. The basis for such determination must be provided to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) in sufficient detail so as to justify the request. An officer who directed the filing of such a letter in the OMPF may not initiate an appeal on the basis that the letter has served its intended purpose. However, a letter of support may be submitted with the recipient's appeal.

Army Regulation 27-10 provides policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice within the Army. It states, in pertinent part, that nonjudicial punishment is imposed to correct misconduct in violation of the UCMJ. Such conduct may result from intentional disregard of or failure to comply with prescribed standards of military conduct. Nonpunitive measures usually deal with misconduct resulting from simple neglect, forgetfulness, laziness, inattention to instructions, sloppy habits, immaturity, difficulty adjusting to military life, and similar deficiencies. These measures are primarily tools for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance and do not constitute punishment. Included among nonpunitive measures are administrative reprimands and admonitions and they must contain the statement indicating that they are imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the UCMJ.

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. 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 this requirement.

2. The GOLOR was properly imposed in compliance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

3. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and the supporting statements which opine that the GOLOR has served its purpose. However, the Board notes that at the time he was arrested for DUI, he was an NCO serving as the unit drug and alcohol coordinator, a truckmaster and motor sergeant. The Board finds that if anyone should have been most aware of the seriousness of DUI, the applicant should have been the one person in the unit who would not commit such an offense. The Board is not convinced that in the short amount of time that has elapsed and the fact that he was removed from those duties in which he was directly involved in activities that could lead to such misconduct, that the GOLOR has served its purpose.

4. Although the former battalion commander is now supporting the transfer of the GOLOR, he was not supporting the applicant at the time and the imposing officer has not provided a supporting statement. The Board must presume that it was the imposing officer's intention that the GOLOR remain in the performance fiche of the OMPF; otherwise he would not have chosen that it be permanently filed.

5. While the Board does not dispute that the applicant has an otherwise excellent record of service, the Board finds no error on injustice associated with the GOLOR being filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF.

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

___js ___ ___wdp__ __lem___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002086389
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 1020	134.0400/gomor
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.