RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           12 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005420


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that a General Officer Memorandum of
Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File
(OMPF), or in the alternative that the GOMOR be transferred from the
performance portion (P-Fiche) to the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of his
OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the basis for his request is that the
intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served, and its removal from or
transfer to the R-Fiche of his OMPF would be in the best interest of the
Army.  He states that he received the GOMOR for driving under the influence
(DUI) of alcohol.  He claims that he understands he made a mistake which is
completely inexcusable, and that he takes full responsibility for his
conduct on that date.  He states that he has since dedicated himself to
acting in a manner befitting a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and his
service since receiving the GOMOR has been exemplary.  He claims to have
committed no disciplinary infractions and states that he is a dedicated
Soldier who lives up to the Army’s core values.   He states that he works
hard to achieve and maintain excellence and wishes to continue to serve his
country to the greatest extent possible by remaining in the Army.  He
concludes by stating that in light of these facts, he believes the intended
purpose of the GOMOR has been served and respectfully requests that it be
transferred to the R-Fiche of his OMPF.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  6 Noncommissioned Evaluation Reports (NCOERs), Certificates
of Achievement, Army Good Conduct Medal Awards, Associate’s Degree, College
Transcripts,
3 NCO Training Course Completion Certificates, Pathfinder Badge Orders,
Army Commendation Medal Orders and Meritorious Service Medal Orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) on 24
September 1987.  He was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) on 1
February 1999 and he was still on active duty at the time he submitted his
application to the Board.

2.  On 24 June 1999, while serving at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the applicant
received a GOMOR from the commanding general (CG) of the United States
Armor Center and Fort Knox.  The GOMOR reprimanded the applicant for
driving under the influence of alcohol on 26 May 1999.
3.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and provided a
statement in response.  In the response, the applicant requested local
filing of the GOMOR. He stated that he accepted full responsibility for his
actions and believed that he should be punished.  He also stated that he
had served the Army with distinction for eleven years.  He stated that in
the two years prior to the incident, he had completed his associate’s
degree, was appointed the unit reenlistment noncommissioned officer (NCO),
served as an instructor in digital integration and master fitness trainer,
and had been promoted to SFC.

4.  In his GOMOR response, the applicant also stated that until the
incident in question, he had maintained a spotless record.  He further
indicated that he understood that DUI was a serious offense, but hoped it
would not end his career.  He hoped the incident would act as a wake-up
call.  He stated that in the Army, he had found a way to support his
family, to be a productive member of society and to take care of Soldiers.
He commented that it was his belief that he could contribute greatly to the
Army in his current grade and looked forward to challenges in the future.

5.  After reviewing the response from the applicant, the CG, United States
Armor Center and Fort Knox, directed that the GOMOR be filed in the
applicant’s OMPF.

6.  On 12 October 2001, President of the Department of the Army Suitability
Evaluation Board (DASEB) notified the applicant that after carefully
considering his petition to transfer the GOMOR from performance portion (P-
Fiche) to the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of his OMPF, the DASEB voted to
deny his request.

7.  The DASEB decision summary indicates all the following factors were
present in the applicant’s case:  the applicant acknowledges his action and
believes he should be punished, the chain of command provided strong
recommendations supporting the applicant’s request, the applicant received
outstanding evaluations after the offense, the applicant provided two very
strong letters of support from his current supervisors that speak highly of
his performance and recognized him as a NCO that cares, who conducts
himself professionally, and diligently worked to produce meaningful
results.
8.  The DASEB summary shows it finally concluded that absent a specific
request from the imposing authority, the DASEB had consistently refused to
transfer such recent disciplinary actions on Soldiers of such rank and
position as the applicant’s.

9.  The applicant’s performance history since the GOMOR was imposed
includes five NCOERs in which he received “Among the Best” evaluations from
all his raters and 1 block (Successful/Superior) evaluations from all his
senior raters.  These are the best evaluations possible in the “Performance
and Potential” portion of the NCOER.

10.  The applicant has also completed several military subject courses, the
ANCOC course, and college courses since receiving the GOMOR.  In addition,
he was awarded a Meritorious Service Medal outstanding service during the
period 1 November 1997 through 13 June 2002, the Army Commendation Medal
for outstanding service during the period 12 August 2002 through 12 August
2003 and the fourth award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period
24 September 1996 through 23 September 1999.

11.  The applicant’s current battalion commander provides a letter in
support of this application.  He states that since receiving the GOMOR, the
applicant continued to show and display a professional attitude and
standard in everyday duties.  The battalion commander outlines the
applicant’s many accomplishments and recommends the GOMOR be moved to the R-
Fiche portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

12.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies
and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army
members in individual official personnel files, ensure that unfavorable
information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is
not filed in individual official personnel files and ensure that the best
interests of both the Army and the soldiers are served by authorizing
unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from
official personnel files.

13.  Chapter 7 of the same regulation provides the policies and procedures
for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the
OMPF.  Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been
properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct
and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent
authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual
concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the
document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its
alteration or removal from the OMPF.
14.  Paragraph 7-2b of the unfavorable information regulation contains
guidance on transfers of OMPF entries.  It states, in pertinent part, that
letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure 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.  Appeals approved under this provision will
result in transfer of the document from the performance portion (P-Fiche)
to the R-Fiche of the OMPF

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly shows the GOMOR was issued and filed in
the OMPF in accordance with the governing law and regulation.  By
regulation, in order to remove this document from the OMPF, there must be
clear and convincing evidence showing that the document is untrue or
unjust.  No such evidence has been provided in this case.

2.  However, the regulation does authorize the transfer of a GOMOR when it
can be determined that the document has served its intended purpose.  The
evidence of record in this case shows the applicant accepted responsibility
for his actions and admitted there was no excuse for his actions.  It also
shows that he has responded positively to the reprimand, as evidenced by
his continued outstanding performance, as evidenced by his evaluation
history and the letter of support from his battalion commander.

3.  Given the passage of time and the applicant’s continued value to the
Army, it is concluded that the GOMOR in question has served its intended
purpose.  As a result, it would be appropriate to transfer the GOMOR in
question to the R-Fiche portion of the applicant’s OMPF at this time.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___SLP _  ___JNS _  ___CG __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by transferring the General Officer Memorandum of
Reprimand and all related documents from the performance portion (P-Fiche)
to the restricted portion
(R-Fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File based on it having served
its intended purpose.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
removal of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand from the Official
Military Personnel File.




            ____John N. Slone_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005420                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/12                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |126.0400                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]