RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008278


      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             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |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 the General Officer Memorandum
of Reprimand (GOMOR) he received on 10 May 2002 be removed from his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states he received the GOMOR for submitting a board
packet to the January 2002 US Army Reserve Command (USARC) Colonel Command
Assignment Selection Board (CCASB) showing that he was awarded the Silver
Star and Purple Heart.  He states he was "given these awards" and he has
been trying to prove it for the past 14 years.  He adds the official
photograph submitted in his USARC CCASB packet and showing him wearing the
awards was a mistake and was only meant as a gift for his "sick father."
He concludes that the Commanding General's (CG) reprimand was supposed to
be "temporary, not permanent."

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  A GOMOR, dated 10 May 2000, with supporting documents.

      b.  A copy of DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating
Officer/Board of Officers), dated 28 March 2002, and supporting documents.

      c.  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty) issued by the United States Air Force for the period of service from
2 June 1965 to 24 July 1969.

      d.  DD Forms 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 22 April 1994 and
20 May 1994, showing award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, Vietnam
Service Medal with silver service star, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award
with Valor and 3 bronze service stars, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal,
Air Force Longevity Service Award, and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross
with Palm.

      e.  Memoranda, Headquarters, Air Force Military Personnel Center,
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, dated 21 and 22 April 1994; and 3 and 17
May 1994.

      f.  Congressional Correspondence, dated 19 and 29 March 2002 and
7 May 2002.

      g.  Letters, National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis,
Missouri, dated 6 and 31 May 2002; and 5, 12 and 20 June 2002.

      h.  Air Force Form 7 (Airman Military Record).

      i.  Medical Records, dated between 21 and 26 April 1966.

      j.  Photographs of a leg and an arm that appear to be covered with
fine red bumps.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a USAR Colonel assigned to the US Army Individual
Ready Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  At the time of the incident
for which he received the GOMOR, he was a Lieutenant Colonel (Promotable)
assigned to Headquarters, 2nd Battalion, 413th Regiment, 1st Brigade, 104th
Division (Institutional Training (IT)), Moffett Field, California.

2.  On/about 6 December 2001, the applicant submitted a board packet to the
USARC CCASB for consideration of a brigade-level (Colonel) command
assignment.  In that packet, he submitted an official photograph in which
he wore the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.  Also in that packet, the
Silver Star and Purple Heart were listed on his "Resume of Service Career
[BIOSUM]" and his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).  All three
documents were authenticated by the applicant as correct.

3.  The discrepancy concerning the applicant's entitlement to the Silver
Star and Purple Heart was noted.  On 27 March 2002, the CG, 104th Division
(IT) ordered an Investigating Officer (IO) be appointed pursuant to Army
Regulation (AR)
15-6 for the purpose of conducting an informal investigation into whether
or not the applicant was entitled to wear the Silver Star and Purple Heart
on the date the USARC CCASB reviewed his OMPF.

4.  On 12 April 2002, the applicant provided the IO a sworn statement in
which he related the following.  In May or June 1965 in Vietnam, he was an
Airman serving as a cargo handler.  His plane was shot down while he was
escorting special cargo.  He helped rescue a passenger and the co-pilot
from the plane.  On the ground, they were attacked by a hostile force and
he sustained an injury to his upper right leg.  Soldiers from a Special
Forces (SF) camp rescued them and the SF medic treated his injury.  Upon
return to his unit at Phan Rang, Vietnam, his squadron commander held a
ceremony recognizing him for his actions and he
was advised he would be awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.
Shortly, after the incident and ceremony, he was sent to the Philippines
for a flight physical and processing into the US Air Force Academy.  He
failed the vision test portion of his physical and returned to Vietnam to
complete his tour.  In 1989, he realized he was missing authorization to
wear the Silver Star and Purple Heart.  He asked his mother if she had
received a package while he was in Vietnam that may have contained these
awards and she replied that she had, but she did not know where they were.
He did not have the opportunity to check out the matter before her death
and the sale of the house.  He has made several unsuccessful attempts to
obtain the authority to wear the awards through the Air Force and through
the help of his Congressional Representatives.

5.  The applicant's sworn statement to the IO also indicated that his
packet was prepared by others for his signature and he did not know that
his DA Form 2-1 listed the Purple Heart  or his BIOSUM listed award of the
Silver Star and Purple Heart.  He further explained he had two photos taken
– one showing the awards for which he had authorization and one showing the
unauthorized Silver Star and Purple Heart.  He states the unauthorized
photo was not meant for the Colonel Command Selection Board; it was meant
for his sick father, but he mistakenly put it in the packet.  Upon the Army
Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) advising him of the unauthorized
medals, he immediately requested that his packet be removed from
consideration.  He has never used the Silver Star or the Purple Heart for
any previous considerations, to include promotions, schools, and
assignments.

6.  On 17 April 2002, the IO determined:

      a.  The applicant was not entitled to wear the Silver Star or the
Purple Heart on the date the USARC CCASB reviewed his personnel records to
determine his suitability for command in the grade of Colonel/O-6.


      b.  The applicant invested much time and effort to obtain
documentation for the award of the Silver Star and Purple Heart, pursuing
the issue since 1989 through the help of the NPRC and his congressional
representatives.


      c.  The applicant mistakenly attached the photograph showing award of
the Silver Star and Purple Heart to his USAR CCASB consideration file -- a
photograph that was to have been sent to his father.


      d.  The individual or individuals who added the Silver Star and Purple
Heart to the applicant's BIOSUM could not be identified.


      e.  DA Form 2-1 included an entry for award of the Purple Heart
although no corroborating documents were included in his OMPF.  There was
no entry for award of the Silver Star.


      f.  The applicant alleged he had never used his (presumptive) awards
of the Silver Star and Purple for consideration by school selection or
promotion authority.  His consideration files for the Senior Service
College Selection Board and the O-6 Promotion Board contain photographs
showing the Meritorious Service Medal as his highest award and the BIOSUM's
in those files contained no mention of award of the Silver Star or Purple
Heart.


      g  Upon being notified by ARPERSCOM of the discrepancies involving his
picture and the BIOSUM, the applicant requested that his file be removed
from consideration by the USARC CCASB.

      h.  The applicant had subsequently been selected for a seat in the
Army War College Distance Learning Class of 2003 and he was promoted to
Colonel.


      i.  It is improbable that random coincidence produced two unrelated
errors that resulted in the Silver Star and the Purple Heart being appended
to the official photo and the BIOSUM.

7.  The IO found that the applicant demonstrated poor judgment by taking an
official photograph while wearing awards to which he knew he was not
entitled.  The IO also found that the applicant had demonstrated simple
negligence by failing to ensure his DA Form 2-1 and BIOSUM were accurate,
and by placing the improper photograph in his USARC CCASB packet.

8.  The IO recommended that the appointing authority interview the
applicant to determine whether to impose a verbal reprimand, or to impose a
"temporary GOMOR" which would remain in the applicant's file for 1 year, or
direct an investigation under Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ).  The CG chose to issue a GOMOR to be permanently filed in the
applicant's OMPF.

9.  On 10 May 2002, the 104th Division (IT) Commander issued the applicant
a reprimand.  It stated, "You are reprimanded for dereliction of your duty
to ensure that the packet of personnel records that you submitted, on or
about 6 December 2001, to the January 2002, USARC CCASB accurately reported
your military awards.  Specifically, in that packet, you represented that
you had been awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart, when you knew that
military orders for these awards were not in your OMPF."

10.  The GOMOR states that the applicant misrepresented his awards in the
following January 2002 USAR CCASB packet enclosures:

      a.  The applicant's official photograph, dated 4 December 2001, which
he signed on its back and which shows him unlawfully wearing the Silver
Star and Purple Heart.

      b.  The applicant's "Resume of Service Career (BIOSUM)," dated
6 December 2001, which he signed and also lists the Silver Star and Purple
Heart among his awards.


      c.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1, dated 4 December 2001, which lists
the Silver Star [sic] and Purple Heart among his awards.

11.  The GOMOR also states that these misrepresentations of the right to
wear two of the most distinguishing awards within the US Military
constitute conduct that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline in
the Armed Forces.  As a battalion commander at the time he submitted his
packet, he was trusted to set an "unshakable example" for subordinate
officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted Soldiers.  His
misrepresentations severely violated this trust and demonstrated judgment
below that expected of any member of the command.  His intolerable behavior
caused discredit to himself, the 104th Division, and the US Army.

12.  The GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  The applicant was advised
the GOMOR was intended to be forwarded for permanent filing in his OMPF;
however, he had 30 days from the date of receipt of the GOMOR to submit
matters in rebuttal or on his behalf.

13.  In a statement, dated 2002, the applicant responded to the GOMOR by
stating he understood the unfavorable information presented against him and
that he chose not to submit a statement and/or documents in his own behalf.
 The GOMOR was permanently placed in the applicant's OMPF.

14.  AR 15-6, Procedure for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers,
establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers.  It
provides that the primary function of any investigation or board of
officers is to ascertain facts and to report them to the appointing
authority.  It is the duty of the IO or board to ascertain and consider the
evidence on all sides of each issue,
thoroughly and impartially, and to make findings and recommendations that
are warranted by the facts and that comply with the instructions of the
appointing authority.

15.  AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures
to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Soldiers in
individual official personnel files.  It states unfavorable information
that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of
substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.
 Reprimands may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general
officer senior to the recipient.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The act of altering official records to show entitlement to awards
which have not been earned, and the wearing of unauthorized awards and
decorations is unethical and illegal.  The applicant knew that he was not
authorized to wear the Silver Star and the Purple Heart, yet he posed for
an official photograph while wearing these decorations.  Although he does
not admit altering his BIOSUM and DA Form 2-1, he attested to the accuracy
of both documents knowing that they contained false information.  In so
doing, he demonstrated a complete lack of integrity.  His offered excuse is
unacceptable.

2.  The applicant's GOMOR was accomplished in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations and completely justified based upon the offenses
committed.  There is no indication of any violation of his rights.

3.  The IO recommended that the applicant be issued a "temporary" GOMOR to
be filed in his OMPF for one year.  The filing of the GOMOR was at the
discretion of the CG, 104th Division, who specifically directed that it be
permanently filed.

4.  The applicant has not shown that the filing decision was in error, or
unjust, or that, the CG was obligated to make a different decision.  The
GOMOR is properly filed in the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__kan___  __wdp___  __mjnt__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                        Kathleen A. Newman
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008278                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050823                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |134.0400                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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