RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000180


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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 a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand
(GOMOR) be removed from his Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the GOMOR was issued because of
recruiting violations; however:  he was never trained for the particular
job; he never met the applicant [for enlistment]; and the applicant
"shipped" before he ever reviewed her enlistment packet.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  An 11 August 2004 memorandum of reconsideration which he wrote to
the General Officer (GO) who imposed the GOMOR.

      b.  An 11 March 2004 memorandum of support from a Master Sergeant
(Retired) written to the GO who imposed the GOMOR.

      c.  A copy of the GOMOR issued by the Commanding General (CG), US
Army Recruiting Command (USAREC).  It states "you failed to compare the DD
Form 2808 to the DD Form 1966/4 to ensure that all the tattoos of the
applicant were annotated, evaluated and the proper individuals were
notified . . . ."

      d.  A copy of a memorandum from the applicant acknowledging receipt
of the GOMOR on 3 March 2004.

      e.  A copy of a 4 March 2004 statement from a co-worker.

      f.  A copy of an 8 March 2004 statement from a co-worker.

      g.  A copy of a 12 March 2004 email, subject:  Rebuttal to GOMOR.

      h.  A copy of a 12 March 2004 memorandum for CG, USAREC from the
applicant's battalion commander recommending withdrawal of the GOMOR.

      i.  A copy of a 25 March 2004 memorandum for CG, USAREC from the
applicant's brigade commander recommending filing of the GOMOR in the
applicant's Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) and withdrawal 1 year
after reassignment.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was a Sergeant First Class (SFC/E-7) Assistant Operations
Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) assigned to the US Army Phoenix Recruiting
Battalion, Phoenix, Arizona.

2.  On 3 March 2004, the applicant received a GOMOR from the CG, USAREC for
recruiting impropriety by not ensuring all tattoos on a female enlistee
were properly annotated on enlistment documents.  The GOMOR was issued
following an investigation conducted by USAREC personnel.

3.  The applicant rebutted the GOMOR in writing.  His rebuttal stated:

      a.  The Phoenix Recruiting Battalion Operations Section was in
disarray.  Hundreds of "ship packets" were stacked up and had not been
processed.

      b.  The Operations NCO directed a general clean-up and wanted all
ship packets "QC'd [quality controlled], signed and filed properly.”

      c.  The applicant completed the ship packet for a female enlistee
whom he had never met or seen.  This individual had a tattoo or tattoos
that were not properly annotated, but the applicant signed the ship packet
as correct.

      d.  "QC" of ship packets was a guidance counselor responsibility and
the applicant was not a guidance counselor and not qualified to QC ship
packets.

      e.  The investigation was conducted by the Battalion Operations
Section Officer-in-Charge (OIC).  The OIC helped create the disarray
involving the ship packets and had a personal interest in fixing blame
elsewhere.

4.  The rebuttal was considered by the CG, USAREC.  Although all documents
related to the GOMOR are not available, it is apparent the CG did not
withdraw the GOMOR.  It is also apparent the CG directed the GOMOR to be
filed in the applicant's MPRJ.  A review of the applicant's Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not show the GOMOR filed there.

5.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Informations) sets forth
policies and procedures to (1) authorize placement of unfavorable
information about Army members in individual official personnel files; (2)
ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant,
untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel
files; and (3) 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.  It establishes the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation
Board (DASEB) to hear appeals for removal of documents.  However, the DASEB
may not review removal requests pertaining to documents filed in the MPRJ.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The report of investigation used by the CG, USAREC in his determination
to sanction the applicant with a GOMOR is not on file.  Therefore the Board
cannot ascertain the appropriateness of the GOMOR.  In such cases, the
Board presumes administrative regularity, that is, what the CG, USAREC did
was proper.

2.  The Board has reviewed the documentation provided by the applicant and
has determined that it does not overcome the presumption of regularity
referenced above.  Indeed, the CG, USAREC had access to the same
documentation, but determined to issue the GOMOR and file it in the
applicant's MPRJ.

3.  The filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's MPRJ is not a permanent
action; the GOMOR will eventually be withdrawn and destroyed.  Further, the
filing of the GOMOR in the MPRJ does not affect personnel actions based on
the applicant's OMPF (schooling, promotion, etc.).

4.  The applicant has not shown that the GOMOR is incorrect or that its
filing has adversely impacted his career in a permanent way.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__le____  __pms___  __lgh___  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.




                                        Lester Echols
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000180                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050929                                |
|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]