RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            1 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050001064


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy       |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 that the decision of the Army Grade
Determination Review Board (AGDRB), which determined the last grade he
satisfactorily held was Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), O-5, be reversed and his
retired grade be established as Colonel (COL), O-6.  He also requests a
general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states the AGDRB did not consider substantive documents
that are now available; specifically, officer evaluation reports (OERs) for
his last two years of service.  These OERs, plus his first OER, reflect
more than satisfactory performance at the COL level for a period of three
years.  He served, and continued to serve, successfully as a COL.  He
received no duty-related admonitions.  Additionally, the memorandum
announcing the results of the AGDRB identified the board action as a "Grade
Determination Due to Retirement in Lieu of Elimination" case.  However, he
should not have been boarded under that authority since the Chief, Army
Reserve (CAR) had ceased elimination proceedings against him.

3.  The applicant states he was assigned as the Military Assistant for
Training to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve
Affairs (ASA (M&RA)) for the last three years and seven months.  He advised
the Assistant Secretary on all matters relating to Army readiness and
training as well as any issues unique to the Reserve Components.  He was
the Secretariat co-executive of the Training Program Evaluation Group.  As
of January 2005, he still filled the COL position as the Secretariat co-
chair of the Training Panel for Generating Force 2013 with different panel
members.  Additionally, he served on the Reserve Component Duty Military
Occupational Specialty Qualification (DMOSQ) Tiger Team ensuring the
necessary policy guidance and resource allocation that has enabled the
Reserve Components to increase their DMOSQ rate.  He currently (as of the
date of his application) has 19 years and 10 months of active Federal
service and must retire in April 2005.

4.  The applicant states he served the Army faithfully for 33 years at all
levels of command from squad to the Army Secretariat in the Continental
United States and Europe at the height of the Cold War.  His service to the
Nation and the Army was not limited to military service.

5.  The applicant also stated the GOMOR he received from the CAR was
unfairly written and attacked his character and integrity.  The CAR does
not have sufficient observation of his duty performance in order to make
that assessment.
As can be seen from his OERs, there is no reflected concern regarding his
character or integrity while working under the direct supervision of the
ASA (M&RA).

6.  The applicant provides OERs for the periods ending 11 April 2002
(signed by him and the rating officials on 21 July 2004), 11 April 2003
(signed by him and the rating officials on 12 January 2005), and 11 April
2004 (signed by him and the rating officials on 7/8 January 2005; (his OER
for the period ending              31 January 2005 is also available); the
approved AGDRB decision dated             9 December 2004 with the AGDRB
packet (including his memorandum to the board president dated 21 September
2004); a letter from the CAR dated 29 July 2004; four character reference
letters dated 18 June 2004, 18 July 2004, 22 June 2004, and 8 June 2004;
his request for voluntary retirement dated 30 November 2004; Legion of
Merit award orders and two Meritorious Service Medal award orders; a
notification of security determination dated 22 October 2003; and a letter
report from the U. S. Army War College dated 28 June 2002.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and the
Army National Guard, the applicant was commissioned out of Officer
Candidate School and appointed a second lieutenant in the Army National
Guard.  He transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve on 1 October 1986.  He
entered active duty in an Active Guard Reserve status on or about 28 August
1998.  He was promoted to COL on 1 May 2001.

2.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 11 April 2002 shows he was
assigned as the Military Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army, Training, Readiness, and Mobilization (DASA, TRM).  The DASA, TRM
acted as both his rater and senior rater.  His performance was rated as
Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.  His promotion potential was rated
as Best Qualified and he was given a center of mass rating.

3.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 11 April 2003 shows he was
assigned as the Military Assistant to the DASA, TRM.  The DASA, TRM was his
rater.  The ASA (M&RA) was his senior rater.  His performance was rated as
Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.  His promotion potential was rated
as Best Qualified and he was given a center of mass rating.

4.  A DA Form 1059-2 (Senior Service College Academic Evaluation Report)
shows the applicant was involuntarily terminated from the U. S. Army War
College non-resident program on or about 11 April 2003.  His file was sent
before an academic review board and the board determined he failed to
maintain academic integrity in his course work.  Details from the review
board are not available.

5.  On 23 March 2004, the applicant was given a GOMOR by the CAR for
failing to maintain academic integrity while he was enrolled in the
Distance Education Program.  The GOMOR noted the applicant plagiarized
another student's work and submitted the materials as his own coursework.
The CAR informed him he intended to file the GOMOR permanently in the
applicant's OMPF.  He would, however, consider any matters the applicant
submitted before making his final filing decision.  On 25 March 2004, the
applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR.  There is no evidence to show
he submitted a rebuttal.  The CAR directed the GOMOR be filed in the
performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.

6.  Apparently on 23 March 2004, the CAR initiated elimination proceedings
against the applicant for misconduct by plagiarizing a fellow student's
work at the U. S. Army War College.  The four character reference letters
provided by the applicant were apparently provided in support of his appeal
of that action.

7.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 11 April 2004 shows he was
assigned as the Military Assistant to the DASA, TRM.  The DASA, TRM was his
rater.  The ASA (M&RA) was his senior rater.  His performance was rated as
Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.  His promotion potential was rated
as Best Qualified and he was given a center of mass rating.

8.  On 19 July 2004, the Director, Army Reserve Active Duty Management
Directorate, U. S. Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis (USAHRC – STL)
informed the applicant an officer does not automatically retire in the
highest grade he or she held on active duty.  To ensure an officer is
retired at the appropriate grade, the officer's records are screened to
identify any information since the officer's last promotion that
substantiates the existence of adverse findings or conclusions from an
officially documented investigation, proceeding, or inquiry.  If such
documentation is discovered, the record must be referred to the AGDRB for
review.

9.  The applicant was informed his OMPF would be sent to the AGDRB due to
the GOMOR dated 23 March 2004, the DA Form 1059-2 dated 11 April 2004
(sic), and a memorandum from the Office of the CAR Reserve dated 23 March
2004, subject:  Elimination Under Provisions (UP) of Army Regulation 600-8-
24.  He was informed the AGDRB would review his OMPF as prescribed by
paragraph 4-1 of Army Regulation 15-80 and make their "retired grade"
advisory recommendation to the Secretary of the Army.  He was informed he
could submit any written material that he wished the AGDRB to consider.  He
was informed he had up to 30 days from receipt of this notification to
complete the review of his records and, if desired, submit written
material.

10.  On 29 July 2004, the CAR informed the applicant he had received the
applicant's 22 July 2004 rebuttal of the elimination proceedings action.
He stated he was stopping the proceedings not because of the applicant's
recitation of contributions to the Army, his letters of reference, or
copies of awards and efficiency reports he had included.  The CAR was
stopping the board because the appeals process would extend beyond the
applicant's mandatory retirement.  The CAR stated he remained deeply
concerned by the applicant's demonstrated lack of integrity.  The applicant
referred to his misconduct as a "careless mistake."  However, the CAR
stated the applicant's lack of integrity represented an issue of character
and his rebuttal listing past achievements convinced him the applicant
still did not recognize that issue.

11.  In a 21 September 2004 memorandum, the applicant requested the AGDRB
determine his highest grade satisfactorily held to be COL.  Paragraphs 2
and 3 of his memorandum were approximately the same as paragraphs 2 and 3
of his application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
(ABCMR) (an extract from those paragraphs is in paragraph 3, THE
APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE, above).  He also stated he
was aware the [AGDRB] proceeding resulted from his disenrollment from the
Army War College non-resident course and stated, "It is interesting to note
that the author of the resulting Memorandum of Reprimand did not first ask
me to explain the circumstances of the disenrollment.  On the other hand,
my rater/senior rater did, and were satisfied with my explanation."

12.  On 30 November 2004, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement to
be effective 1 April 2005.

13.  The AGDRB convened on or about 1 December 2004 and recommended, in a
unanimous decision, the applicant be retired in the grade of O-5
(Lieutenant Colonel).

14.  In a memorandum dated 9 December 2004, subject:  Grade Determination
Due to Retirement in Lieu of Elimination Case (applicant), the finding of
the AGDRB, which was that the applicant's highest grade satisfactorily held
while on active duty was O-5, was approved by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary (Army Review Boards).

15.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 31 January 2005 shows he was
assigned as the Military Assistant to the DASA, TRM.  The DASA, TRM was his
rater.  The ASA (M&RA) was his senior rater.  His performance was rated as
Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.  His promotion potential was rated
as Best Qualified and he was given a center of mass rating.

16.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policy 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 inaccurate is not filed in an
individual's official personnel files; and ensure that the best interest of
both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable
information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official
personnel files.  In pertinent part, it states a letter to be included in a
Soldier’s OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment.  A
letter may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or
by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over
the individual.

17.  Army Regulation 15-80 establishes policies, procedures, and
responsibilities of the AGDRB and other organizations delegated authority
to make grade determinations on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.
Paragraph 2-2 states the AGDRB considers individual cases that are referred
to it in accordance with this regulation.  Paragraph 2-5c states service in
the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to
have been unsatisfactory when there is sufficient unfavorable information
to establish that the Soldier's service in the grade in question was
unsatisfactory.  One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the
basis for the determination that the overall service in that grade was
unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade.

18.  Army Regulation 15-80, paragraph 4-1 states an officer is not
automatically entitled to retire in the highest grade served on active
duty.  Instead, an officer is retired in the highest grade served on active
duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Army or the
Secretary's designee.  For officers below the grade of brigadier general,
the AGDRB will recommend to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Review Boards) for final determination the highest grade in which an
officer has served satisfactorily for purposes of service/physical
disability retirement.  The AGDRB recommendation is purely advisory, and
the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Army's designee is not
bound by that recommendation.

19.  Army Regulation 15-80, paragraph 4-1d states all retirements, except
for disability separations, involving officers who, since their last
promotion, have been the subject of any substantiated adverse finding or
conclusion from an officially documented investigation, proceeding, or
inquiry (except minor traffic infractions) will be forwarded to ASA (M&RA)
for a grade determination, provided such information is reflected, or
should be reflected by regulation, in the officer's OMPF.  Examples of such
findings or conclusions include a memorandum of reprimand.  Even if the
information described is not required to be filed in the officer's OMPF,
the separation authority may forward any retirement that contains
information deemed substantiated, adverse, and material to a determination
of retired grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contended the AGDRB did not consider substantive
documents that are now available; specifically, OERs for his last two years
of service.  However, his OER for the period ending 11 April 2002 was not
signed until        21 July 2004, two days after he was notified his
records would be reviewed by the AGDRB.  His OERs for the periods ending11
April 2003 and 11 April 2004 were not signed until January 2005, a month
after the grade determination was made.  He was put on notice in July 2004
he had 30 days to update his records.  The AGDRB did not convene until
December 2004.

2.  It is acknowledged the applicant's last four OERs reflected he
performed his duties as the Military Assistant to the DASA, TRM in an
"Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" manner.  However, his contention he
received no duty-related admonitions is incorrect.  He received the GOMOR
for his performance as a COL in the U. S. Army Reserve.

3.  The applicant contended the memorandum announcing the results of the
AGDRB identified the board action as a "Grade Determination Due to
Retirement in Lieu of Elimination" case.  However, the Director, Army
Reserve Active Duty Management Directorate, USAHRC - STL informed him by
memorandum dated 19 July 2004 that his records would be sent to the AGDRB
due to the GOMOR, the DA Form 1059-2, and the elimination proceedings
memorandum.  The elimination proceedings were not halted until 29 July
2004.  It appears that item of information may not have been relayed to the
AGDRB.  Nevertheless, the GOMOR and the DA Form 1059-2 by themselves were
valid reasons for his case to be considered by the AGDRB.

4.  The applicant contended he was assigned as the Military Assistant for
Training to the ASA (M&RA) for almost four years and had almost 20 years of
active Federal service.  He contended he served the Army faithfully for 33
years at all levels of command, including at the height of the Cold War,
and his service to the Nation and the Army was not limited to military
service.

5.  However, the applicant's circumstances could be compared to a Master
Sergeant with four years time in grade.  During his first three years as a
Master Sergeant he performs his duties in an exceptional manner.  In his
fourth year, he has a lapse of judgment that causes him to be reduced in
grade to Sergeant First Class.  He is allowed to retire, but it is
determined the highest grade he satisfactorily held was Sergeant First
Class.  That is in part because, as a Master Sergeant with four years time
in grade, he "should have known better."  The applicant, as a COL with
three years time in grade and despite his successful mission
accomplishment, should have known better than to let his judgment
(concerning an issue of plagiarism) slip.  The primary difference in these
two cases being, as a commissioned officer, the applicant could not be
reduced while serving on active duty.

6.  The applicant contended the GOMOR he received from the CAR was unfairly
written and attacked his character and integrity and that the CAR did not
have sufficient observation of his duty performance in order to make that
assessment. He also stated, in his letter to the AGDRB, "It is interesting
to note that the author of the resulting Memorandum of Reprimand did not
first ask me to explain the circumstances of the disenrollment.  On the
other hand, my rater/senior rater did, and were satisfied with my
explanation."

7.  The CAR did ask the applicant to explain the circumstances of the
disenrollment.  The CAR informed the applicant he would consider any
matters the applicant submitted before making his final filing decision.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR; however, there is no
evidence to show he submitted a rebuttal when offered the opportunity.  The
applicant does not now explain to the ABCMR the circumstances of the
disenrollment, nor did he explain them to the AGDRB.  He does not provide
the ABCMR his rebuttal to the elimination proceedings action which
evidently contained an explanation.  Therefore, there is insufficient
evidence on which to base removing the GOMOR from his OMPF.

8.  Based upon the circumstances of this case, there is insufficient
evidence on which to grant the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __teo___  __cak___  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.




            __James E. Anderholm__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001064                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |129.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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