RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002534


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 removal of a general officer memorandum of
reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that the investigating officer (IO) was appointed
as the IO in a prior Army Regulation 15-6 investigation (commander's
inquiry) and that the IO utilized the authority of his new position as
reprisal action for his failure to assist in slanting the outcome of an
investigation to alleviate actions against officers involved.  He states
that reprisal action has been and continues to be taken against him for
failure to support fellow officers that were found guilty of waste, fraud
and abuse or other charges due to various commander's inquiries conducted
within the Readiness Command while command and control of the Command
Readiness Teams fell under command at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  He
states that he received a Letter Of Appreciation (LOA) from the Commanding
General, United States Army Reserve Readiness Command, thanking him for his
honesty and integrity and for not having been part of the illicit conduct
of his superiors.  He states that once that general officer retired another
general officer took his place and that a lieutenant colonel (his immediate
commander) was appointed IO for a least one investigation.  He states that
as a result of the investigation, the team chief and three other team
members were relieved, reassigned and reprimanded which they were able to
later overcome.

3.  The applicant goes on to state that during the transition of the team,
he was the acting team chief and that the IO held personal bias against him
as the investigation proceedings played a strong role in command and
control of the Readiness Teams being transferred to the Regional Readiness
Commands in the "power struggle" over who would best maintain command and
control of ten teams remotely located across the United States.  He states
that neither the general nor anyone else in his chain of command ever
informed him of the decision to direct filing of the GOMOR in his OMPF and
that he only discovered the GOMOR during an individual record review.  He
concludes by stating that he exercised his chain of command in attempts to
resolve the issues, filed for resolution through the Inspector General's
(IG's) office, and continued to work with his personnel management office
in St. Louis, Missouri.

4.  The applicant provides in support of his application, an LOA from a
general officer dated 11 March 2001; his rebuttal to the GOMOR dated 14
April 2002; a copy of the GOMOR (undated); a Developmental Counseling Form
(DA Form 4856) dated 18 December 2002; a rebuttal to the DA Form 4856 dated
18 December 2002; several pieces of electronic mail (email) pertaining to
an inspection that had been previously conducted; a memorandum addressed to
Fort Irwin Inspector General, dated 17 August 2004; incomplete, undated and
unsigned copies of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period
covering 27 April 2003 through 26 April 2004; an incomplete, undated and
unsigned OER Support Form; an incomplete Recommendation For Award of the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) dated 17 March 2004; and copies of email
between officials at Fort Irwin, IG's office and himself.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  A complete copy of the applicant's official records was unavailable for
review by the Board.  Information contained herein was obtained from
documentation submitted by the applicant in support of his application to
this Board.

2.  On 11 March 2001, in the form of a memorandum, the applicant was
furnished a LOA signed by the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, United
States Army Reserve Readiness Command, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  In
the LOA the CG thanked the applicant for his unwavering loyalty to the
command and the United States Army (USA) during the preceding tumultuous
months.  The CG stated that, although it was his first Active Guard/Reserve
(AGR) tour, the applicant (a chief warrant officer three at the time)
refused to succumb to his environment and faithfully upheld Army values.
The CG further stated that for quite some time, the applicant's team had
been distressed both interpersonally and ethically and unfortunately, the
distress involved senior officers and noncommissioned officers.  The CG
stated that the applicant very professionally assisted him in clearly
determining the problems that existed, which greatly assisted him with
resolutions and that throughout this volatile time, the applicant continued
to give top quality assistance to the United States Army Reserve (USAR)
units.  The CG stated that when the applicant looked back upon his
assignment, he trusted that it would be with confidence in knowing that he
did the right things when those around him did not. The CG concluded the
LOA by stating that that the applicant had his deepest respect and
appreciation and that he was a great credit to the units that he served,
the Readiness Command and the USA.

3.  On 18 December 2002, while assigned to the Readiness Command, Fort
Jackson, South Carolina, the applicant was counseled by his Commanding
Officer (CO) for actions unbecoming and for insubordination.  The DA Form
4856 that was used to document the counseling shows that on or about 16
December 2002, the applicant's aggressive actions and profanity (cursing)
used towards his CO were unbecoming and insubordinate.  The DA Form 4856
shows that on the day in question, the applicant stated that he felt like a
fool for waiting outside before the team met at 0600 hrs and that the CO
instructed him to return to his room, to go back to sleep, and to meet
everyone at 0830 hrs.  At about 0800 hrs, the CO instructed the master
sergeant to call the applicant and find out where the van was located so
everyone could start loading their bags.  When the master sergeant made the
call, the applicant instructed the master sergeant to have the CO call him
and when the CO returned the call, the conversation proceeded into an
argument.  According to the CO, he told the applicant that he wanted to
load his bags and the applicant stated that the CO was "F-----" with him
and that he was asleep.  The DA Form 4856 indicates that once the CO and
the applicant met at the vehicle, the CO wanted to talk with the applicant
regarding the comments he made and again the conversation became
argumentative so the CO suggested that the conversation be taken to the
other side of the parking lot. The DA Form 4856 reflects that at first, the
applicant refused to go stating that he "wasn't going anywhere" and that
the CO "wasn't going to do S---".  After additional conversation, both the
CO and the applicant proceeded to the other side of the parking lot and as
the two were walking, the applicant stated he "wanted to hear what the F---
" the CO was going to say and that the CO "wasn't going to do S---".

4.  In the DA Form 4856, the CO indicated that he believed that things were
out of control so he told the applicant to get at the position of attention
and "at ease" neither of which did he do.  The CO stated that the applicant
proceeded to walk away, when another officer came out to talk with him and
the CO told the other officer not to say anything.  The CO stated that as
he began to talk with the other officer, he told the applicant that they
were not going to have that type of conversation again and the applicant
proceeded to get out of the van to argue with him asking why did he say
that in front of the other officer and why did he threaten him.  The CO
stated that he told the applicant to "take it anyway you want".  The CO
concluded his counseling by informing the applicant that the fact that he
did not receive the proper time or did not receive a call does not excuse
his behavior and that he was very argumentative and out of character as an
officer.  During the counseling session, the CO told the applicant that his
cursing and telling him that he did not have to do what he told him to do
had no place on the team and that his actions were inconsistent with the
behavior of an officer in the US Army.  The applicant was told that his
behavior would not be tolerated.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
DA Form 4856 by indicating that he disagreed with the information contained
therein.

5.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the DA Form 4856 on 18 December
2002.  In his rebuttal the applicant stated that additional information was
apparently intentionally omitted concerning the circumstances leading up to
and following the allegation of conduct unbecoming and insubordination.  He
stated that his CO set the atmosphere and working relationship within the
team when he commented "we are considered a minority team by the command
and must operate below the radar screen to ensure the command never gets
involved with team business".  He stated that his CO failed to acknowledge
him as a fellow officer and instilled the same disregard for his rank and
position amongst his fellow team members.  He stated that he had over 26
years of Army regulatory guidance and that his expertise was not requested
or was disregarded when offered.  In his rebuttal the applicant stated
that, to his knowledge, his team members had never been formally counseled
for failure to inform him as he was not in the loop or kept informed about
the whereabouts or duty status of fellow team members, when he is the
senior member at the team's home location.  He stated that he had discussed
the problem with the CO and the importance of being in a legitimate duty
status, which was ignored.  He stated that one of his team members had
departed and returned to another location, not his duty station, for 3
months and that another soldier's inability to report to work at the
specified start time was discussed with his CO, who altered the duty hours
to accommodate the soldier and the soldier still did not arrive on time nor
was he able to perform his duties during his reduced hours.

6.  The applicant continued his rebuttal by referencing other soldiers and
what they were allowed to do without negative action and pointing out what
he believes to be his CO's lack of leadership abilities.  He stated that
his CO either had a personality conflict or had no idea, despite the
performance counseling, that he worked directly for him (the CO) and should
receive orders from him, not his (the applicant's) subordinates.  The
applicant stated that he did air his frustrations verbally at the time and
that he stands by his conviction that the CO needed to hear it and that his
CO took what was already a volatile situation and elevated it by wanting to
confront him outside prior to departing without a cooling off period.  He
stated that his CO was well aware of his frustration from the morning
events and that he responded to his CO with the same regard that he was
granted.  He stated that his CO, as the senior officer, should have known
to allow for a cooling off period; however, he chose to be confrontational
when he was not prepared for honest reflections of his lack of leadership.
He stated that on the same day of the incident, his CO held a discussion
with him and accepted the blame stating that "what we did this morning was
not cool."  He stated that he and the CO discussed his concerns regarding
abuse of the leave and pass regulation; trip coordination; and respect for
his rank and his role as a team member and that it was agreed that the CO
would communicate and coordinate with him better in the future.  The
applicant concluded his rebuttal by stating that his CO never told him that
his cursing offended him; that he made several attempts to discourage his
CO from confronting him; that he was never granted the authority to hold
team meetings nor the responsibility or additional duty to write and
maintain team standard operating procedures; that his CO's actions elevated
the issue to the command; and that he believed that a personality conflict
would continue without command intervention.

7.  On a date unknown, the applicant was furnished a GOMOR for using
language and behavior that was disrespectful to a superior commissioned
officer. In the GOMOR, the applicant was informed that as a soldier and
especially a warrant officer, he was expected to show responsibility, to
exercise good judgment, and to conduct himself in a manner that does not
discredit the Army and the command.  In the GOMOR, the CG stated that on 16
December 2002, the applicant engaged in disrespectful and insubordinate
conduct toward a commissioned officer by arguing with him and cursing him,
and that he failed to come to attention after being ordered to do so by the
officer.  The CG informed the applicant that he had failed in his
responsibilities as a warrant officer in the USA and had brought discredit
upon himself, the Army and the command.  The applicant was informed that
the reprimand was being imposed as an administrative measure and not as
punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice and that it
was the CG's intent to file the reprimand in his OMPF.  He was told that
consideration would be given to any comments, statements or other evidence
he wished to provide in rebuttal and that any matters of rebuttal should be
submitted through his chain of command within 7 days from the date of his
receipt of the GOMOR.

8.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR on 14 April 2002.  In
his rebuttal, the applicant stated that he was aware of his responsibility
to exercise mature judgment and to conduct himself in a manner that does
not discredit the Army or his command; however he was neither disrespectful
nor insubordinate towards his CO.  He stated that he made reasonable
efforts to diffuse his CO's heightened emotional state and to influence him
to exercise sound judgment, not only during the incident, but also with
previous decisions affecting the team.  He stated that at no time did he
refuse to obey a lawful order and that he sought assistance utilizing his
chain of command, which failed to grasp the gravity of the situation if the
GOMOR is directed for filing in his OMPF.  The applicant requested that
consideration be given to this rebuttal in conjunction with the rebuttal
that he submitted in regard to his counseling, as filing the GOMOR in his
OMPF could result in the suspension of his security clearance;
disqualification from further service in the AGR Program; and restriction
of further promotion opportunities and reassignment consideration.  The
applicant concluded his rebuttal by requesting that his overall service,
conduct, and performance be considered.  He also stated that he would like
to continue to be an exceptional soldier with valuable experience to
contribute to the Army, the Reserve and the Readiness Command.  He
requested that the GOMOR be retained locally and destroyed upon his
transfer or separation.
9.  On 17 August 2004, the applicant filed a complaint with the Fort Irwin
IG regarding two OERs for two periods of service that were allegedly never
completed by the 70th Regional Readiness Command, Seattle, Washington.
Although the applicant submitted incomplete copies of an OER for the period
covering 27 April 2003 through 26 April 2004; an OER Support Form; and a
Recommendation for Award for the MSM, he did not include the results of the
IG investigation as part of his application to this Board.  However, the
email that he submitted shows that as late as 2 February 2005, he was in
contact with an official in the office of the Fort Irwin IG regarding a
complaint.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he has
applied to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)
to have the GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF.

11.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policies and procedures to authorize
placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual
official personnel files; to ensure that unfavorable information that is
unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in
individual official personnel files; and to 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.  This regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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.

12.  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 which must contain a statement indicating that
they are imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under
the UCMJ.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The Army has an interest in maintaining certain records and, the
applicant has failed to provide evidence to show why the GOMOR should not
remain a matter of record.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, the available
evidence shows that the GOMOR was prepared based on the information that
was made available to the chain of command at the time.  In his rebuttal of
18 December 2002, he admitted that he did air his frustration verbally and
that he stood by his conviction that his CO needed to hear what he said.
Based on the information contained in his rebuttal, his conduct was
unbecoming that of a chief warrant officer and he was properly reprimanded
as a result of his inability to control his emotions.

4.  There is no evidence in the available documentation to support the
applicant's contention that he was being reprised against by his CO or
anyone else in his chain of command, and he has failed to submit evidence
to show that he has a pending IG complaint based on acts of reprisal
against him.  He was reprimanded for insubordination and conduct unbecoming
and the fact that he needed to verbally air his frustration does not serve
to invalidate the GOMOR or to validate his conduct.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JS____  __PM____  __LJO__  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.





                                  ______John Slone_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002534                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |1020/REMOVAL GOMOR                      |
|134.0400                |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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