RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            04 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050011754


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry Bergquist               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |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 the removal of a general officer memorandum of
reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his 2 February 1999 GOMOR was
successfully transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF in May 2002
because the GOMOR had served its purpose.  However, because the promotion
boards can see his restricted fiche, the GOMOR has prevented him from being
selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7.  He goes on to state that
his record is clear and his performance and job selection is reflected in
his evaluation reports.  Therefore, it is clear that the promotion board is
considering the GOMOR in his restricted fiche, which is why he is not
getting promoted.  He further states that the GOMOR was based on one
isolated incident and is in no way a true depiction of who he is.  The
presence of the GOMOR is unjust and serves only to limit his future
advancement for promotion.  He continues by stating that the memorandum of
instruction clearly states that the board will view the disciplinary data
on the restricted fiche and therefore it must be removed before he can be
promoted.

3.  The applicant provides four letters of support from his chain of
command.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He initially served on active duty from 25 September 1987 until he was
honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 24 September
1991.

2.  He again enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 1992 for a period
of 3 years and assignment to Fort Hood, Texas.  He has remained on active
duty through continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of
E-5 on 1 September 1994 and to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 May 1997.

3.  On 22 December 1998, while serving as a parachute rigger (92R)
noncommissioned officer (NCO) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a GOMOR was
imposed against the applicant for driving under the influence (DUI) of
alcohol.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected not
to submit a statement in his own behalf.  Accordingly, the imposing officer
(a brigadier general) directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s
OMPF.

4.  On 30 August 1999, the applicant was notified that the Department of
the Army Calendar Year 1999 Sergeant First Class/Advanced Noncommissioned
Officer Course Promotion/Selection Board had determined that he should be
barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP)
based on the presence of the GOMOR in the performance fiche of his OMPF.

5.  The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment under the
QMP and his appeal was approved on 7 April 2000.

6.  On 2 August 2001, he applied to the Department of the Army Suitability
Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting that the GOMOR be transferred to the
Restricted Fiche of his OMPF based on intent served.  He provided letters
of support from his chain of command which also included the imposing
general officer.  The DASEB approved his request on 3 May 2002 and the
GOMOR was transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.

7.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF shows no other derogatory information
in his OMPF, other than the GOMOR in his restricted fiche.  Additionally,
his restricted fiche contains no authorization for release of information
from that fiche to promotion selection boards.

8.  A review of the FY05 Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board
results shows that the selection rate for the applicant’s military
occupational specialty (MOS) of 92R who had previously been considered in
the primary zone was 23.3%.  The overall selection rate for his MOS was
33.7%.  The overall selection rate for his career management field
previously considered in the primary zone was 25.1%.

9.  Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing of
unfavorable information in the OMPF.  It states, in pertinent part, that a
nonpunitive MOR or admonition will be filed in the OMPF only when directed
by a general officer or the officer having general court-martial
jurisdiction over the recipient.

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

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, serves
as the authority for the conduct of selection boards.  It provides, in
pertinent part, that selection board members may not record their reasons
nor give any reasons for selection or nonselection.  Selections are based
on relative qualifications and the projected need in each MOS for E-7, E-8,
and E-9.  A Soldier within an announced zone of consideration may write to
the President of the selection board inviting attention to any matter he or
she feels is important in consideration of his or her records and are
considered privileged information and will not be filed in the OMPF.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-104, Military Personnel Information Management
/Records, provides in pertinent part, that disciplinary information filed
on the restricted fiche will be provided to the command sergeant
major/sergeant major (CSM/SGM), SGM Academy selection and CSM/SGM retention
boards to ensure the best qualified soldiers are selected for these
positions of highest trust.  While information contained on the restricted
fiche is normally not routinely provided to selection boards other than the
E-9 boards described above, the restricted fiche may be released to a
Department of the Army Selection Board.  The board president will request
permission from the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (G-1) to
review specific restricted information when he or she believes the
information is crucial to the selection process.  The board president must
make the request in writing unless waived by the appropriate authority.  If
the request is approved, the authorization will be forwarded to the
custodian of the OMPF, who will enter the authorization on the restricted
fiche of the OMPF.

13.  Paragraph 5d. of the “Memorandum of Instruction for the FY05 Sergeant
First Class Selection Board” provided in pertinent part, “that the
selection board will be provided the performance portion of the OMPF of all
eligible NCOs and may also be provided disciplinary data from the
restricted portion of the OMPF in accordance with ODCS, G-1, memorandum
dated 21 January 2002.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The GOMOR was properly imposed in compliance with applicable
regulations and is properly filed in the restricted fiche of the
applicant’s OMPF based on a successful appeal to the DASEB.
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 contention that promotion selection boards have been
reviewing the GOMOR that is filed on his restricted fiche and that it is
the resultant cause why he has not been selected for promotion has been
noted and found to lack merit.  Promotion boards for selection to the pay
grades of E-7 and E-8 are not routinely provided information from the
restricted fiche of eligible Soldiers.  While information may be provided
on a case by case basis to promotion boards, a record of such actions must
be placed on the individual Soldier’s restricted fiche to document that
approval of such actions were approved or occurred.

4.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant has not been selected for
promotion to the pay grade of E-7, it is a well known fact that not
everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is
selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are
promotion allocations.  Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with
choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the
time.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____MM_  ____LB__  ____CD _  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.





            ____Mark Manning__________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011754                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |N/A SOLDIER ON AD                       |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051004                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A SOLDIER ON AD                       |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A SOLDIER ON AD                       |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A SOLDIER ON AD                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A SOLDIER ON AD                       |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |1020/ REM GOMOR                         |
|1.134-0400              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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