RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                       26 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:              AR20050012380


      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. Vick James                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad Meyer                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda Barker                  |     |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 Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation
Report (OER) for the period covering 9 June 2001 through 13 May 2002 and
the General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) dated 14 May 2002 be
removed from her Official Military Personnel File.  She also requests that
her records be submitted for a re-look for Senior Service College,
promotion to colonel and brigade command; and that a new OER that gives
credit for battalion command be substituted for the OER in question.

2.  The applicant states that both the OER and the GOMOR are
administratively and substantively inaccurate, biased and unjust and do not
reflect her performance or potential.  She states that in accordance with
Army Regulation (AR) 623-106, the rater was unqualified to rate her because
of substantiated findings of an official Commander's Inquiry conducted
under AR 15-6.  She states that the rating officials lacked objectivity and
were biased in their assessment of her performance due to their criminal
misconduct, which includes temporary duty (TDY) travel fraud and Officer
Candidate School (OCS) fraud.  She states that the retaliation and reprisal
that she was subjected to is evident in this case.

3.  The applicant provides in support of her application two official
polygraph tests; copies of documents from a Department of the Army
Inspector General (DAIG) investigation and a Department of Defense
Inspector General (DODIG) investigation that were obtained through the
Freedom of Information Act; the findings of a Commander's Inquiry;
character statement from officers and noncommissioned officers; and what
she believes to be documented evidence that contradicts derogatory
statements that were made in the OER and the GOMOR as listed on her
Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve  (USAR) as a
Reserve Officer Training Corps cadet on 22 September 1980.  Upon completion
of ROTC she accepted an appointment as a USAR second lieutenant on 1 May
1982.  She was subsequently ordered to active duty to attend the Finance
Corps Officer Basic Course effective 19 September 1983, with an obligated
volunteer commitment of 3 years.



2.  The applicant was promoted to first lieutenant on 22 November 1984.  On
15 August 1985, she was notified that her request for an extension on
active duty in a Conditional Voluntary Indefinite status was approved.  She
was promoted to captain on 1 April 1987; to major on 1 November 1994; and
to lieutenant colonel on 1 November 1999.

3.  The available records show that on 17 October 2000, the applicant was
assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company (HHC), 13th Finance Group,
Fort Hood, Texas, and that she was the Commander of the 15th Finance
Battalion.

4.  Electronic Mail (e-mail) dated 18 July 2001, indicates that the
applicant was notified that her senior rater would be available to meet
with her on 23 July 2001. However, the e-mail does not indicate what
matters were discussed during the course of that meeting.

5.  E-mail dated 20 July 2001, shows that the applicant was notified of
potential fraud committed by a finance noncommissioned officer (NCO).  The
e-mail indicates that the NCO was attending the Basic Noncommissioned
Officers Course and that she submitted a claim for days that she was in a
field status.  The e-mail further indicates that the NCO was then currently
over 2 months delinquent on her Government Travel Card.

6.  E-mail dated 6 August 2001, indicates that the applicant contacted the
Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division and requested to meet with him to
discuss inserting him into her rating scheme as her intermediate rater.  In
her request she stated that she had previously discussed the matter with
her immediate and senior raters and that they both concurred.

7.  E-mail dated 20 November 2001, indicates the applicant requested an
office call with her Commanding Officer (CO) regarding what she believed to
be integrity violation regarding two other officers that fell under his
command.  She reported to her CO allegations of possible OCS fraud
committed by the Deputy Commander and the HHC Commander of the 13th Finance
Group.  She informed her CO that the two officers had clearly falsified a
Department of the Army document pertaining to an NCO (the same NCO that was
under investigation for travel claims fraud) that was clearly not under
their command.  She stated that one officer signed his name as the NCO's
commander on 26 July 2001 and the other officer signed his name as her
battalion commander 27 July


2001, knowing that the NCO was assigned to her battalion until 13 September
2001, when he (the applicant's CO) directed her move.  She informed her CO
that she had spoken with another officer and explained that the reasons she
had not recommended the NCO for OCS were because of the investigation and
because the NCO was under a suspension of favorable personnel action
"flagged".  She also informed her CO that she was considering the NCO for
potential action under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The
applicant requested that the packet and recommendation of the NCO involved
be pulled and that the NCO's name be removed from the OCS list.  The e-mail
indicates that her CO agreed to the office call and instructed that further
communication regarding the matter be kept as commander-to-commander.

8.  In a memorandum dated 20 November 2001, addressed to the Commander, III
Corps & Fort Hood Texas, the applicant requested that the name of the NCO
that was under investigation be removed from the OCS list.  In the
memorandum, she stated that the NCO's application for enrollment was
fraudulent because two officers that were not in her chain of command
falsified the application that was submitted as part of her OCS packet.
The applicant stated that both officers knew that the NCO's legal chain of
command would not support an OCS endorsement at that time.  She stated that
at the time that the OCS packet was signed, the NCO was under the command
of another officer and that she was the NCO's battalion commander.   She
informed the Commander, III Corps that the two officer's that signed the
OCS packet had been informed on several occasions that the NCO would not be
recommended for OCS due to marginal leadership and pending disciplinary
action associated with an AR 15-6 investigation.  The applicant states that
the NCO was "flagged" pending disciplinary action under the UCMJ for
allegedly committing fraud against the Unites States Government associated
with a fraudulent travel settlement that was submitted in June 2001 and
that the action alone should make the NCO ineligible for OCS board
competition.

9.  In the memorandum dated 20 November 2001, the applicant informed the
Commander, III Corps, that an AR 15-6 investigation had been initiated on
2 August 2001, and that an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to
investigate the individuals involved for potential fraud.  She stated that
the IO submitted his findings and recommendation on 17 August 2001, which
were later reviewed by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) and that the IO
recommended that the NCO be issued a reprimand for failure to pay her
Government Travel Credit Card bill




before the due date and that her Government Credit Card privileges be
restricted.  She stated that she personally revoked the travel card and
that the NCO was punished under the UCMJ.  The applicant concluded the
memorandum by again requesting the NCO not be allowed to attend OCS.

10.  On 21 November 2001, via e-mail, the applicant contacted her CO
requesting a meeting with the DCG regarding the NCO that was under
investigation.  The available records fail to show that her CO ever
responded to that e-mail; however, she contacted him again on 29 November
2001, and he generated a response indicating that he had already contacted
the JAG and that he was getting counsel regarding the issue.  The CO stated
that the accusation that she was leveling was not light and that it could
very well backfire and would result in a situation where the rights of the
NCO are perceived to have been trampled on.  The CO reminded the applicant
that the NCO and concerned parties were entitled to legal counsel and due
course and that solid evidence was the driving force.  The CO told her that
if she was not satisfied with the way he was handling the case, she could
go solo; however, she would not have his endorsement.  The applicant
responded to her CO's e-mail by stating that the allegations against the
NCO were very serious and that she had spoken with the JAG as well.  She
stated that she would not be discussing the issue if she did not have the
facts and that she was sure that he could come to the same conclusion that
she had.  The applicant's CO stated that he had, in effect initiated an
AR 15-6 investigation on 29 November 2001, upon request of the Group.  The
CO informed her of the whereabouts of all other documentation surrounding
the case.

11.  Through e-mail dated 8 December 2001, the applicant was notified by
her CO that her rating chain had not changed and that he would continue to
be her rater and the Deputy Commanding General (DCG) would be her senior
rater.  In the notification, she questioned whether the Chief of Staff, 1st
Cavalry Division, would be her intermediate rater as discussed earlier.  On
12 December 2001, she was informed that having the Chief of Staff,
1st Calvary Division, as her intermediate rater had not been approved by
the DCG and that rating chains had to be uniform across the board.

12.  On 17 December 2001, the applicant contacted her CO inquiring about
the results of the AR 15-6 investigation that was conducted on the NCO and
informing her CO of her desire to meet with the DCG to discuss her
concerns.



13.  On 19 December 2001, the applicant forwarded e-mail to the DCG
requesting that the issue regarding the insertion of the Chief of Staff,
1st Cavalry Division, into her rating scheme be revisited and that, since
there were only 6 months remaining in the rating period, any changes to the
rating scheme be implemented at the end of the report period.

14.  The DCG responded to the applicant's e-mail on 15 January 2002,
informing her that he had thought through her request to have the Chief of
Staff, 1st Cavalry Division placed in her rating chain.  The DCG stated
that he recognized that her battalion directly supported the 1st Cavalry
Division; however, her battalion, like other finance battalions, had an
area support mission as well and that it would not make sense to get locked
into a single unit and single-minded focus.  The DCG stated that he and her
CO wanted her to retain a broader perspective than just her support, as
important as it was to the first team.

15.  In an undated memorandum addressed to the III Corps Inspector General
(IG), III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant requested an IG
investigation and she cited reprisal, harassment and discrimination as the
basis for her request.  In the memorandum she alleged a total of forty acts
of impropriety against her CO, five other officers and two NCOs.  She
stated that the acts of these individuals were reprisal as a result of her
blowing the whistle on the OCS packet fraud.

16. On 3 March 2002, the applicant contacted the Department of the Army
Inspector General (DAIG) requesting an investigation due to reprisal and
harassment.  In this complaint she states that she was accused of making
official false statements as a result of notifying her CO about an alleged
relationship between a command sergeant major (CSM) and sergeant first
class.  She informed the DAIG that since she had the discussion with her
CO, her battalion had been targeted and harassed by her CO, the deputy
commander and the CSM.  She stated that she believed that she was being
reprised against and that she could not understand why the allegation was
even at the III Corps IG level since it was an open door discussion between
the CO and herself.  She stated that reprisal was substantiated by the
verbal and administrative attacks/assaults that are being launched and
openly targeted at her for coming forward about the OCS packet fraud in
November 2001.  She suggested that the sequence of events be investigated
and that she be provided with an explanation as to why failure to flag her
CSM would be under the purview of the office of the III Corps IG.



17.  In her memorandum to the DAIG, the applicant stated that if he looked
at the bogus allegation, he would understand why she believed that the III
Corps IG should be removed from the investigation.  She stated that her
witnesses were not being contacted and that an investigation that was
jumpstarted consisted of nothing but bogus allegations that were in no way
IG related issues.  She stated that her good name and reputation was being
slandered by untruths and that she wanted to ensure that the initiator of
the allegation was punished for knowingly submitted false allegations to IG
representatives.  The applicant stated that she was being harassed daily,
discriminated against and reprised against for coming forward with damaging
information about the command and that nothing was being done to protect
her or the members of her battalion.  She stated that the III Corps IG's
office had a "laundry list" of bogus allegations against her that were
clearly command related issues, which were easily unsubstantiated and that
it was obvious to everyone in the command that her battalion was being
targeted.   In the memorandum, she went on to cite the same 40 allegations
of harassment and reprisal that she cited in her undated memorandum to the
III Corps IG.  The applicant requested that the III Corps Equal Opportunity
(EO) office be investigated for their execution of a command directive from
the III Corps Commander.  She concluded the memorandum by alleging that the
III Corps EO office improperly abused their authority as an impartial party
despite written directive from the III Corps Commanding General; that she
was being denied a group meeting with EO office; and that the EO case was
prematurely closed without conducting a thorough investigation.  She stated
that the current EO representative had knowledge and was a potential
subject.  The applicant stated that the representative should have removed
herself from the case.

18.  On 11 March 2002, a Command Climate investigation was conducted in the
15th Finance Battalion and the 13th Finance Group and the IO's overall
assessment for the 15th Finance Battalion was that morale was very low
based on the investigation; one officer believed that his authority had
been relegated from that of a commander to that equivalent of a sergeant;
and that technically the unit was solid.  The IO stated that the unit was
very fragmented and disjointed down to the finance support level up to the
top; however, he could find no evidence of discrimination.

19.  In a memorandum addressed to whom it may concern dated 14 March 2002,
that was not received by the DODIG until 22 April 2002, the applicant
reported alleged fraud, waste and abuse committed by her CO.  In her
report, she stated that in October 2001, her CO committed fraud against the
United States Army


when he knowingly and personally directed that orders be published to allow
him to go TDY from Fort Hood, Texas to Paris and then on to Kuwait.  She
stated that the "return leg" was from Kuwait, to Amsterdam to Fort Hood.
She went on to state that on her CO's way to Kuwait, he had the Government
pay for a trip to Paris to see his father and on the way back from Kuwait,
he had the Government pay for a trip to see his friends.  The applicant
stated that her CO even enlisted the help of his staff to make the trip
happen and directed the administrative assistant to keep quiet about the
trip so that no one would find out. In the memorandum to the DODIG, the
applicant included the circumstances surrounding the NCO and the two
commissioned officers regarding the OCS packet.  She further alleged that
three NCOs falsified TDY settlement vouchers and that no action was ever
taken against them.  She stated that all three NCOs committed fraud on
their travel vouchers by claiming in and around mileage that they were not
entitled to on certain days.  She closed the memorandum by making the
statement that it is all right to commit fraud against the United States
Government because the group CO does it himself.

20.  On 25 March 2002, the applicant initiated a formal EO complaint
against her CO to the DCG.  In her complaint, she stated that she was
discriminated against based on her race and gender.  She alleged that she
had been harassed and demeaned by her CO.  She alleged that on 4 October
2001, her CO called her at home in reference to an OER that she had
completed on an officer and that during the conversation, he cursed at her
and threatened her career in the finance corps.  She alleged that on 5
September 2001, her CO told her that he would take care of her OER and her
future assignments if she would join his "A" team.  She alleged that on 21
December 2001, her CO permitted another officer to use profanity after she
was counseled for using profanity.  In her complaint she alleged that on 8
February 2002, her CO yelled, screamed and hit the walls when he became
aware of a weapon that was improperly stored in the 15th Finance Battalion
dispersing vault.  She alleged that on 8 February 2002, her CO initiated an
AR 15-56 investigation regarding the improper storage of the weapon and did
not initiate an investigation regarding the ammunition that was stored in
the same place that belonged to another finance battalion.  The applicant
alleged that on 20 February 2002, her CO openly demeaned her and made
negative statement about a sergeant major's lack of authority within the
brigade.  She alleged that on 22 February 2002, her CO refused to speak
with her regarding the assignment of two soldiers.  She alleged that on 25
February 2002, her CO refused to speak with her alone; and that on 15 March
2002, her CO openly harassed her



regarding her leave plans.  She concluded her EO complaint by alleging that
a CSM in the 13th Finance Group practiced racial discrimination in
assigning soldiers to subordinate battalions and that all of her CO's
actions were based on racial and gender discrimination.

21.  The applicant was counseled by the DCG on 27 March 2002, and DCG
indicated that the purpose of the counseling session was to inform her that
he had received her formal EO complaint against the CO and CSM.  The DCG
stated that he also had a desire to inform her of the Army's policy
prohibiting reprisal.  He stated that the chain of command would ensure
that complainants are protected from reprisal or retaliation for filing EO
complaints, as well as all parties involved and that the consequences of
reprisal would result in quick action by the command that could include
punishment under the UCMJ.  The DCG explained to the applicant the meaning
of reprisal in accordance with Army Regulation 600-200 and during the
counseling, he provided her examples of acts of reprisal.  The DCG informed
her if she experiences an incident of threat of reprisal, she was
encouraged to report such threats or acts of reprisal to her chain of
command and to the DODIG.  The DCG told the applicant that as the
complainant, she has rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act and that
the same protection is provided to the witness and the alleged perpetrators
under Department of Defense Directive 7050.6.  She was provided
documentation explaining the Whistleblower Protection Act.  The applicant
was informed that the command would conduct a thorough, expeditious and
unbiased investigation and good faith in attempting to resolve her
complaint.  The DCG concluded the counseling by stating that all parties
involved would be treated in a professional manner both during and
following the investigation.

22.  A complete copy of the EO report of investigation was not provided for
review.  However, documentation provided by the applicant shows that on
22 April 2002, the DCG found the applicant's allegations to be
substantiated in that the CSM admitted in a sworn statement that he
violated the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200.  The DCG deemed that
administering a formal Letter of Reprimand on the CSM to be the appropriate
method of resolving the complaint.  The DCG made no mention of any action
to be taken against the applicant's CO or that any of the allegations made
against her CO were substantiated.

23.  On 22 April 2002, the applicant was notified by the DCG that she was
being suspended from her duties as the Commander, 15th Finance Battalion.
In the notification, the DCG informed her that the suspension was based on
information obtained as a result of an AR 15-6 investigation and that he
was considering relieving her from command.  The DCG informed her that
prior to his final decision, she had 10 calendar days to reply in writing
and to submit rebuttal material that he could review and evaluate.  She was
directed to immediately return to her office and to secure her personal
affects.  She was further directed to report to a different location for
duty until further notice.  The applicant was ordered to stay away from the
15th Finance Battalion, the 13th Finance Group and all subordinate units
and work areas; however, she was told that she would be permitted
reasonable access to any persons in the units whom she wished to contact,
provided that she coordinated her requests for access through the
Commander, 13th Finance Group so as not to disrupt unit activities and
missions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification
indicating that she desired to submit matters and would forward them within
10 calendar days.

24.  On 14 May 2002, the DCG furnished the applicant a Relief for Cause
memorandum notifying her that she was immediately relieved from her duties.
 He stated that based on her abuse of authority and poor leadership, he had
lost trust and confidence in her ability to serve as a commander.  The DCG
stated that her relief was based on the findings of an AR 15-6
investigation that established that she failed to consistently demonstrate
behavioral characteristics that are at the core of leading and commanding
Army units.  The DCG stated that the IO had identified the characteristics
that she had failed to display and live up to as unquestionable character;
ability to control emotions, self-control, balance and stability; and the
need to treat superior, peers and subordinates with dignity and respect.
He informed the applicant that she had created a climate of fear and
reprisal within her command and factionalized the unit into those who were
favored by her and those who were not, regardless of rank or position.  She
was further informed that she had undermined the authority of some of her
officers and that she had failed to fully support and implement the
guidance of her brigade commander and repeatedly and unnecessarily clashed
with him.  The DCG informed the applicant that her integrity had been
called into question by superiors, peers and subordinates and that he had
lost trust and confidence in her judgment and ability to effectively and
objectively command.  The DCG concluded by stating that he had carefully
considered all of the rebuttal material that she submitted for his
consideration and that he concluded that despite her technical competency,
her relief as Commander, 15th Finance Battalion was in the best interest of
the United States Army.

25.  On 14 May 2002, the DCG, in the form of a memorandum, reprimanded the
applicant for repeatedly abusing her authority as a battalion commander.
In the GOMOR the DCG stated that on 17 June 2001 she retaliated against
another officer that she deemed to be disloyal to her, by rendering him a
substandard


OER and that she had employed questionable tactics with the outgoing and
incoming Finance Group Commanders to ensure that she became that officer's
senior rater.  The DCG stated that on 17 September 2001, without
justification, she used foul and abusive language toward the incoming and
outgoing Finance Group CSMs and that she further strained an important
relationship on 14 January 2002, by ordering a CSM to request her
permission before speaking to soldiers within her battalion.  The DCG
stated that her order hindered the CSM's ability to properly interact with
enlisted soldiers for whom he had the responsibility to mentor, coach and
train.  He went on to state that in Fall of 2001, she violated the Army's
EO program by stating that she was refusing to accept a soldier into her
battalion based on the soldier's race; and that on several occasions, she
failed to hold an NCO accountable for repeated insubordinate and
disrespectful action toward superior and commissioned officers.  In the
GOMOR, the DCG restated that she had created a climate of fear and reprisal
within her command and factionalized the unit into those who were favored
by her and those who were not, regardless of rank or position.

26.  In the GOMOR, the DCG repeated that she had failed to support and
implement guidance of her brigade commander and repeatedly and
unnecessarily clashed with him.  The applicant was informed that as a
senior commissioned officer and commander, she had a duty to act
responsibly and to exercise the highest moral standards and that she failed
to do so.  She was further informed that her actions exhibited a lack of
integrity and a failure to adhere to the Army's core values of loyalty,
duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage; and
that her conduct reflected poorly on her as well as the United States Army.
 The DCG informed the applicant that the reprimand was being imposed as an
administrative measure and not as punishment under the UCMJ.  He further
informed her of his intent to direct that the GOMOR be filed permanently in
her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and that she had 5 working
days to complete the endorsement and to return it through her chain of
command.  The DCS concluded by stating that any matter in extenuation,
mitigation, or rebuttal, which she wished to submit for his consideration
must accompany her acknowledge of receipt of the GOMOR.  She acknowledged
receipt of the GOMOR on 21 May 2002 and she indicated that she was
submitting documents in her own behalf.

27.  On 14 May 2002, the applicant submitted a request for redress to what
she believed to be an improper relief from battalion command, to the
Secretary of the Army.  In her request she stated that she is an Afro-
American female that was improperly relieved of battalion command for
coming forward as a whistleblower

with damaging evidence against her command.  She stated that her CO
received a GOMOR for TDY fraud and that the CSM received a GOMOR for racial
assignment violation.  She stated that the same individuals who she had
made allegations against in the past were labeled as creditable and
material witnesses in the AR 15-6 investigation and suspended and
ultimately relieved her from battalion command.  She stated that the
witnesses were biased and that their testimony was used to substantiate
offenses against her.  She went on to state that the DCG exhibited bias in
her case and asked for redress to have the action pulled from his level.
She stated that the evidence presented by witnesses was false and that
statements provided by witnesses were false official statements.  The
Department of the Army, Chief, Investigation Division, acknowledged receipt
of her submission on 22 May 2002.  The applicant was informed that
appropriate action would be taken in regard to her concerns and that she
would be informed of the results.

28.  On 21 May 2002, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR
requesting that the GOMOR be discarded and not filed on either her official
fiche or local files.  She stated that he wholeheartedly denied abusing her
authority and power as a battalion commander and that the allegations
raised against her in the AR 15-6 investigation were absolutely false.  She
stated that the substantiated allegations generated to relieve her of
command were not supported by evidence contained in the investigation and
that the substantiated allegations themselves in no way warrant relief of
command.  The applicant went on to list the reasons that she believed that
the GOMOR should be discarded.

29.  On 23 May 2002, the DCG forwarded a memorandum to the Commander,
Personnel Command, stating that he had considered the circumstances
surrounding the reprimand concerning the applicant and the DCG directing
that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

30.  On 14 June 2002, the applicant was furnished a Relief for Cause OER
for the period covering 9 June 2001 through 13 May 2002.  In Part IV of the
(Performance Evaluation – Professionalism) the applicant's CO rated her as
lacking sound judgment, critical/creative thinking, and moral reasons;
investing inadequate time and effort to develop individual subordinates as
leaders; lacking skills with people which includes an ability to coach,
teach, counsel, motivate and empower; lacking sound judgment, logical
reasoning and sufficient use of resources; lacking tactical proficiency in
meeting mission standard and caring of



people; spending insufficient time and resources improving teams, groups,
and units and failure to foster an ethical climate; lacking an inability to
display self control and calmness under pressure; lacking the ability to
inspire, motivate and guide others toward mission accomplishment; and
failing to seek self-improvement and organizational growth envisioning,
adapting and leading change.

31.  In Part V of the OER (Performance and Potential Evaluation) the rater
indicated that although the battalion had enjoyed much success, the
applicant had failed to adhere to Army values.  He indicated that she had
displayed poor judgment and emotions that were clearly out-of-control
during the rating period and that she had failed to adequately coach,
teach, mentor, motivate and develop her junior leaders.  Her rater
indicated that she spent little time building team concepts, preferring to
foster a "paint the rock mentality"; and that she had failed to seek self-
improvement and development and looked for reasons to avoid executing
assigned mission requirements.  The rater concluded his portion of the
rating by indicating that she would serve best in Information Officer
Career Field/53.  He rated her performance and potential as unsatisfactory
and indicated that she should not be promoted.

32.  In Part VII (Senior Rater), the applicant's senior rater concurred
with the rating official's comments indicating that she was hard working
and that she was very technically and tactically proficient; however, her
positive qualities did not overcome her deficiencies as a leader.  The
senior rater indicated that he relieved the applicant of her duties because
she failed to demonstrate behavioral characteristics that are in the core
of leading and commanding.  The rater further indicated that she fostered a
climate of fear and reprisal within her command and created destructive
factions inside the 15th Finance Battalion differentiated by those who were
loyal to and favored by her and those who were not, regardless of rank or
position.  He indicated that the applicant undermined the authority of some
of her officers, failed to fully support and implement the guidance of her
brigade commander and repeatedly and unnecessarily clashed with him.  The
senior rater concluded his portion of the rating by indicating her
integrity had been called into question by superiors, peers, and
subordinates and that she should not be assigned to a leadership position.
The senior rater indicated that she should not be promoted and overall, she
was rated Below Center of Mass.  The applicant refused to sign her OER.





33.  On 15 June 2002, the applicant took a polygraph test and she was asked
if she continuously failed to take action or discipline the first sergeant
after she was accused repeatedly of being disrespectful toward superior
officers and did she retaliate against a captain by giving him an adverse
OER for being disloyal to her.  Her response was no to both of the
questions.  She was also asked if the captain's OER rating was based upon
his substandard performance and was another first sergeant's
noncommissioned officers evaluation report from her based on an integrity
violation related to what she believed to be falsification of an Army
Physical Fitness Test and weigh-in in 1999.  Her response was yes to both
of these questions and according to the examiner, the polygraph results did
not reveal criteria normally associated with deception to the relevant
questions asked in the examination.

34.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Relief for Cause OER on 24
June 2002, stating that her rater and senior rater were both unqualified to
rate her because both were under investigation for improprieties associated
with violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act.  In her rebuttal she
stated that the investigation was ongoing at higher headquarters and the
actions of her senior rater in relieving her of command were in direct
violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.  She stated that she was
supposed to be protected from acts of reprisal and retaliation for coming
forward with a protected communication and that she had come forward to
report improprieties of officers and an NCO related to OCS fraud.  She
stated that she initially reported the alleged fraud to her CO and upon
determination that he was directly involved in the OCS fraud, she reported
the fraud to the DCG.  She stated that after no action was taken by either
official, she reported the OCS fraud of an NCO and subsequent TDY fraud of
her CO through IG channels.  She stated that immediately following her
protected communication to IG investigators, numerous unwarranted
investigations were launched against her battalion and herself.  She stated
that the investigations were directed by both her rater and her senior
rater.  The applicant went on to list the events that lead up to her being
furnished a Relief for Cause OER and a GOMOR.  She indicated that her rater
was unqualified to rate her because a substantiated AR 15-6 investigation
where he was found guilty of travel fraud as a direct result of an
allegation that she submitted to the Commander, III Corps through IG
Channels at DODIG, DAIG and III Corps IG in January 2002.  The applicant
went on to state that it was clear that her rater lacked objectivity and
fairness as a rating official because of her reported complaint of
impropriety; that her CO should not have been allowed to rate her because
he was proven to be untrustworthy, unqualified, biased and prejudiced; and
that she had filed a complaint of wrong for improper Relief of Command and
any action related to filing an official Relief for Cause OER and GOMOR was
premature.
35.  On 1 July 2002, the applicant was notified by the CG, HQ III Corps,
that the a supplementary review of the OER in question, was reviewed as
required by AR 623-105 and that the OER was complete and correct as
written.  The CG stated that the OER required no further comment from him.


36.  As directed by the Chief of Staff, III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas, an AR
15-6 investigation was conducted on 9 July 2002.  The investigation was
initiated based on allegation that the applicant's CO reassigned the first
sergeant who was under her command, based on her race; that her CO informed
the leadership of the 15th Finance Battalion that he was removing the CSM
as the 13th Finance Group CSM for reprising and retaliating against the
first sergeant and failed to do so based on the first sergeant's gender;
and that her CO openly demeaned the first sergeant and made negative
comments and statements about her previous blood pressure condition in open
forum.  The AR15-6 report of findings and recommendations that the
applicant submitted in support of her application is incomplete.  However,
that portion of the AR 15-6 that was submitted shows that the IO found that
there was no evidence that her CO's reassignment of the first sergeant was
based on race or gender; and that there was no evidence that the
applicant's CO informed the leadership that he would remove the CSM for
reprisal and retaliation against the first sergeant.  The IO recommended
that the Command take whatever actions it deemed appropriate with regards
to what he believed to be the root of the problem, a failure in leadership.
 The IO stated that the CO's failures included not attempting to correct
the attitudes and behavior of the subordinate members of his command; and
not setting conditions for members of his command to have the opportunity
to adhere to Army values and rejoin the team.  The IO further recommended
that no action be taken against two of the three officers named in the
allegations and that one officer and the CSM be counseled with regards to
immaturity and objectivity as it related to their duty positions.

37.  The applicant underwent a second polygraph on 1 August 2002, and she
was asked did she and another individual have a conversation with the CSM
where she refused to accept an NCO into her battalion because she was
Caucasian; did she call two CSMs vulgar names and indicate they were
prejudice; and did she tell a CSM that she would punish him under the UCMJ
if he ever came down to her unit to talk with her soldiers prior to
receiving her approval.  Her response was no to all three of these
questions.  The examiner went on to ask her did a colonel give her approval
to rate two other officers and to senior rate two captains in the
February/March timeframe.  Her response was yes and this question and
according to the examiner, the polygraph results did not reveal criteria
normally associated with deception to the relevant questions asked in the
examination.
38.  On 27 August 2002, the applicant's attorney contacted the CG, HQ III
Corps, requesting an investigation into her Relief for Cause OER.  Her
attorney complained regarding a prior request that he contends was
submitted and the fact that the applicant was allegedly told by an NCO that
an officer had not been appointed.  He requested that a general officer be
appointed to conduct the AR 15-6 investigation and that he be provided a
name and address of the IO once he was appointed, as his client had
additional relevant information to provide to the IO.  The applicant's
attorney concluded his request by stating that he believed that the
documents that she had collected demonstrate beyond peradventure that those
who prepared the OER knew that the information contained therein, was
false.

39.  The HQ III Corps, Staff Judge Advocate (JAG) contacted the applicant's
attorney on 9 September 2002 and provided him with the name of the IO and
told him that additional relevant information should be referred
expeditiously to the IO so that he may consider the information in his
investigation.

40.   The applicant was notified by the AR 15-6 IO, on 15 October 2002,
that the investigation regarding her OER had been completed and that a
careful review of each of her specific allegations was made.  The IO
indicated that he did not find her OER to be unfair or unjust.  He further
stated that he found no irregularities or errors in her OER.

41.  In a memorandum dated 20 December 2003, from the office of the DODIG,
addressed to the DAIG, the Director, Program Integrity indicated that they
had completed their preliminary inquiry into the allegation that the DCG
reprised against the applicant for protected communications that she made
against him and her CO in August 2001; November 2001; December 2001;
January 2002; February 2002; and March 2002.  The DODIG director indicated
that they concurred with the DAIG conclusions that the applicant's relief
from command and related adverse personnel action (GOMOR and OER) would
have occurred absent her protected communication.

42.  On 8 January 2004, the DODIG Director, Special Inquires, forwarded a
memorandum to the DAIG, (Whistleblower Investigation) indicating that the
preliminary analysis of the applicant's reprisal allegations were reviewed
and that they concurred that further investigation was not warranted.  The
DODIG Director, Special Inquires stated that, at that point, they
considered the matter closed.

43.  The available records show that the applicant was considered for
promotion to colonel; however, she was not selected for promotion.
44.  On 31 December 2004, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Officer
Special Review Board (OSRB) requesting that the Relief for Cause OER and
the GOMOR and related documents be removed from her OMPF.  She also
requested reconsideration for promotion to colonel and Senior Service
College selection.  The OSRB denied her request on 24 January 05.

45.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for
the OER system.  Paragraph 3-57 and 6-6 provide that an OER accepted by
Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record
of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been
prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of
preparation.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn or
replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when
information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is
brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it
would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at
the time the OER was prepared.  Paragraph 3-24 provides that each report
will be an independent evaluation of the rated officer for a specific
rating period and will not refer to prior or subsequent reports.  Each
report must stand alone.

46.  Paragraph 6-4 of Army Regulation 623-105 states that the evaluation
system establishes rating chains and normally relies on opinions of the
rating officials.  Rating officials should evaluate and have their opinions
constitute the organization's view of the rated officer; however, the
commander may determine through his or her inquiry that the report has
serious irregularities or errors.  Examples include, but are not limited
to, improper designated or unqualified rating officials.  (For example,
rating officials who have had substantiated findings against them from an
official investigation.)  The rating was inaccurate or untrue statements
were made or a lack of objectivity or fairness by rating officials.

47.  Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation states that the burden of proof in an
appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify
deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must
produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions
referred to above and that action to correct an apparent error or
inaccuracy is warranted.

48.  Information obtained from the Human Resources Command reveals that it
is Department policy that “special boards” not be convened for Resident
Senior Service Colleges or Command Selection Boards.  It is also Department
policy that the Department Secretariat destroy all vote sheets, board
members notes, and all other such papers reflecting votes within 5 days and
all rosters, Order of Merit Lists, and prepared rosters produced for boards
be destroyed within 30 days after the board’s recommendations have been
forwarded for approval.  Therefore, unlike promotion boards, comparison
files are not maintained on school and command boards nor can they be
reconstructed after the fact.  Consequently, without comparison files, it
is impossible to conduct a reconsideration board that is equitable and fair
to both the individual officer and to those originally considered by the
selection board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The question in this case is whether the applicant's rating officials
where within their rights to render her a substandard rating; furnish her a
GOMOR; and relieve her of her command.  Her rating officials were within
their rights.

2.  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-105, the commander may determine
through his or her inquiry that the report had serious irregularities or
errors due to the substantiated findings against her rater from an official
investigation.  However, the DCG did not find it necessary to remove her
rater from her rating chain and the DCG was completely within his authority
to make such a determination.

3.  The evidence of record shows that it was the results of an AR-15-6
investigation that was the basis for the DCG relieving her of her command
and furnishing her with a GOMOR.  A review of her Relief for Cause OER
fails to show bias, prejudice or inaccuracies.  Her rater documented this
observation of her performance and potential during the rating period and
the fact that she disagrees with the observations of her rater and senior
rater are insufficient basis to warrant removal of the Relief for Cause OER
and GOMOR from her OMPF.

4.  The applicant's contentions that she was reprised and retaliated
against have been noted.  However, she has submitted insufficient evidence
in support of her contentions.  There were DAIG and DODIG investigations
conducted in her behalf, and in both cases, her allegations were
unsubstantiated.  She has failed to show that the OER and GOMOR were
anything other than completely honest opinions of her performance and
potential that were made by her rater and her senior rater.

5.  The Board has considered the two polygraph tests that the applicant
underwent and the numerous letters that she submitted from others attesting
to her good character.  However, they are not, either individually or in
sum, sufficient to warrant removal of the OER and GOMOR from the
applicant's OMPF.

6.  The available evidence shows that she was considered for promotion to
colonel and non-selected.  The applicant has provided no evidence that
shows that the decision made by the promotion selection board was in error
or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting her promotion
reconsideration or any of her other requests in this matter.

7.  In accordance with the information obtained from the Human Resources
Command, Department policy is that special boards not be convened for
Resident Senior Service Colleges or Command Selection Boards.
Additionally, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to
show that she was not properly considered for Senior Service College and
Brigade Command.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting this portion of
her requests.

8.  Inasmuch as she has not shown the Relief for Cause OER is in error and
does not reflect her overall potential, there is no basis for removing the
OER from her records or substituting it for one that gives her credit for
battalion command.

9.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____JV__  ___CM__  ____LB__  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 Vick_________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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