RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                              10 JANUARY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:              AR20050016139


      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. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruier                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawly Sabree                  |     |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) dated 9 December 2004 from his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that for 20 years prior to receiving the GOMOR his
career had been stellar.  He had been selected to attend the Senior Service
College and was informed that he was on track for promotion to the rank of
colonel.  He goes on to state that he believes that he can still be a
valuable asset to the Army; however, the GOMOR will certainly end his
career.  He continues by stating that the allegation that he had several
security violations is not true and that he was never notified in
accordance with State Department procedures by a Regional Security Officer
in writing that he had committed security violations.  He also states that
he has been assigned to three embassies without violations.  He further
states that he denies the allegation that he compromised a source’s
identity and that he failed to secure classified information.  He goes on
to state that he was involved in two vehicle accidents and was incorrectly
advised of the procedures to secure the vehicle; however, when he found out
the proper procedures, he immediately corrected the situation.  He also
states that he was unaware that his comments to female personnel in the
embassy made them uncomfortable and had he known, he would have refrained
from making them.  Additionally, he self-referred himself for an evaluation
to determine if he was alcohol dependent and no problem was identified.  He
denies having a problem with alcohol, coming to work smelling of alcohol
and sleeping at his desk during times when he was supposed to be at work.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page statement explaining his position on
the allegations contained in the GOMOR.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He graduated from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Program as
a Distinguished Military Graduate and was initially commissioned as a
Reserve infantry second lieutenant on 19 May 1984, with a concurrent call
to active duty on 18 August 1984, at which time he accepted a Regular Army
appointment.

2.  He remained on continuous active duty and was promoted to the rank of
lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 1 April 2001.

3.  On 17 July 2004, while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency in
Washington, D.C., the applicant was suspended from his duties as a Defense
and Army Attache’ to the Embassy in Yemen by his senior rater (a Marine
Corps brigadier general), pending the outcome of an inspector general (IG)
investigation into allegations against him.

4.  On 9 December 2004, the Commanding General of the Military District of
Washington, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. issued the applicant a GOMOR for
dereliction in his duties as the Defense Attache’ to Yemen during the
period of    4 February to 15 July 2004.  He cited as the basis for the
GOMOR that the applicant had regularly violated security procedures and
exhibited unprofessional and embarrassing behavior, that he exposed an
intelligence source’s identity to foreign government attaches’, that he
frequently kept classified material outside the office where it could not
be secured, that he compromised physical security following two traffic
accidents, that he made female embassy employees uncomfortable by making
sexually suggestive remarks, that he had been reported to have come to the
office smelling of alcohol, appearing either intoxicated or hung over and
then slept through parts of the day.  He advised the applicant that he was
considering filing the GOMOR in his OMPF and his right to submit matters in
his own behalf.

5.  On 5 January 2005, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR in
which he requested that it be filed in local files.  He asserted that he
had not violated security procedures, that he had been assigned to three
different embassies and that he had not been notified in writing by a
Regional Security Officer (RSO) of security violations in accordance with
State Department procedures.  He acknowledged that he did casually mention
a source’s identity but that he later confirmed that his identity was not
compromised and that he was safe.  He also stated that he destroyed any
classified material he had put in his notebook and that in regards to the
vehicle accident, he followed procedures given him by the assistant RSO and
after learning that the information was incorrect, he corrected the
situation.  He also asserted that had he known his comments to female
employees made them uncomfortable, he would have apologized and refrained
from any further actions that may have offended them.  He further asserted
that he did not report to work smelling of alcohol.  He went on to state
that because of allegation by his subordinates, he was recalled by his
rater back to Washington in May 2004 and was verbally counseled not to let
his drinking interfere with his duty performance.  As a result, he referred
himself for an evaluation in Germany in June and no problem was identified.
 On 17 July 2004, he returned to the United States on leave and made an
office call with his senior rater, who relieved him on the spot.  He
requested that the GOMOR be filed in local files so that his career would
not be prematurely ended.

6.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended that the GOMOR be filed in
his OMPF and the imposing officer directed on 1 June 2005, that the GOMOR
be filed in his OMPF.

7.  Meanwhile, the applicant received a relief for cause officer evaluation
report on 5 May 2005, covering the period from 22 November 2003 through 17
November 2004, evaluating him as a Defense and Army Attache.  Both the
rater and senior rater (SR) recommended that he not be promoted.  The SR
indicated in his comments that he had suspended the applicant from duties
in July 2004 and relieved him on 17 November 2004, following a thorough
investigation.  The report was considered adverse and as such was referred
to the applicant.

8.  On 10 May 2005, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the adverse OER
contending that there were numerous administrative errors on the report.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he has appealed
the OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

9.  A review of the available records does show that the GOMOR is the only
record of derogatory information contained in his OMPF (besides the adverse
OER).

10.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth the basic authority for filing of
unfavorable information in the OMPF.  Paragraph 3-4 of that regulation
provides, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive memorandum of reprimand or
admonition will be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general
officer senior to the recipient or by direction of the officer having
general court-martial jurisdiction of the recipient.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The GOMOR was properly imposed as an administrative measure and filed
in the OMPF in accordance with the filing instructions of the imposing
officer and applicable regulations.

2.  It appears that the applicant’s appeal of the GOMOR was properly
considered and that it was not inappropriate to file the GOMOR in the
applicant’s OMPF.

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

4.  The applicant’s contentions that the GOMOR was unjustly imposed against
him appears to be without merit.  Although he has not provided the Board
with the results of the investigation that was conducted in his case, a
memorandum of reprimand may be issued for any action which the imposing
authority believes reflects poorly on a Soldier’s performance, judgment, or
potential.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____KW _  ___DD__  ___QS __  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.





            ____Kenneth Wright__________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2005016139                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060110                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|ISSUES                  |1020/REM GOMOR                          |
|1.134.0400              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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