RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001574


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum
of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Performance (P) fiche and
transferred to his Restricted (R) fiche of his Official Military Personnel
File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his GOMOR was issued out of
frustration following a request from his former commander since there was
no evidence to pursue action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ).  His request to defend himself in person in front of the
Installation Commander was not even acknowledged and the GOMOR was filed on
his "P" fiche against his strong objections.  Previous attempts to have his
GOMOR removed from his "P" fiche in 1991 through the ABCMR and in 1992 by
the GO who imposed the GOMOR were not successful.  Since the GOMOR was
filed in his OMPF, he has continued to serve his country in the USAR
(United States Army Reserve), today, in a combat zone, but the unjust
presence of the GOMOR on his "P" fiche is hampering further advancements.

3.  The applicant provides an additional letter in support of his request.
He states, in effect, that almost 15 years ago, he unjustly received a
GOMOR which eventually forced him to leaved active duty two years later.
He left with an Honorable Discharge.  He entered the Reserve Component (RC)
in 1993 and since then has been serving his country with honor and
distinction.  He had served at NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
Headquarters in Brussels and with the 7th Army Reserve Command in Germany.
While in the RC, he as been promoted twice, completed the Command and
General Staff (CGSC) Course, and received a Top Secret Clearance as well as
several awards, decorations, and outstanding evaluation reports.  He is
currently serving on a 12 month tour in Afghanistan, in support of the
Global War on Terrorism.

4.  He states that the GOMOR served only one purpose, which was to force
him to leave active duty, but that did not stop him from his desire to
continue to serve his country in the Reserve and as a Department of the
Army Civilian.  The last Colonel's promotion board did not select him for
promotion, and he believed that despite his otherwise outstanding record,
this GOMOR was the reason for his non-selection.  The same results came
from the Colonel's Command and PDE (Professional Development Education)
boards.  His current chain of command




did not understand the non-selections as they were very well aware of both
his outstanding performance and potential for increased responsibility and
have  asked him to apply for command.  His only desire is to continue to
serve and receive the same opportunities for promotion, schooling, and
command as his fellow officers.

5.  This 15-year old GOMOR today stands in his way of continuing to do what
he is best at, Soldiering!  He concludes that an officer's promotion should
be a result of their recognized potential for the next rank.  In every
single OER (Officer Evaluation Report) that he has received since his GOMOR
was issued, he has been recommended for promotion.  However, this GOMOR is
giving his record an unfair black eye and it should be removed from his "P"
fiche.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a copy of his GOMOR with
supporting documents, in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he was reappointed in the USAR as
a commissioned officer effective 1 August 1993, in the rank of captain
(CPT/O-3), with prior commissioned service.  He was ordered to active duty
(AD) effective 2 August 1993.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-
5) effective 9 February 2002.  He continued to serve until he was released
from active duty on 9 March 2006.  He was transferred to a troop program
unit (TPU) where he continues to serve.

2.  On 12 June 1991, while he served in the rank of Captain, the Commanding
General (CG), Headquarters, United States Army Infantry Center, Fort
Benning, Georgia, issued a GOMOR to the applicant for adultery, with the
spouse of a noncommissioned officer, and conduct unbecoming an officer and
gentleman, from February 1990 through May 1991.  This was imposed as an
administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  The
CG stated that it was his intent to file this memorandum in the applicant’s
OMPF.  The memorandum was referred to the applicant for comment with
acknowledgement within 72 hours (3 days).

3.  On 13 June 1991, he acknowledged receipt of the reprimand and elected
to submit statements in his own behalf.  He submitted his rebuttal, with a
request for a personal appearance before the CG.

4.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated that many of the so-called facts
uncovered in the 15-6 investigation were nothing more than uncorroborated
third party hearsay with no hard evidence.  The relationship between him
and the NCO's spouse could best be described as platonic.  In summary, he
was being reprimanded for maintaining an improper relationship with a
married woman.  Considering his acts as a pattern of misconduct was a
subjective evaluation of distorted and confusing allegations presented.  He
accepted the fact that he probably did not exercise proper judgment and
placed the married woman's suffering ahead of himself and his career.  In
considering the factual evidence presented, the extenuating circumstances
surrounding this case and his exceptional duty performance, he requested
that the GOMOR not be filed in his OMPF.

5.  The CG considered the evidence and rebuttal comments and recommended
that the applicant’s GOMOR be placed permanently in the applicant's OMPF.

6.  On 15 July 1992, the applicant appealed his GOMOR, dated 12 June 1991,
to the DASEB.  He based his appeal on bias and unfair practices which were
reached through undue process.  In addition, he requested that his GOMOR be
moved from the "P" fiche to the "R" fiche of his OMPF.  After careful
consideration, the DASEB decided to deny the requested transfer of the
GOMOR.  The decision was reached after a thorough evaluation of his entire
record by the board, sympathetically considering his appeal and justly
weighing the best interest of the applicant and the Army.

7.  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel
by the 2005 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB).

8.  It appears that the applicant’s records were submitted to the Colonel's
RCSB which convened on 11 July 2006 and recessed on 4 August 2006.  The
results of the promotion board have not been released and will be released
at a later date.










9.  Army Regulation 600-37, in pertinent part, provides the policy for
authorized placement of unfavorable information in individual official
personnel files.  It provides that unfavorable information will not be
filed in an official personnel file unless the individual has been given
the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the
proposed filing and make a written statement, if desired, that rebuts the
unfavorable information.  The referral to the recipient will include
reference to the intended filing of the letter and include documents that
serve as the basis for the letter.

10.  Army Regulation 600-37, also provides that a LOR or MOR, regardless of
issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a
general officer.  Statements and other evidence will be reviewed and
considered by the officer authorized to direct filing.  Letters
(memorandums) of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an
appeal for transfer to the
R-fiche.  Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their
intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the
best interest of the Army.  The DASEB has been established as the appeal
and petition authority for unfavorable information entered in the OMPF
under this regulation. 

11.  Army Regulation 600-37, also specifies 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 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel
File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management
Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  Paragraph 2-4
of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it
becomes a permanent part of that
file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the
file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation.
It also states that ABCMR documents that approve or deny a request will be
filed on the R fiche of the OMPF.





13.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for
promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation provides that mandatory
selection boards will be convened each year to consider Reserve Component
officers in an active status for promotion to colonel.  The regulation
provides that in order to be qualified for promotion to colonel an
individual must have completed the Command and General Staff Officer Course
(CGSOC) and 5 years of time in grade (TIG) as a lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-
5) on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board.

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 further specifies that boards are not required
to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection, except where
an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military
schooling.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s GOMOR was properly filed on his "P" fiche, of his OMPF,
in accordance with regulations applicable at the time.

2.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s service before,
during and after the imposition of the GOMOR.  The GOMOR was imposed as an
administrative measure, and not punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  The
applicant has failed to convince the Board that removal of the GOMOR is in
the best interest of the Army.

3.  The applicant stated in his application to the Board that previous
attempts to have the GOMOR removed from his "P" fiche have not been
successful and the unjust presence of the letter in his OMPF is hampering
further advancements.

4.  The applicant failed to provide evidence of this 1991 attempt to have
the GOMOR removed from his OMPF through ABCMR as he stated in his
application to the Board.  He has also failed to provide documents written
by the general officer who imposed the GOMOR asking that the GOMOR be
removed from his OMPF.

5.  In his application to the Board, the applicant assumes that his non-
selection for promotion to Colonel was due to his GOMOR.  AHRC-St. Louis
does not normally divulge the reasons for an officer's non-selection.  The
applicant will be informed of his selection or non-selection status when
the current board results are released.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JI ____  __KSJ___  __GJP __  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 Infante______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001574                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061012                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR  USAR ON AD                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |126                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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