RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  22 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000242 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.

Chairperson

Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.

Member

Mr. James R. Hastie

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 his retired grade of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) be changed to Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3). 

2.  The applicant states that the Army Grade Determination Review Board's determination was colored by a sole negative incident with his spouse.  To say that his entire 2 years and 8 months of service as a CW3 was not served satisfactorily amounts to a significant injustice.  The applicant also states that he continued to "Soldier on" without letting his work performance suffer.  He further states that a grade determination should be based on a Soldier's overall service. He contends that put against the background of his entire career, one infraction is not sufficient to determine that his service in the grade of CW3 was unsatisfactory.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of four Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) for the overall period from 1 March 2003 through 2 August 2006; and letters of support from one of his former supervisors and a coworker.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 26 June 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and served on active duty through a series of enlistments until his discharge on 27 February 1997 to accept an appointment as a warrant officer.  He had attained the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E6, and had completed 11 years, 8 months and 2 days of creditable active duty.

2.  On 28 February 1997, the applicant was appointed as a warrant officer in the United States Army Reserve and called to active duty.  

3.  On 28 February 1999, the applicant was promoted to CW2.

4.  On 1 February 2004, the applicant was promoted to CW3.

5.  In the early morning hours of 26 December 2004, the applicant, after having drank alcohol throughout the evening, became abusive to his spouse, striking her in the face and kicking her in the leg.  Evidence obtained during the subsequent investigation indicated that this was most likely not the first time such abuse had occurred.  


6.  On 7 May 2005, the applicant was given a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for assaulting his spouse on 26 December 2004, while intoxicated.  He had also entered into a verbal argument with a noncommissioned officer.  This represented an extreme departure from that conduct expected of Army leaders and was clearly and completely unbecoming of an officer and gentleman.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of this GOMOR and indicated his intention to submit matters on his behalf within 7 days.  There is no evidence of record showing that he submitted any mitigating evidence or argument.

7.  On 26 January 2006, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) reviewed the applicant's request for voluntary retirement and the request from the Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, for a grade determination.  The AGDRB determined that the highest grade satisfactorily held by the  applicant was CW2.

8.  On 19 April 2006, the applicant's company commander wrote a memorandum stating that the applicant had been a member of the unit since 16 December 2004 and had demonstrated superb technical skills, had ensured mission accomplishment, and had provided technical advice and mentorship to his peers, superiors, and subordinates.

9.  On 12 June 2006, the applicant's battalion logistics officer, a captain, wrote a memorandum stating that the applicant had showed superb technical skills and ensured mission accomplishment of their supported units.  He further indicated that the applicant was a key player in providing uninterrupted maintenance support for the unit movement and reorganization.  

10.  The applicant's OER's show that for the period prior to the incident resulting in his receiving a GOMOR, his duty performance was rated as "outstanding performance, must promote" by his rater and as "best qualified" by his senior rater.  After this incident, these ratings dropped to "satisfactory performance, promote" and "fully qualified," respectively. 

11.  On 30 September 2006, the applicant was retired under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, for sufficient service for retirement.  Item 
18 (Remarks) of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicates that he was placed on the Retired List in the grade of CW2, but he retained his USAR retired grade of CW3.  He had completed 21 years, 
3 months, and 5 days of creditable active duty.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was promoted to CW3 on 1 February 2004. Ten months later he was under investigation for spousal abuse that resulted in his receiving a GOMOR.   

2.  The memoranda of support address his technical skills and ability to perform his duties.  However, his OER's show that his performance had declined.

3.  The applicant's argument that the grade determination should have been based on his entire career is not sufficiently mitigating.  The issue is whether or not he served satisfactorily as a CW3.  He had only served in the grade of CW3 for 10 months prior to his spousal abuse incident, and suffered a decline in the quality of his performance afterwards. 

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should not be granted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__HOF __  __TEO__  _JRH ___  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.





__   Hubert O. Fry, Jr._____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070000242
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070522 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
129.0400.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.