RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 June 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070002174
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:
Ms. Linda D. Simmons
Chairperson
Mr. Joe R. Schroeder
Member
Mr. Chester A. Damian
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 reconsideration of his earlier request for the removal of a relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) and a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that he receive an appropriate retirement award.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is totally offended by the Boards inference that he received special protection or immunity because he was an Inspector General (IG) sergeant major. He also states that the Boards reasoning was "bull" with regard to the comment While there were flaws in the process, it appears that the IG was attempting to show that the IG office or its personnel were not immune from punishment or that such conduct was acceptable. With regard to the applicants comments concerning the female sergeant major needing bigger breasts before he would sleep with her, he contends that this comment was made in jest and was his way of ending her advances toward him. Regarding the payment of his credit card bills, the applicant stated that the female sergeant major only mailed his payments for him, and did not actually pay his bills. Lastly, the applicant refers to the Boards comment about the two elements he had admitted to and that they were sufficient as a basis for the command to take action against him at that time, even without an investigation. He contends such allegations needed to be investigated because it involved his career.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050011121, on 20 June 2006.
2. The applicants seven page rebuttal addresses the discussion and conclusion paragraphs numbered two through six of the previous consideration. The applicant is offended by the Board's statement in paragraph two that his request was serving as a means of gaining special protection or immunity from punishment. He contends that the V Corps IG blatantly disregarded policy and procedures. The applicant rebuts paragraphs three and four, saying that his conversation about the sergeant major needing to get bigger breasts was only said in jest and then only as a means to stop her advances. With regard to paragraph five, the applicant says he stands corrected if he said that the
sergeant major paid his credit cards bills. He contends that he meant the sergeant major mailed the payments for him. He added that the sergeant major had access to his apartment while he was in Iraq and that he had left $2,500.00 in blank money orders for the sergeant major to use to pay his credit card bills. Paragraph six stated that since the applicant had admitted to two elements, the command had a sufficient basis to take action against him even without an investigation. The applicant contends that the V Corps IG was biased and that nothing was checked or challenged. The applicant also stated that the only evidence against him was a statement from two white people, and no one wanted to look at the facts or issues.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant has not provided any new evidence that convincingly supports his contention that the V Corps IG blatantly disregarded policy and procedures or that he was unfairly biased against the applicant.
2. The applicant's assertion that his comments about the sergeant major needing to get bigger breasts was said in jest, does not sufficiently mitigate the Board's original decision. A comment such as this is inappropriate even in jest.
3. The applicant's clarification about leaving money orders and access to his apartment for the sergeant major to use in paying his bills does not sufficiently mitigate the Board's original decision. This behavior seems at best to be inappropriate for a married man and tends to make one think there was more than a casual relationship between them.
4. The applicant's contention that no one wanted to look at the facts of his case and that there was racial motivation, is not supported by any convincing evidence.
5. In view of the above, the applicants request should not be granted.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JRS __ ___LDS__ __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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050011121, dated 20 June 2006.
__ _Linda D. Simmons_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20070002174
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070605
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
. . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
134.0400
2.
111.0005
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011121C070206
The applicant requests the removal of a relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) and a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that he be given an appropriate retirement award. There is no evidence of a GOMOR being filed in the applicant’s OMPF and there is no evidence that he received an award when he retired. While all of the facts and circumstances are not present in the available records, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02009
AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated again, he is asking the AFBCMR to remove the EPR, period of report: 26 July 2000 through 4 December 2000, from his records based on the grounds that it was unjust and a reprisal action. Then after he got the EPR and saw the EPR, that’s when he filed the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02532
The rater submitted a letter of support stating "Had I known that a privileging hearing would exonerate [the applicant] of these professional charges I would not have signed off on the OPR." The sexual harassment allegations were fabricated and Major --- and Lt Col --- escalated the allegations to eliminate the applicant. Lt Col --- presented the rater with the Report of Inquiry in which the JAG wrote and determined sexual harassment occurred.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710726C070209
The document shows the statement 99.99 percent of falsely accused men would be excluded as the father by the above tests. The CID Report also shows, in various statements made by four females (ages 14, 14, 15,and16 at the time), that the applicant had assaulted a minor female by punching her in the stomach with a closed fist; that he engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with another minor (15-year old) female; and that he assaulted a minor female by grabbing her breast. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710726
A statement made by the mother of the female shows that she told the applicant that her daughter was 14 years old. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded: The evidence of record shows that during that period of time he also associated with friends of the female who were also minors.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006083
I then said that you never know Soldier we might even "F_ _ _." Her name is [Soldier's name]. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by: a. reinstating his name to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 promotion list; b. reinstating his Drill Sergeant Badge; c. reinstating his SQI of "X" indicating he is drill sergeant qualified; d. correcting his DA Form 2166-8; e. removing the letter from his AMHRR that removed him from the Drill Sergeant Program; and f....
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010390
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army IG records are any written or recorded IG work-product created during the course of an IG assistance inquiry, inspection, investigative inquiry, or investigation. Although he contended the allegations are untrue, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence to show he did not know the female Soldier was married during their relationship or that she denied he physically assaulted her.
In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...
In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...