RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  28 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006171 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Chairperson

Ms. Marla J. N. Troup

Member

Mr. David R. Gallagher

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 memorandum of reprimand (MOR), dated     30 January 2006, and the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation, dated         19 December 2005, conducted against him be removed from his military records. He further requests, in effect, that his Legion of Merit be reinstated and that the Incident History Report held at the U.S. Army Personnel Security Clearance Facility (CCF), Fort Meade, Maryland be removed from his security file.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that an AR 15-6 investigation resulted in him receiving an MOR for sexual harassment and acting inappropriately towards female Soldiers.  He states that the investigating officer (IO) erred in taking his statement.  The IO did not ask for or take a written statement from him.  He simply noted in writing what the IO recalled from the interview in his interview summary.  The IO spent three hours with him and judged his responses as oratory comments instead of documenting his verbal responses as situational facts and circumstances as factual evidence.

3.  The applicant states that the IO did not give him the opportunity to provide evidence, facts, circumstances, and witnesses to his case.  The IO ensured that he could prove everything that the alleged victims said by their statements.  Notably, he altered and rephrased the applicant’s statements and put them into his own words.  

4.  The applicant disputes the IO’s summary of his personal interview because the IO did not use a tape recorder, did not obtain a sworn statement from him, and did not request that he review the summary to ensure that it was accurate.  In his opinion, the IO formed his own opinion of the case prior to his interview with the applicant.  The legal review erroneously found that the proceedings complied with legal requirements, that sufficient evidence supported the findings, and that the recommendations were consistent with the findings.  The recommendations were consistent with the findings based only (emphasis in the original) on the IO’s prejudiced analysis.  

5.  The applicant further states that his accusers made false allegations and sworn statements of sexual harassment, and they conspired against him to bring discredit towards his credibility and character.  In addition, his battalion commander (LTC S______) convinced the garrison commander that he was guilty of the allegations, and that the garrison commander (COL R____) never reviewed the investigation’s details.  The applicant states that he filed an Article 138 against LTC S______ on 15 February 2006 which has never been concluded.  He would expect it to be concluded.  It was filed because LTC S______ interfered with the investigation.  LTC S______ unlawfully broadened COL R_____’s order.  LTC S______ further punished him using the MOR and had his Legion of Merit revoked.  His command did nothing to assist him during the AR 15-6 investigation.  The applicant feels that many senior leaders in his command where threatened by LTC S______ not to have anything to do with his situation or they would be given a field grade Article 15.  This is why he filed a redress and gave witness statements that threats were made.  

6.  The applicant states that he went to the Inspector General (IG) to put in a complaint reference his AR 15-6 investigation alleging undue diligence and LTC S_______'s interference with the investigation.  Nothing was ever done, and he filed an Article 138 in which this specific complaint improperly failed to make it beyond LTC S______.  Therefore, his Article 138 was never properly acted upon. 

7.  The applicant provides Tabs 1 through Tab 10; List of Exhibits A through U; Table of Contents Tabs 1 through 29; and a memorandum from the Senior Mission Command Inspector General, dated 13 April 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1975.  On             1 August 1998, he was promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major (CSM)/E-9.

2.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Permanent Orders A-293-1, dated 
20 October 2005, show that the applicant was awarded the Legion of Merit as a retirement award.

3.  On 1 December 2005, the applicant was temporarily suspended from his duties as CSM of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) while pending an
AR 15-6 investigation.  He was ordered not to talk to anyone about the investigation, with the exception of the IO or other authorized officials.  On 
5 December 2005, the garrison commander appointed an IO pursuant to AR 15-6 to conduct an informal investigation into allegations of misconduct regarding the applicant; specifically, to determine whether the applicant sexually harassed and/or acted inappropriately towards female Soldiers in the 3d ACR. 

4.  On 19 December 2005, the IO completed an informal AR 15-6 investigation.  The IO stated in his findings, “This case is similar to all harassment cases – it boils down to ‘she said, he said’ and whose story is more credible.  During the course of the investigation I identified eight victims.”


5.  The IO noted that, victim #1, Sergeant (SGT) S_____, alleged that the applicant had been harassing her repeatedly by approaching her and commenting on her physical appearance.  She also alleged he repeatedly quizzed her and commented about her personal life.  When the applicant was questioned, he did corroborate the fact that he had made comments to SGT S_____ about her physical fitness.  He also remembered talking to her about the mark on her neck, even though he called the mark a burn.  He denied calling it a hickey and asking her dress size.

6.  The IO noted that victim #2, Specialist (SPC) C_____, alleged receiving harassing phone calls from the applicant and that the applicant wanted to meet with her in her room after duty hours.  She alleged that the applicant had talked to her about seeing her at Victoria’s Secret.  When the applicant was questioned about SPC C____, he denied telling her he wanted to meet her in her room.  He admitted he had tried to contact her by calling her cell phone several times relating to her moving off post and admitted he made comments to her about seeing her at Victoria’s Secret.

7.  The IO noted that victim #3, former SGT R______, alleged that the applicant stood very close to her, violating her personal space whenever he would talk to her and made her feel uncomfortable by watching her as she worked out in the gym.  She further alleged, in effect, that the applicant would go out of his way to put the coffee fund in her hand instead of putting it the coffee fund can.  When the applicant was questioned about former SGT R______, he stated that she was a good Soldier and that he was trying to keep her in the Army.  As for giving her the money, he stated it was no different than what he was doing anywhere else.  

8.  The IO noted that victim #4, SPC P_____, alleged that while in formation just before Thanksgiving the applicant used a laser pointer during the formation and pointed at her, and when she looked down the red dot was on her breast.  As she looked at the dot it went down her body to her private area.  She stated that the applicant then walked up to her and stated, “You don’t mind P___, if I shine my laser pointer on you.”  When the applicant was questioned about the pointer, he admitted using the pointer during the formation and was pointing it at Soldiers in formation and did not deny that he may have pointed it at SPC P___.

9.  The IO noted that victim #5, SPC B_____, alleged that the applicant spent an inappropriate amount of time and attention on her while she was in the gym working out, and he would find excuses to touch her back and arm.  She further stated that on one occasion when she was in the office wearing civilian clothes and was working on a computer, the applicant was standing behind her and looking down her blouse, which made her feel uncomfortable.  She also detailed an incident where she was walking down the hallway and the applicant blocked her way as she tried a walk by.  When questioned, the applicant denied looking down her blouse and stated if somebody had seen him doing that they must have been doing it too and the IO should be looking at them for inappropriate behavior. The applicant’s only comment as far as at the gym was that he was always talking to his Soldiers and trying to encourage them and that he did not remember a time when he would have blocked SPC B_____.  As far as walking down the hall, he stated he was sure he had done the hallway shuffle with people in the past.

10.  The IO noted that victim #6, SPC A____, alleged that the applicant had attempted to be too personal by repeatedly commenting on her perfume and her fingernails.  He actually reached out and took her hand into his when talking about her fingernails, without asking her permission.  He also made inappropriate comments about her body chemistry, why women wear bikinis, and why woman wear perfume to attract men.  When questioned, the applicant denied it at first.  After telling him there was a witness to the discussion, he remembered the discussion and stated it was a perfectly innocent discussion.  He had asked the Soldier about what she was wearing because he liked the smell and was thinking about buying some for his wife.

11.  The IO noted that victim #7, Private S______, was the only victim who did not voluntarily come forward.  The IO became aware of Private S______ because her name kept coming up from senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) as a female Soldier who appeared to be receiving special favors from the applicant.  The IO further noted that the applicant had made nine phone calls on five different days to Private S______ after duty hours.  The IO stated that Private S______ was very reluctant to communicate.  She did say she had been talking with the applicant and he had asked her (in her words) if she would like to hook up with him.  The IO stated that after talking to Private S______ twice she felt she had more to say but was extremely reluctant to talk.  That could have been because she had not been the best Soldier and may have seen him (the IO) as the enemy.

12.  The IO noted that victim #8, Private First Class (PFC) W______, alleged that the applicant had been too personal with her.  She described two encounters where he was in her barracks room by himself.  He had asked personal questions, such as who she was going with and commenting on her dress.  She also stated that her roommate, Private S______, had confided in her that the applicant had also been trying to hit on her.  When questioned, the applicant initially denied knowing PFC W_______ but later admitted he remembered talking to her about pictures in her room, but stated that they had never been 
alone.  The IO further noted that the applicant further stated PFC W______ and Private S______ had been roommates, and that they had probably concocted the stories together.

13.  The IO found that there was a definite pattern of sexual harassment of female Soldiers and that the applicant’s harassment fell into two categories, verbal and nonverbal harassment.  The IO stated again that this harassment case boiled down to what the victims stated as compared to the applicant’s statements.  The IO stated that, because of the number of independent corroboration’s of the victim’s statements, he felt their statements were very credible.  Additionally, the applicant corroborated many areas of the victim’s statements even though in the applicant’s version he did nothing wrong.  With the number of victims and the similarities of their accusations, there were a definite pattern of the applicant targeting young junior enlisted Soldiers who were either leaving the Army because of their own desires or because of chapter action.  Several of the Soldiers had been in trouble with the military legal system.  It could still be called into question but for the number of victims and the similarities with each victim, including those victims one would consider to be good Soldiers.  The IO concluded that the applicant felt there was a conspiracy against him.  The IO stated that he found no evidence of a conspiracy.  The statements were too numerous, and they all told different variations of the same type of behavior.  He found most of the victims were not eager to come forward to provide their statements.  Additionally, he found that several of the victims did not even like each other and that this was not the behavior one would associate with a conspiracy.  Secondly, there were just too many statements and too many people involved in too many sections for a conspiracy of this level to be carried out.

14.  The IO recommended that the applicant be removed from his leadership position and not allowed to assume a new leadership position until he had completed retraining on sexual harassment and that the command should consider other disciplinary actions, as appropriate.

15.  On or about 19 December 2005, the appointing authority, COL R_____, approved the IO's findings and recommendation.

16.  On 11 January 2006, a Judge Advocate Administrative Law Attorney reviewed the AR 15-6 Investigation and found it legally sufficient.

17.  An e-mail, dated 1 January 2006, addressed to the applicant from LTC S____, Subject: Inquiry, states “You are under order from COL R_____ to have no contact with the ACR except by request through the investigating officer.  He will forward whatever you need to us and we will take care of it.  You are flagged pending completion of the investigation, so I haven’t signed your leave form.  I have locally suspended your security clearance and temporarily suspended the investigation into your top secret clearance pending the outcome of the investigation.” 

18.  On 27 January 2006, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was contemplating taking action against him based upon the AR 15-6 investigation which established that the applicant sexually harassed and acted inappropriately towards female enlisted Soldiers.

19.  On 27 January 2006, the applicant's commander submitted a request to have the applicant's Single Scope Background Investigation cancelled per an incident report dated 2 December 2005.

20.  By memorandum dated 27 January 2006, LTC S___ notified the applicant that he was contemplating taking adverse action against him based upon the
AR 15-6 investigation that established he sexually harassed and acted inappropriately towards female enlisted Soldiers.  He provided the applicant a copy of the completed AR 15-6 investigation.

21.  On 30 January 2006, based on allegations of sexually harassing and acting inappropriately towards female enlisted Soldiers, the applicant received an MOR from COL R____, the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, Colorado.

22.  On 9 February 2006, in his rebuttal to the MOR the applicant requested that the MOR be destroyed or in the alternative that it be placed in his local file.  The applicant stated that there was a major error in the conduct of the investigation by the IO, who did not take a written sworn statement from him but instead noted in writing what he recalled and stating that the allegations against him were false. 

23.  In support of his rebuttal, the applicant obtained numerous sworn statements and letters of support from Soldiers assigned to the 3rd ACR attesting to his good character, most of them addressing the specific allegations and the Soldiers making those allegations, and most of them dated February 2006.  They were similar in content to the sworn statement from Master Sergeant (MSG) D___, dated 7 February 2006.  In the statement, MSG D _____ stated, in effect, that he could not recall the exact date that SGT R_______ stated that the applicant gave her the creeps because he was always coming up and talking to her and staring at the girls in the gym.  MSG D ____ stated that he explained to her the complaint process and provided her the Equal Opportunity representative’s information.  He told her that he would arrange a meeting with the applicant and 
speak to him about the matter.  He did not get the opportunity to speak to him.  However, he was able to observe the applicant and found no grounds for SGT R_____’s allegations.  

24.  On 15 February 2006, the applicant requested a redress under Article 138 to his commander.  The applicant stated that throughout his AR 15-6 investigation the commander consistently worked to punish him without first reviewing both sides of the dispute and he believed the following actions by his commander were wrong within the meaning of Article 138.  The applicant requested the order he was given not to speak with anyone in the command be lifted (he believed this order unlawful), that the Notice of Contemplated Adverse Action memorandum be destroyed (due to the fact there was no justification to penalize him twice), that his commander altered the bullet comments on his noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) without any adverse counseling, and requested that his revoked security clearance and his suspended top secret security clearance process be reinstated.

25.  On or about 23 February 2006, the applicant’s command notified the CCF at Fort Meade, Maryland that a completed AR 15-6 investigation was conducted on the applicant for allegations of improper conversation and harassment towards female Soldiers.  The notification generated an incident history report that stated, “The investigation was completed on 19 December 2005 and revealed the following recommendation:  After interviewing the victims, the witness, CSM T___, and reviewing all of the statements, I find there is a definite pattern of sexual harassment of female SOLDIERS in the Support Squadron.  CSM T___’s harassment falls into two categories, verbal and nonverbal harassment.”

26.  On 8 March 2006, LTC S_____ responded to a request from the applicant for redress.  LTC S_____ stated that he did not issue an order for the applicant “to have no contact with members of the 3rd ACR.”  It was the garrison commander who verbally issued the order to the applicant.  LTC S_____ stated that he was merely reinforcing that order, which the applicant had violated.  LTC S_____ stated that the applicant requested that he destroy the Notice of Contemplated Adverse Action.  LTC S_____ stated that he was contemplating relieving the applicant for cause from his position.  He further stated, “I believe that, given your actions, the investigation into your actions, and your response to that investigation, you are unfit to lead troopers under my command.”  

27.  LTC S_____ further stated that the applicant alleged that he improperly revoked the applicant’s secret security clearance and stopped the background check into his top secret clearance.  The commander stated that he did not have the authority to revoke the applicant’s clearance and that authority was reserved for the Commander, CCF.  The commander stated that he reported the applicant’s misconduct to the Commander, CCF, and temporarily suspended his clearance.  The commander stated, “AR 380-67 provides a process for you to request reconsideration should the CCF Commander or his designated representative ultimately revoke your clearance, and your request for redress under Article 138, UCMJ is thus inappropriate.”

28.  On 9 March 2006, the applicant requested redress under Article 138 through his chain of command after LTC S_____ refused to grant any of his requests.  The applicant’s two complaints were that he requested that his commander lift the order he personally gave him not to have any contact with any 3rd ACR Soldiers and the second complaint was that his commander changed his noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) just before it was to be submitted.

29.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Permanent Orders A-097-2, dated 
7 April 2006, revoked the applicant’s orders awarding him the Legion of Merit.

30.  On 8 April 2006, the CCF notified the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that information recently received from the applicant’s command indicated that an AR 15-6 was conducted.  CCF requested that OPM reopen the investigation to obtain a copy of the AR 15-6 investigation to allow for review of the applicant to address the allegations.

31.  On 13 April 2006, the Office of the IG at Fort Carson, Colorado responded to a letter, dated 18 December 2005, regarding the applicant’s due process.  The IG stated after a review of the applicant’s case it was determined the he did in fact receive due process with respect to the regulatory processing and outcome of the AR 15-6 investigation.  The IG stated “Of the four voiced complaints you submitted…the only one that is arguably proper to address is the complaint pertaining to the provisions of Article 138, UCMJ—this is where your request to have a verbal order rescinded by LTC______ …which prohibited you from having any personal/professional contact with any Soldier from your organization.”

32.  The IG stated that based on the applicant’s complaint the order prevented him from obtaining potential witness statements from members of his organization that may have provided disputing evidence in his favor.  The IG stated that LTC S_______ claimed to be only enforcing COL R_____’s order; however, LTC S___, in fact, broadened COL R_____’s order to include all contact with personnel and that COL R_____ only prohibited discussing the investigation with unit personnel.  The IG stated that LTC S_______ denied the applicant’s redress.  The applicant subsequently submitted an Article 138, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) complaint through LTC S_______ and the chain of command to the Commanding General.  It appeared this specific complaint improperly failed to make it beyond LTC S________ and, therefore, was not properly acted upon.

33.  On 30 June 2006, the applicant retired at the rank of CSM/E-9 after completing 30 years, 7 months, and 24 days of creditable active service.

34.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain his MOR, dated 30 January 2006 nor does it contain the AR 15-6 investigation, dated 19 December 2005.

35.  AR 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers), paragraph 4-2 states that an informal investigation or board may use whatever method it finds most efficient and effective for acquiring information.  Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information also may be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means.  Paragraph 4-3 also states informal procedures are not intended to provide a hearing for persons who may have an interest in the subject of the investigation or board.  No respondents will be designated and no one is entitled to the rights of a respondent.  The IO or board may still make any relevant findings or recommendations, including those adverse to an individual or individuals.

36.  AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files.  Paragraph 3-4b states that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer senior to the recipient or by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual.  Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance section.  The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  A letter to be included in a Soldier's OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment.  The referral will include reference to the intended filing of the letter.  Statements and other evidence furnished by the recipient will be reviewed and considered by the officer authorized to direct filing in the OMPF.  This will be done before a final determination is made to file the letter.  Should filing in the OMPF be directed, the statements and evidence may be attached as enclosures to the basic letter.  The letter will be signed by an officer authorized to direct such filing and will be forwarded for inclusion in the performance portion of the OMPF only after considering the circumstances and alternative non-punitive measures.  Once placed in the OMPF, however, such correspondence will be permanently filed unless removed through the appeal process and also will be filed in the MPRJ.  

37.  AR 380-67 (Personnel Security Program), paragraph 10-104 states that Department of Defense (DOD) record repositories authorized to file personnel security investigative (PSI) reports shall destroy PSI reports of a favorable or of a minor derogatory nature 15 years after the date of the last action.  That is, after the completion date of the investigation or the date on   which the record was last released to an authorized user—whichever is later.  PSI reports resulting in an unfavorable administrative personnel action or court–martial or other investigations of a significant nature due to information contained in the investigation shall be destroyed 25 years after the date of the last action.  Files in this latter category that are determined to be of possible historical value and those of widespread public or congressional interest may be offered to the National Archives after 15 years. 

38.  AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 1–30 states that, once an award has been presented, it may be revoked by the awarding authority if facts subsequently determined would have prevented original approval of the award had they been known at the time.  

39.  AR 27-10 (Military Justice) provides procedures for redress and Article 138.  A member of the Armed Forces may submit an Article 138 complaint for any act or omission by the member’s commanding officer that the member believes to be a wrong, and for which the member has requested redress and been refused.  The complainant should deliver the complaint to the complainant’s immediate superior commissioned officer within 90 days of the date of complainant’s discovery of the wrong, excluding any period during which the request for redress was in the hands of the respondent.  A superior commissioned officer who receives an Article 138 complaint will promptly forward it to the officer exercising General Court-Martial (GCM) jurisdiction.  

40.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552 states that the Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The MOR, dated 27 January 2006, indicated that the applicant was provided a copy of the completed AR 15-6 investigation.  When he rebutted the MOR, he provided numerous statements of support from members of the 3d ACR, most of them dated February 2006, after LTC S_____ 1 January 2006 email informing him, “You are under order from COL R_____ to have no contact with the ACR.”  Most of the letters of support addressed the specific allegations and the Soldiers making those allegations.  

2.  The IG stated that the applicant’s complaint pertaining to the provisions of Article 138, UCMJ, wherein he requested to have LTC S___’s verbal order prohibiting him from having any personal/professional contact with any Soldier from his organization rescinded, appeared to have merit.  However, given that the applicant was able to obtain numerous statements from members of the 3d ACR even after LTC S_____’s order was given, LTC S_____’s order does not appear to have significantly harmed the applicant’s ability to defend himself.  As to the applicant's allegation raised in his Article 138 complaint concerning changes to his NCOER, his proper avenue of redress was through the regulatory appeal provisions for NCOERs, not Article 138.  Therefore, the fact that LTC S_____ failed to forward the Article 138 action to the GCM jurisdiction did not prove to be an injustice.

3.  The applicant contended that the IO did not give him the opportunity to provide evidence, facts, circumstances, and witnesses to his case.  He contended that the IO altered and rephrased the applicant’s statements and put them into the IO’s own words.  He contended that the IO did not use a tape recorder, did not obtain a sworn statement from him, and did not request that he review the summary to ensure that it was accurate. 

4.  However, the IO was appointed to conduct an informal AR 15-6 investigation. AR 15-6 states that an informal investigation may use whatever method it finds most efficient and effective for acquiring information.  Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information also may be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means.  Informal procedures are not intended to provide a hearing for persons who may have an interest in the subject of the investigation or board, and no respondents will be designated and no one is entitled to the rights of a respondent.  The applicant was given his chance to rebut the findings of the IO and the statements against him when the AR 15-6 investigation was provided to him with the MOR.

5.  The IO made a convincing argument as to why he found the charges against the applicant to be founded.  Although this harassment case, as most such cases, boiled down to what the victims stated as compared to the applicant’s statements, the IO stated that because of the number of independent corroboration’s of the victim’s statements he felt their statements were very credible.  Additionally, the applicant corroborated many areas of the victim’s statements (even though in the applicant’s version he did nothing wrong).  The IO concluded that the statements were too numerous, and they all told different variations of the same type of behavior.  It appears that the IO reached a logical conclusion, and the applicant has failed to provided convincing evidence to show otherwise.
6.  The MOR and the AR 15-6 investigation are not filed on the applicant’s OMPF.  They may be filed in the DOD record repositories at the CCF.  Those records are not Army records, and thus are outside the jurisdiction of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct.  If the ABCMR were to determine that an error was made in conducting the AR 15-6 investigation or in issuing the MOR, a record of that determination could be filed along with the MOR and AR 15-6 investigation in the DOD record repositories.  However, the applicant provided insufficient evidence that shows that the AR 15-6 investigation was conducted improperly or that the MOR was issued improperly.  Since the applicant failed to rebut the propriety of the AR 15-6 Investigation, the CCF filing is moot – to the degree this was filed and affected the applicant's security clearance, it was proper.

7.  Regulatory authority provides that, once an award has been presented (or, by implication, prior to presentation), it may be revoked by the awarding authority if facts subsequently determined would have prevented original approval of the award had they been known at the time.  The applicant received an MOR for conduct unbecoming a senior NCO.  Therefore, there are no grounds for reinstating the LOM.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RDT __  __MJNT    ___DRG    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.




____Richard T. Dunbar _
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070006171
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
28 FEBRUARY 2008
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MS. MITRANO
ISSUES         1.
134.0100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.