IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  10 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006372 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from her records.

2.  The applicant states that she was never asked what happened.  Pre-edited questions did not cover the complete facts.

3.  The applicant provides the GOMOR, dated 26 March 2007; her acknowledgement of receipt of the GOMOR, dated 26 March 2007; the          filing directions for the GOMOR, dated 24 April 2007; an Excess Inventory for Disposal (10 April 2006) Request List, possibly addressed to the applicant; an Accountability Mail POC (point of contact) Listing as of 26 September 2006;        two pages of a 6-page sworn statement from Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) A___, dated 14 December 2006; page 2 of U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) Memorandum 25-54, dated 1 November 1999; a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 23 February 2007; and copies of six property passes.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service in the Air Force, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 15 July 1983.  She was promoted to Staff Sergeant,    E-6, on 22 December 2001 in military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist).  

2.  On 12 February 2007, the Commanding General, U. S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC, formerly designated AR-PERSCOM) issued a GOMOR to the applicant and provided it to her for comment or rebuttal.  This version of the GOMOR is not available.

3.  On 21 March 2007, the applicant rebutted that the personal information included in the GOMOR was rife with inaccuracies.  Her middle initial was incorrect, her social security number was incorrect, and her component was incorrect.  She stated that a Mr. C___’s unsolicited email indicated the equipment was being sent to ARNG units and/or organizations as well as individual Soldiers for training.  There was no requirement for a DODAC (Department of Defense address code) or UIC (unit identification code) and the normal supply channel demands were not depleting the supply.  She stated there was no need to make false statements about her identity or status or commit conspiracy in receiving the equipment.  Sergeant First Class (SFC) J___ was notified of their request.  

4.  In her rebuttal, the applicant further stated that the investigation finding stated that they could have the equipment.  She was authorized to both request and receive supplies for their office.  She was not guilty of committing fraud against the government.  No property pass or any other document noting her receipt of property existed.  No documents showed that the property was transported from the building.  As such, no sale of items took place.  She stated the property book officer was responsible for inventorying the incoming items, keeping track of the incoming items on automated software, and supplying the hand receipt holder with working copies prior to the start of inventory.  The property is then turned over to the primary hand receipt holder, who subsequently sub-hand receipts it to the users.  She also stated that the questions asked by the investigating officer in the sworn statement were tailored in such a way that any response given would fail to properly expose the truth behind the matter.  

5.  On 26 March 2007, the Commanding General, USAHRC, re-issued a corrected GOMOR to the applicant.  The GOMOR stated that on or about         18 September 2006, as a noncommissioned officer in the U. S. Army National Guard Liaison Office, USAHRC – St. Louis, the applicant was derelict in her duties when she failed to properly receive, account for, and issue Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) to members of the U. S. Army National Guard Liaison Office.  

6.  On 24 April 2007, the Commanding General, USAHRC, after carefully considering the applicant’s 21 March 2007 response (which she, through counsel, requested that he consider as the response to the 26 March 2007 GOMOR), directed the GOMOR be permanently filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
7.  The applicant provided a partial sworn statement from CW4 A___ wherein she highlighted the question, “How long was the OCIE in the warehouse before SSG S___ (the applicant) arrived to claim the shipment?”  Answer, “1-2 hours.”

8.  The applicant provided an extract from AR-PERSCOM Memorandum 25-54, dated 1 November 1999.  She highlighted the portion that stated, “Accountable mail will be delivered only to addressee or to persons who have written authorization to receive such mail on PS Form 3801 (Standing Delivery Order).  She also highlighted the portion that stated, “Accountable mail addressed directly to an individual will not be opened by anyone other than addressee or their designated representative.  The Support Unit…will notify the individual to pick up and receipt for the mail.”

9.  The applicant provided an MFR from Barbara B___.  Ms. B___ stated that on 18 September 2006, as the representative to receive accountable mail for USAHRC – St. Louis and tenant activities, she signed for three pallets of accountable mail addressed to the National Guard.  After she signed for the freight and had the pallets put in the Logistics Warehouse, she went to her desk and called the applicant and informed her there were three pallets and she needed to get down there.  Ms. B___ then walked back to the warehouse, where she found CW4 A___ and SFC J___ looking over the pallets.  Ms B___ went back to her desk and informed the applicant again that she needed to get down there now.  

10.  Ms. B___ further stated that she walked back to the warehouse again, where she now found CW4 A___ and SFC J___ cutting open the packing sleeve and taking out a piece of paper which Ms. B___ assumed was the packing list.  They were reading the list over.  She believed it was at that time that CW4 A___ told SFC J___ to make a copy.  

11.  Ms. B___ also stated that she called the National Guard again and was informed that the applicant was on her way to the mail room.  The applicant arrived at the warehouse with four to five military personnel.  CW4 A___ started asking the applicant about the shipment, and SFC J___ made a statement about the items being property book items.  The applicant informed them that those (i.e., whatever was in the boxes on the pallets) were National Guard’s property.  First Lieutenant J___, who was with the applicant, also explained that the freight was the property of the National Guard and that they had their own property book officer.  Ms. B___ stated she did not see who cut the shrink wrap on the pallets.  Since there were three pallets of boxes that could not have been loaded out in 

one move, she did not know if the National Guard personnel left someone to watch over the pallets while the others took the boxes to their office or wherever they were going to be stored.

12.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policy and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or inaccurate is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interest of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.  In pertinent part, it states that a letter to be included in a Soldier’s OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment.  A letter may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that an investigation into an incident involving the applicant was conducted, the findings of which led the Commanding General, USAHRC, to issue a GOMOR to her that stated she was derelict in her duties when she failed to properly receive, account for, and issue OCIE to members of the U. S. Army National Guard Liaison Office. 

2.  The applicant rebutted the GOMOR.  However, without having the complete investigation findings to review, both the GOMOR and her rebuttal have to be considered in a vacuum.  The details of her “dereliction” are not known, so it cannot be determined if she successfully refuted in her rebuttal the allegations that led to the issuance of the GOMOR.

3.  At this time, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__xx____  ____xx__  ____xx__  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.




 _    ______xxxx____________
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006372





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006372



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1