IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  8 January 2009

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017334 


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 correction of his military records to move a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from the performance section to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the GOMOR has served its intended purpose and should be placed in the restricted section of his OMPF.  He says that the general who imposed the GOMOR did not state what his intention was when he directed the placing of the GOMOR in his OMPF.  Therefore, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) did not have an understanding of the imposing general’s intention.  He contends that he understands the serious nature of the incident.  At the time, he properly accounted for the grenades and took immediate and appropriate corrective actions after the grenades were stolen from his team’s vehicle.  He did not violate any published standard operating procedures because none had been published prior to the incident.  The applicant further claims that the commander ordered an investigation; however, no investigation was conducted.  He believes that had an investigation been conducted, it would have brought to light a more thorough and complete understanding of the situation, including the fact that there was no formal guidance at the time of the incident.  The applicant understands that he was at fault for not getting all of the facts regarding accountability of grenades.  However, he believes that the punishment received by his team and him should have been mitigated.   


3.  The applicant provides copies of the GOMOR and related correspondence, an extract of operation orders dated 24 June 2005 regarding the handling of munitions, his request to the imposing general to remove the GOMOR from his OMPF, two support letters, his memorandum to the DASEB and its subsequent denial, and four Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs).    

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was a major, pay grade O-4, Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) serving on active duty.

2.  On 3 June 2005, the applicant received a formal, written GOMOR for dereliction of duty by failing to secure and account for two fragmentary grenades, one incendiary grenade, and one green smoke grenade.  These grenades had been left, in plain sight, in an unsecured vehicle.  A Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation revealed that the applicant knew of these grenades and where they were being kept and yet did not keep an inventory of them or maintain a list of them in any sensitive reports.  This action caused the imposing general to have serious doubt about the applicant’s judgment and brought into question his ability to continue to be a leader in the Army.  The imposing general further stated that the applicant should have secured and accounted for these grenades in accordance with proper military procedure and with common sense. As a field grade officer, the applicant had failed to set an example for others to follow and brought discredit upon himself, his unit, and the Army.  The applicant was further informed that this written reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  

3.  On 8 June 2005, the applicant responded to the GOMOR.  He requested that the written reprimand be placed in his local file because placement in his OMPF would greatly hinder his career.  He stated that he had served the United States Army for 15 years with pride and without incident.  As a commander, he fully acknowledged and accepted full responsibility for his own and his Soldier’s actions.  As a field grade officer, he admitted that he should have done more research, asked for guidance from his higher headquarters, or simply asked more questions concerning the storage of the grenades.  He further stated that he was wrong to think that since the grenades were legacy items from their predecessors they could be stored in the same manner as when received.  He contended that he should have followed his instincts further and gained the necessary information needed to do it the correct way.  He said that he was truly humbled and remorseful because his actions might have put Soldiers at undue risk of harm.  He did his best to lead his company and to ensure the safety of his Soldiers while on mission.  He felt it a great honor and privilege to command troops in a combat environment and hoped to have the opportunity to command again.

4.  On 10 June 2005, the imposing general directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.  

5.  On 7 December 2006, the applicant wrote a letter to the imposing general requesting removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF, or that it be moved to the restricted section of his OMPF.  He stated that he felt he had been sufficiently punished and that the GOMOR had served its purpose.  He would not repeat his mistake and wanted another opportunity to command Soldiers.  The applicant included letters of support from the Commanding General and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 [personnel officer], of the 88th Regional Readiness Command at Fort Snelling, Minnesota.   On 19 December 2006, the imposing general denied the applicant’s request. 

6.  On 19 January 2007, the applicant appealed to the DASEB for relief, requesting that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF. 

7.  In April 2007, the DASEB found that the applicant’s statement of remorse, explanation of an "honest mistake," and his indication that he had learned he should seek out details and ask for guidance, all failed to demonstrate the necessary understanding of the gravity of the situation, which could have easily resulted in the deaths of United States personnel.  As a result, the DASEB determined that the GOMOR had not yet served its intended purpose and therefore should not be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF.  It denied his appeal. 

8.  The applicant’s OER for the period from 30 July 2004 through 28 June 2005 shows that he was performing the duties of a company commander.  He was rated by his battalion commander and senior rated by his brigade commander.  The report states that the applicant’s performance was outstanding and that he must be promoted.  The senior rater evaluated him as the "best qualified."  Even though the incident that caused the imposition of a GOMOR occurred during this rated period, the OER makes no mention of it.  The applicant’s subsequent three OERs are likewise just as laudatory. 




9.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides in pertinent part that administrative letters of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier.  The letter must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before filing determination is made.  Letters of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer level authority and are to be filed on the performance fiche.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF then the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7.  Letters of reprimand intended for filing in the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) may be retained for no more than 3 years and must state the length of time they are to be retained.  Chapter 7 of the regulation provides that once filed in an OMPF a document is presumed to have been administratively correct.  Appeals to the DASEB to relocate a reprimand, admonition or censure (normally for Soldiers in pay grade E-6 and above) are based on proof that the intended purpose has been served and that transfer to the restricted section would be in the best interest of the Army.  The DASEB will return appeals unless 1 year has elapsed and at least one nonacademic evaluation has been received since the letter was imposed.  If the appeal is denied the DASEB letter of denial will be filed in the performance section, the appeal itself and any associated documents will be filed in the restricted section.  Otherwise this Board may act in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185 and the Soldier has rights under the Privacy Act in which the DASEB acts as the access and amendment authority under Army regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the GOMOR he received for dereliction of duty has served its purpose and should be moved to the restricted section of his OMPF.

2.  The evidence clearly shows that the applicant received a GOMOR for dereliction of duty and that it was filed in his OMPF.

3.  The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and properly filed in the performance section of the applicant’s OMPF.  There is no evidence showing that the applicant’s rights were violated. 

4.  While the applicant has admitted his error and states that he understands the seriousness of his actions, his arguments are not sufficiently convincing to form a basis for moving the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ___X   __  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.




________ _   _X______   ____
       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)                                         AR20070016793



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017334



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1