IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        7 April 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090002397 


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), dated 24 April 2006, be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she has been denied the opportunities to further her career as a field grade officer and that she believes the GOMOR has served its purpose because she has been denied assignments of greater responsibilities as well as professional development educational opportunities.  She indicates that although the GOMOR has been placed in her restricted section, with the implementation of the integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPerms) it is still viewable by others with unnecessary access to her records.     

3.  In a letter, dated 15 January 2009, the applicant states that she requests that the GOMOR be removed on the doctrine of "intent served."  She contends that as a result of using poor judgment she received a satisfactory performance and fully qualified officer evaluation.  She points out that she was recently a nonselect for lieutenant colonel and that she was providing financial assistance to a sick mother, two young teenage cousins who were deserted by their mother, and an uncle on dialysis due to kidney failure.  She states that she is very remorseful for the actions taken during her shortcomings, that she is not proud of the discredit brought upon the command, and that she has learned from this dreadful experience.     

4.  The applicant provides seven enclosures outlined on the second page of her 15 January 2009 letter in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a U. S. Army Reserve major in an Active Guard Reserve status.

2.  On 24 April 2006, the applicant received a GOMOR for misconduct and misuse of a government travel card.  
  
3.  On 18 May 2006, the commanding general directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

4.  On 25 February 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting that the 24 April 2006 GOMOR be removed or transferred to the restricted section of her OMPF based on the doctrine of "intent served."  On 10 April 2008, the DASEB voted to deny the applicant's requests.

5.  On 3 July 2008, the applicant submitted a second appeal to the DASEB requesting that the 24 April 2006 GOMOR be removed from her OMPF.  In summary, she stated that the intent had been served and she explained the financial pressures she was under at the time.  She described some opportunities that were denied because she used poor judgment, she indicated that she was denied positions of greater responsibility, opportunities to work at higher level commands, and professional development educational opportunities.  The applicant pointed out that she received one Best Qualified, Center of Mass Officer Evaluation Report (OER) since the period covering her misuse of a government travel card and that she served one six-month tour in the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi/Enduring Freedom.   

6.  On 9 October 2008, the DASEB voted to grant partial relief by transferring the 24 April 2006 GOMOR to the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF; transferring the DASEB memorandum denying the first appeal to the restricted section of her OMPF as an allied document; and filing this appeal decision memorandum in the restricted section of her OMPF as an allied document.

7.  In support of her claim, the applicant provides two OERs covering the period from 21 January 2006 to 1 November 2007 which show she was rated "Center of 



Mass" by her senior rater.  She also provides an OER covering the period from 
2 November 2007 to 1 November 2008 which shows she was rated "Above Center of Mass" by her senior rater. 

8.  The applicant provides a letter of support, dated 12 July 2008, from the Commanding General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky supporting her request for transferring the GOMOR to the restricted section of her OMPF.  She also provided several character reference letters and award certificates for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. 

9.  A review of the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF on iPerms revealed a copy of the 24 April 2006 GOMOR in question.   

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by: the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, the DASEB, Army appeals board, Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command, the OMPF custodian when documents have been improperly filed, Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC-PDO-PO) as an exception, Chief of the Appeals Branch of the Army Reserve Personnel Center and Chief of the Appeals Branch of the National Guard Personnel Center.

11.  Table 2 of Army Regulation 600-8-104 states, in pertinent part, that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF.

12.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files.  Chapter 3 covers unfavorable information in official personnel files.  Paragraph 3-4 applies to filing of nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand or censure in official personnel files.  Paragraph 3-4(b) provides for filing in the OMPF.  It states that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), or the proper State 
Adjutant General (for Army National Guard Personnel) only upon the order of a general officer (to include one frocked to the rank of brigadier general) senior to 

the recipient by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual.  Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance portion.  The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that the GOMOR has served its purpose and that she has been denied opportunities to further her career as a Field Grade Officer were carefully considered.  However, the governing regulation states that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF.

2.  There is no evidence that the GOMOR was improperly imposed.  The 
24 April 2006 GOMOR was properly filed in the performance section of the applicant’s OMPF.  

3.  On 9 October 2008, the DASEB transferred the GOMOR to the applicant's restricted section of her OMPF.

4.  The applicant's desire to have the GOMOR removed from her files based upon her subsequent service record is understandable.  However, promotion and school selection board members are experienced and capable of distinguishing between one indiscretion and a “problem” record of service.  In the event a selection choice comes down between two officers with an equal record of service, information properly filed on an OMPF must be available to specified authorities, within prescribed limitations, in order to equitably make their decision.  Given the above and the fact the GOMOR was properly filed in her OMPF, it would not be equitable to remove the GOMOR from the applicant’s restricted section.

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)                                         AR20090002397



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002397



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1