IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  14 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090012137 


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 his letter of reprimand (LOR), and all related documents, be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that The Adjutant General (TAG) of the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) submitted a letter supporting the removal of his LOR after he requested an investigation into the misconduct committed by the officers who were involved with having the LOR placed in his OMPF.

3.  The applicant provides a memorandum from the MOARNG TAG who states "After a review and consideration by my office, I have decided to recommend and support the removal of the Letter of Reprimand and all documents that was [sic] placed in [the applicant's] OMPF."

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 21 January 1986 to 26 December 1989, the date he was discharged (type of discharge not specified).  The applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2.

2.  The applicant was commissioned in the ARNG and was promoted to first lieutenant.  He served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 25 January 2004 to 10 March 2005.

3.  On 30 April 2007, the applicant was ordered to serve in an active duty status for 11 months and 29 days with duty at Fort Bragg, NC.  On 17 May 2007, those orders were revoked.

4.  On 25 July 2007, orders were issued discharging the applicant from the ARNG and assigning him to a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) unit.

5.  On 4 September 2007, orders were issued reassigning the applicant to a USAR unit at Fort Bragg, NC.

6.  On 6 May 2007, the applicant was reprimanded for intentionally providing the regimental commander with false information and personally submitting erroneous documentation to obtain a Title 10 tour.

7.  On 25 May 2007, the applicant responded to the proposed letter of reprimand.  He said that he did not intentionally provide the regimental commander false information nor did he submit erroneous information to obtain a Title 10 Tour of Active Duty.  He explained that in January 2007, after reading an article in Army Times about First Army needing personnel for the Operation Warrior Training (OWT) Program, he began the application process.  He secured, completed, and obtained signatures on all required documentation to include a letter of release and a unit endorsement signed by the regimental commander.  The applicant stated that he received several phone calls inquiring whether he would be interested in the same type of OWT program offered at 
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri instead of Fort Bragg.  Once he ascertained that the course at Fort Leonard Wood would still be considered temporary duty (TDY) and would not interfere with his scheduled Air Assault School (AAS), he accepted and began his application.  He surmised that his application for the OWT at 
Fort Bragg was still active but in a state of limbo. 

8.  The applicant stated that on 9 April 2007, TAG memorandum of release was issued and specified the OWT location of Fort Leonard Wood.  The applicant stated that he should have taken the time to highlight the new location of 
Fort Leonard Wood instead of Fort Bragg before submitting his release.  However, he stated that he did not believe that his actions amounted to submitting erroneous documentation to obtain a Title 10 tour.  In addition, he added that when he forwarded the release memorandum he was still under the impression that he would be attending AAS and his tour at Fort Leonard Wood was in a TDY status.  He maintained that it was not until 1 May 2007 that he was informed that the assignment to Fort Leonard Wood required a permanent change of station move and he would not be allowed to attend AAS.  The applicant adds that after receiving orders on 3 May 2007, he resigned from Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW), effective 6 May 2007.
9.  On 19 July 2007, the Assistant TAG, an Army brigadier general, stated that after a careful review of the evidence provided by the applicant in his rebuttal statement and letter from his attorney, he determined the reprimand should be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.

11.  On 27 October 2008, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) denied the applicant's request to remove or transfer the applicant's LOR to the restricted section of his OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the available record is somewhat unclear as to the specifics of this case, it is evident that the applicant provided his superior officer erroneous or misleading information.  

2.  The applicant bases his appeal to this Board on the fact that the MOARNG TAG wrote a memorandum recommending the LOR and allied documents be removed from the applicant's records.  A careful review of the MOARNG TAG's memorandum reveals that the TAG did not state that the applicant did not mislead his superior officer and did not say that the applicant should not have been issued an LOR.  

3.  Without evidence that the issuance of the LOR was an error or injustice, there is an insufficient basis to grant 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)                                         AR20090012137



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090012137



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1