IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    15 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020407


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:

The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests removal of a 14 February 2007 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  Counsel states no basis exists for the imposition of the GOMOR.  The applicant was an Army physician who held the rank of Colonel (COL), Medical Corps (MC).  He commanded a "miniscule NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Health Clinic, which contained eight uniformed service members, six civilians, and no executive officer."  The GOMOR maligned his leadership abilities.  He received a relief-for-cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER), yet his follow-on OER was absolutely laudatory.  There was no leadership issue; the GOMOR was caused by:

* a serious personality conflict between the applicant and a civilian physician, Dr. BJ
* the applicant's reliance on marginally competent Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs)
* a "miniscule work environment" where everybody wore civilian clothes and knew everybody's personal business


3.  Counsel provides:

* a 9-page supplemental statement
* a GOMOR
* OERs dating from 1994
* two OERs, relief-for-cause and senior rater option
* a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 14 February 2006
* five memoranda for record (MFR) from Dr. BJ
* an MFR from applicant to Dr. BJ with counseling memorandum
* a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) (2 of 3 pages), copy of pages 3 and 7 of Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations), issues raised by counsel on 21 June 2007 for the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB)
* an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation conducted by COL BC
* an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation conducted by COL CV

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a Regular Army retired COL, MC.  From on or about 9 June 2004 to on or about 14 February 2007, he was the commander of the NATO Health Clinic.  He was relieved of his command on or about 14 February 2007, issued a relief-for-cause OER, and a GOMOR.

2.  Following an Inspector General (IG) complaint concerning the NATO Health Clinic, the IG directed an investigation be conducted.  The Commander, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC), Germany, in an 18 May 2006 letter of appointment, directed an informal Army Regulation 15-6 investigation be conducted into 10 allegations of NCO misconduct and 19 issues involving NATO Health Clinic leadership, including the applicant.  COL BC was appointed as the investigating officer (IO).

3.  COL BC substantiated 7 of 10 allegations.  All of the substantiated allegations involved either Staff Sergeant (SSG) LR and/or a Private First Class (PFC) CA.  When COL BC began to address the 19 issues specified by the LRMC Commander in the letter of appointment, she discovered she was not senior in rank to the applicant; therefore, she was not authorized to act as IO.

4.  On 26 June 2006, the LRMC Commander appointed COL CV, who was senior in rank to the applicant, to investigate all areas which identifies the applicant by name, all allegations and issues involving leadership at the NATO 


Health Clinic, and specific areas of physician hiring, leave processing, and command climate.  There were 9 issues involving the applicant.

5.  Upon conclusion of his investigation, COL CV found:

* the applicant's leaves were not processed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes)
* 31 days of leave were never charged
* leave processing procedures were not established
* TDY vouchers were improperly prepared
* applicant signed as claimant, an NCO signed as applicant's supervisor, and applicant signed as approving authority
* NCO (Sergeant's Time) training was not conducted
* Europe Regional Medical Command training policy was not followed
* No explanatory statements from the applicant to the LRMC	Commander were on file
* urinalysis testing was not verified
* no records
* no evidence NATO Health Clinic staff were tested with other units
* an attempted suicide by a NATO Health Clinic Soldier was not reported via Serious Incident Report (SIR) channels
* applicant was on temporary duty in the United States, but left no one in
   charge during his absence
* applicant mistreated Dr. BJ
* applicant denied Dr. BJ advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training;
   Commander, LRMC approved it
* applicant would not fund Dr. BJ's continuing medical education (CME),
   but funded his own
* hostility between the applicant and Dr. BJ created a hostile command
   climate

6.  Following submission of COL CV's Army Regulation 15-6 investigation report, the Commander, LRMC relieved the applicant of his command, gave him a relief-for-cause OER, and issued him an administrative GOMOR.  The GOMOR stated:

* the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties as commander
* he was guilty of mismanagement and lax leadership
* he failed to follow orders to conduct NCO training, urinalysis testing
* he did not appoint an acting commander in his absence
* he did not enforce Army wear and appearance of uniform standards
* he did not ensure proper processing of leaves and temporary duty
* he failed to establish good order and discipline or a proper command climate

The applicant's deficiencies were characterized as "deplorable" and his failure to set and enforce standards as "reprehensible."  Some of his failings gave rise to questions about his integrity and future for continued service.

7.  The applicant appealed his relief-for-cause OER to this Board, seeking to have it removed from his OMPF.  On 3 June 2008, the Board denied his request, stating the applicant and his counsel admitted his performance in several key leadership areas was not successful.  The Board found the relief-for-cause OER clearly showed, although the applicant was very successful as a physician, he failed in his leadership duties by using a "hands-off" approach and relying too much on his NCOs.

8.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets policies 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 incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.  It states unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.

   a.  The regulation provides that an administrative memorandum 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 memorandum 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.

   b.  A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance section.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, 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 Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  No command is "miniscule."  The basic tenets of good leadership apply whether one commands a division or a company, a hospital or a health clinic.

2.  It is clear from a review of all evidence the applicant exhibited a laissez-faire leadership philosophy.  To his discredit, he relied upon marginally competent NCOs to do his bidding, while he, himself, spent inordinate amounts of time in a personal battle of wills with a recalcitrant civilian staff physician.

3.  Commanders are responsible for ensuring that regulations are followed and policies are in place to support procedures directed by higher headquarters.  The applicant had a duty to perform NCO training.  There is no evidence he ever complied with Sergeant's Time training requirements.  Likewise, he had a duty to conduct periodic urinalysis testing of all members of his command.  Records did not support his accomplishment of that requirement.

4.  The applicant took extreme liberties in processing leave and TDY vouchers.  When he went TDY, he should have had his voucher processed by his superiors; instead, he had a unit NCO sign as his superior, then he signed his own voucher as the approving official.  Common sense says this is wrong and creates a system open for abuse.

5.  The applicant may have been an excellent doctor; however, he was not rated as a doctor, but as a commander.  He failed to measure up and he received a relief-for-cause OER and the subject GOMOR.  The GOMOR was completely justified and the applicant has not proven otherwise.

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)                                         AR20090020407



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020407



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1