IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100016150 


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 the following corrections be made to her military records:

   a.  Removal of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 15 December 2009;
   
   b.  Investigate the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigation Officers and Boards of Officers) investigating officer (IO) for obstruction of justice;
   
   c.  Reinstatement of her Pathfinder Badge in accordance with the Pathfinder Program of Instruction/Letter of Instruction (LOI); and 
   
   d.  Reinstatement of all rights that were lost due to the investigation, to include an opportunity to assume a command.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the following errors were committed:

	a.  The IO never reviewed the Pathfinder LOI to determine if her grade appeal and subsequent award of the Pathfinder Badge had been properly addressed in accordance with school policy;

	b.  The IO misrepresented and or failed to aggressively pursue relevant facts regarding the circumstances leading to her award and wearing of the Pathfinder Badge; and
	c.  The IO falsely characterized the circumstances regarding her intrapost transfer report date as manipulative. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, she passed the Pathfinder Course, she was never intentionally disrespectful towards any senior officers, and her late report date was due to a succession of misunderstandings.

4.  The applicant provides the GOMOR in question with rebuttals and associated documents, AR 15-6 Investigation Report, Sworn Statements, DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave), reassignment orders, Pathfinder Orders, emails, and IG correspondence. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With respect to the applicant's request for a review of the AR 15-6 IO for allegations of obstruction of justice, the ABCMR is not an investigative body and does not "conduct" separate investigations.  However, all evidence presented by the applicant received a legal review and no evidence of obstruction was found.  Therefore, this issue will not be further discussed in this Record of Proceeding.  

2.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 15 May 2006.  She subsequently completed several military training courses, served in various staff positions, and was promoted to captain (CPT)/O-3 on 1 October 2009. 

3.  Her awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award), Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (2nd Award), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Parachutist Badge, Pathfinder Badge, and Air Assault Badge.

4.  On 22 October 2009, an IO was appointed by the Commander, Headquarters, 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat) (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, surrounding allegations that the applicant:

   a.  Wrongfully wore an unauthorized Pathfinder Badge, was unaccounted for during her transition from the 18th Fires Brigade to the 20th Engineer Brigade in June/July/August 2009; and 


   b.  Engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer on three separate occasions, this conduct included:

* interaction with staff at the Corps G1, on 2 September 2009
* during an arms room inspection at the 27th Engineer Battalion, on 
28 September 2009
* during a Brigade Command and Staff Meeting, on 2 October 2009

5.  The IO made the following findings and recommendations:

	a.  He found the applicant failed to achieve Pathfinder course standards by failing to pass the Drop Zone examination after three attempts.  After the first failure she unsuccessfully appealed her case to the company and battalion commanders arguing that she in fact passed the test but the proctor did not give her credit for one test question.  The chain of command determined her response was illegible and allowed her to retest two additional times.  She was released from the course and did not participate in graduation; however, she was allowed to restart with the next class.  Having been ineffective at all of her previous appeals she approached the Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC) first sergeant (1SG) during inprocessing, arguing again that she passed the test the first time and telling him she had an appointment with the IG to file a complaint.  Having no knowledge of previous events he decided she deserved the benefit of the doubt, because he wanted to avoid an IG complaint against the school.  He instructed her section leader to write a memorandum stating she completed the course and issued her orders.  The IO concluded the applicant used the threat of an IG complaint, manipulation, and deception to obtain the memorandum that issued her Pathfinder orders.  Subsequent orders were issued revoking the applicant's Pathfinder Badge.

   b.  She took liberties with her presence for duty after returning from Airborne School and before departing the 18th Fires Brigade.  Specifically, she failed to report in accordance with her 21 July 2009 report date.  She had her orders amended to reflect a new report date and did not possess a valid leave form prior to departure from her losing command.  Further, she did not sign or call out on leave and used 14 duty days to clear her unit and the installation.   
   
   c.  She displayed a lack of military bearing and professionalism in dealing with the 18th Airborne (ABN) Corps Strength Management Office by presenting a hostile attitude towards her peers and civilian inspectors during the 
27th Engineer Battalion arms room inspection.  She displayed grandstanding behavior and an unprofessional attitude towards superior officers during the Command and Staff/Resources and Availability Meetings. 

	d.  The IO recommended that a GOMOR be placed in her permanent file, that she be given an Article 15 for Conduct Unbecoming an Officer (Article 133), and that a Show Cause Board be initiated.  The IO stated the applicant regularly chose to put her own interest first, her moral character was questionable, and further actions to rehabilitate her would not be fruitful.  

6.  On 22 December 2009, the applicant was provided a copy of the signed GOMOR, but she declined to acknowledge receipt or take possession of the packet, stating her Trial Defense Counsel advised against it.  She subsequently submitted a rebuttal in which she requested the GOMOR be filed in her restricted file and she took responsibility for her actions.  She asked that the entire situation, as well as her service records, be considered before making a decision. 

7.  Her company commander recommended that the XVIII ABN Corps not initiate an officer elimination board and that she be retained on active duty.  Her battalion commander recommended that she be separated with an honorable characterization of service.  Her senior brigade commander recommended that the GOMOR be filed in her OMPF and a show cause board be initiated.

8.  On 22 February 2010, after reviewing the applicant's rebuttal and considering all matters available and the recommendations by her chain of command, the CG directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant's OMPF.

9.  The GOMOR is currently filed in the performance section of the applicant's OMPF.

10.  On 28 July 2010, she acknowledged receipt of the official written notification of the approved elimination action by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards).  She further acknowledged that she would be involuntarily separated with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 11 August 2010, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2A due to Substandard Performance.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 
11 years, 11 months, and 7 days of total active service.

12.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) 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 a filing determination is made.

13.  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 chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-37.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) governs the composition of the OMPF and states that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.  Table 2-1 states that administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature are filed in the performance section of the OMPF.  

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria and administrative instructions concerning special skill badges.  It states upon successful completion of the Pathfinder Course conducted by the U.S. Army Infantry School a Soldier is eligible for the award of the Pathfinder Badge.

16.  The Pathfinder Course graduation requirements memorandum outlines the requirements for a student to successfully complete the United States Army Pathfinder Course.  Paragraph 7 (Appeals) states a student has the right to appeal any grade that he/she receives if they feel that they have been unfairly graded or can present extenuating circumstances that may warrant consideration for a higher grade.  Appeal procedures are as follows:

	a.  A student has the exam review to appeal the grade.  Appeals occurring after the exam review will not be considered.  Also, appeals for an initial examination will not be considered if the individual takes and fails the retest, then comes forward to appeal the initial examination.

	b.  The student will start the appeals process with the test proctor for that exam.  The test proctor will consider the nature of the appeal and try to rectify it satisfactorily at that level.

	c.  If the appeal cannot be handled at the level it will then go to the Section Sergeant, then finally the Branch Chief.  The Branch Chief has final authority on all appeals.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests the removal of the GOMOR, dated 15 December 2009, from her OMPF; reinstatement of the Pathfinder Badge; and the restoration of all rights to include an opportunity to assume a command.

2.  The applicant argues that her Pathfinder Badge should be reinstated because the Pathfinder School failed to follow the established appeals process.  However, the evidence shows both the applicant's chain of command and the Pathfinder School conducted investigations into this matter and concluded that she failed to achieve course standards and she should not have been issued orders for this badge.  The school's 1SG did not have the authority to hear her appeal or award her the Pathfinder Badge.

3.  There is insufficient evidence to award her the Pathfinder Badge.  However, this award is listed on her DD Form 214 and will not be deleted.  It is the policy of this Board not to take action that would result in a less favorable outcome for the Soldier unless specifically requested by the Soldier.

4.  The evidence shows the applicant failed to report to her new duty station by the original report date and she took corrective actions after the fact to ensure her leave form was completed and her orders were amended to cover her absence.  As an officer and former NCO, the applicant was aware of her responsibility to keep the unit informed of her whereabouts and to report in a timely fashion any circumstances that would prevent her from being present for duty.  Her actions displayed a lack of discipline and raised questions about her ability to effectively perform as a leader.  

5.  Further, witness statements clearly show the applicant displayed inappropriate behavior and conduct unbecoming an officer on three separate occasions when dealing with senior officers and civilians.

6.  The applicant's GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and it is properly filed in the performance section of her OMPF.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The evidence sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer by the unauthorized wear of the Pathfinder Badge, failure to exercise proper leave and reassignment procedures, and being disrespectful towards senior officers.  Therefore, she has established no basis for restoration of any rights or an opportunity for assuming a command.

7.  In view of the above, her request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20100016150



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100016150



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1