IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 September 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100017956 


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 removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 27 October 2008, from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states the GOMOR he received was for his failing to timely report to his gaining unit and failing to properly outprocess.  This GOMOR was solely a result of a lapse of judgment and despite its legitimacy he has paid an extremely high cost for this lapse of judgment in that he has been twice passed over for promotion to major.  He has demonstrated through his performance that he is still a valuable asset to the Army despite his mistake.  His career has been delayed and he is now on the verge of seeing his career end.  He submits that he has learned his lesson and he has already borne the consequences of his poor judgment.  He does not make excuses for his behavior but would like the Board to be aware of additional facts related to his reprimand:

	a.  All of this was an aberration resulting from a series of small events and not the result of any intention to evade any obligation or responsibility.  His biggest error was his failure to communicate to both his losing command and his gaining command on how to get in touch with him during his permanent change of station (PCS) move.  Had this one single mistake not occurred, he would have been able to correct all of the other smaller mistakes.  He recognizes that this mistake was significant enough to warrant a reprimand.

	b.  In dealing with a series of small problems with his PCS, he got wrapped around the axle on several trivial matters and as he focused on the smaller problems, he lost focus on the need to allow his gaining command accountability over him.  He assumed his gaining command would prefer to accept a small delay in his arrival provided that when he arrived he would have been able to hit the ground running; however, he should never have made such an assumption.  A simple telephone call early on would have resulted in his knowing what his gaining command needed of him and allowed him to adjust fire to meet their needs and expectations.  He argues those mistakes are not a fair reflection of the service he is capable of providing to the Army.  He is a better officer than those knuckle-headed moves reflect.  Looking back, he is surprised that he was so off track and that he allowed such things to happen.

	c.  He attached a detailed timeline of his PCS move showing with a level of exactness and precision not suitable for a narrative the matters he was dealing with during the period, and suggests that he was not blowing off the unit, nor was he attempting to sham or straggle.  The principle matter that caused the major portion of his delay was his decision to move his residence in Germany from Mannheim to Heidelberg so that he would be closer to his new duty station. As his PCS was a no-cost move and the installation housing could not assist him, he had to move himself.  He underestimated the time involved in doing such a move on his own.  Throughout the process, he always viewed each issue that arose as a small matter that would not take much time to resolve.  He lost awareness of the cumulative effect of the delays and failed to call his gaining and losing commands to update his status.

	d.  He had never been to Heidelberg before despite the fact that it is not too far from Mannheim.  On two separate occasions he left to sign in to his unit, but for different reasons, he failed.  On both occasions, he assumed the delay was insignificant and would be remedied the very next day.  His misplaced confidence prevented him from calling his gaining unit.  On his first effort he tried to find Campbell Barracks by car, but got lost.  On his second effort, and after getting better directions to Campbell Barracks, his car failed to start because of a dead battery.  With some anxiety, he decided to use the streetcar to get to Campbell Barracks, but this compounded his earlier confusion and resulted in his second failure to locate Campbell Barracks.  Working on his car consumed even more time, adding another minor distraction that with all the other distractions compounded his delay.

	e.  He recognizes his description of events is not an excuse for not promptly signing in or calling his gaining command and only describes them to acknowledge his errors in judgment and to show his responsibility.  By 

acknowledging his errors he can attest to having learned from his mistakes and to suggest these were errors of judgment and not deliberate conduct suggesting flaws in his character.  To underline the second point, he attached an addendum describing his career and his accomplishments.

	f.  The GOMOR has served its purpose.  He has learned his lesson and he has striven to be a top performer since his incident.  His performance since October 2008 speaks for itself and is a testament to the sincerity of his desire to learn from his mistake.  He has served the Army as both an enlisted Soldier and as an officer.  He is proud of all that the Army has allowed him to accomplish during his service.  His skills and experience make him an invaluable asset to the Army.  He has a top secret clearance, command experience, and a master's degree.  He is physically fit and he speaks three languages.  He believes he still has a great deal of value to offer the Army based on his experiences, training, and his commitment to serve.  He believes with the GOMOR in his OMPF he will not be promoted, thereby being forced to leave active duty service.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents:

* a listing of his upcoming military training
* eleven DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER))
* a self-authored timeline 
* eight character reference letters or letters of support
* three DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report)
* various certificates of awards, achievement, training, and promotion
* his original request to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)
* response from the DASEB
* Officer Record Brief (ORB)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant's records show he was appointed as a Regular Army second lieutenant on 3 August 2000.  He subsequently completed several military training courses, served in various staff and leadership positions, and he was promoted to captain (CPT)/O-3 on
1 January 2004. 

2.  His records also show he served in Qatar from on or about 19 February 2005 to on or about 15 May 2007.  His awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal (7th Award), Army Achievement Medal (8th Award), Valorous Unit Award, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd award), Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and the NCO Professional Development Ribbon.

3.  On 26 September 2007, he was reassigned to Germany.  He was initially assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Signal Brigade and further reassigned to the U.S. Army Garrison, Mannheim, on 16 May 2008.

4.  From 14 October 2008 until 22 October 2008, he failed to keep his chain-of-command informed of his whereabouts and he was ultimately detained in Heidelberg.

5.  On 27 October 2008, the applicant was reprimanded by the Commanding General (CG) of the 21st Theater Sustainment Command for conduct unbecoming an officer, failing to properly clear his unit, and failing to report to his gaining unit on the date specified in his orders.  The GOMOR also stated the applicant's chain of command made repeated attempts to contact him by email, telephone, and at his residence.  Out of concern for his safety they sent the military police to his quarters.  His fellow employees sent emails offering to help him and to smooth things over if he would simply provide some contact information and a status update.  Their multiple attempts to assist him were not utilized.  Although he made contact via e-mail, he still did not leave sufficient contact information or any usable information to establish accountability.

6.  On 7 November 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit matters in his own behalf.  He subsequently submitted a rebuttal in which he took full responsibility for his actions.  He acknowledged that he used poor judgment in failing to keep his chain of command informed of his whereabouts and in failing to report as ordered to his gaining unit.  He asserted he would not repeat this mistake and that he would return to the high standards of conduct expected of an officer and a leader.  He requested the imposing authority review his submitted letters of support and that the memorandum of reprimand be filed in his local file.

7.  On 25 November 2008, his immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders recommended the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF and made the following remarks:

	a.  His immediate commander noted the applicant failed to report to work for seven duty days and his action was not in line with the standards of military policies and should not be tolerated.

	b.  His intermediate commander noted the applicant's conduct was inexcusable; he knew the difference between right and wrong and chose to do wrong.

	c.  His senior commander noted the applicant's poor judgment, coupled with his bad decisions, led him to where he is.  The command did not tolerate this behavior from any leader in our Army.  He knew the difference between right and wrong.

8.  On 1 December 2008, after reviewing the applicant's rebuttal and considering all matters available and the recommendations by his chain of command, the CG directed the GOMOR be permanently filed on the applicant's OMPF.

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

10.  On 27 October 2009, he petitioned the DASEB for removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF.  On 17 February 2010, the DASEB denied his request.

11.  In or around March 2010, he submitted a second request to the DASEB requesting removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF; however, on 15 April 2010, by letter, the DASEB notified him that he failed to submit any new evidence or substantial argument with his request.  Therefore, his petition was returned without action.

12.  Since his GOMOR, he received two OERs in which he was rated as best qualified.  His 2009 OER rates him as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified."  His rater gives him high praise and outstanding remarks; however, his senior rater comments "Continue to work closely with [the applicant] to help develop his communication and implementation planning and support."

13.  He submitted a self-authored "Course Map" of his scheduled or upcoming training and the following documents:

	a.  eleven DA Forms 67-9 from April 2001 through May 2008 that show he was mostly rated as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified";

	b.  a self-authored timeline, detailing the events of his PCS from Mannheim to Heidelberg;

	c.  eight character reference letters or letters of support that he had previously submitted with his rebuttal to the GOMOR in 2008.  The authors, mostly field grade officers and civilians, comment on the applicant's leadership ability, motivation, initiative, creativity, professionalism, and integrity;

	d.  three DA Forms 2166-7 showing an "Among the Best" or "Fully Capable" rating; and

	e  various certificates of awards, achievement, training, and promotion that reflect his achievements and training over the years.

14.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides, in pertinent part, 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.

15.  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.  Paragraph 7-2b(1) states unfavorable documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for conduct unbecoming an officer, failing to properly clear his unit, and failing to report to his gaining unit on the date specified in his orders and that it was filed in his OMPF.  

He was afforded the opportunity to review all of the evidence against him and to submit matters in his own behalf prior to a final filing decision.  The applicant's response was received and considered.  Subsequently, the GOMOR was referred for filing in his OMPF.  The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of his OMPF.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

2.  In his rebuttal to the GOMOR, the applicant stated that he takes full responsibility for his actions; however, in this application, he provides the reasons of being lost, a dead car battery, and cell phone problems for his decision to not communicate with either his outgoing or incoming command and credits the incidents as a series of small problems.  Consequently, for a period of several days, no one knew his whereabouts.  As a result, he was detained when he attempted to sign into his new duty station.

3.  The quality of service of a Soldier on active duty is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army or prejudicial to good order and discipline.  As an officer and former NCO, the applicant knew of his responsibility to keep the unit informed about his whereabouts and to report in a timely fashion any circumstances that would prevent his presence for duty.  His actions displayed a lack of discipline and raised questions about his ability to effectively perform as a leader.

4.  The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of his OMPF.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant has not provided evidence that the intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served or a convincing argument that it should be removed.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief. 

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)                                         AR20100017956



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100017956



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1