Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019675
Original file (20100019675.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100019675 


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 the Legion of Merit (LOM) awarded to him on 
18 January 2008 and revoked on 15 June 2009 be reauthorized and re-issued.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the LOM was unjustly and incorrectly revoked because it was done 3 months after this Board directed that the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be transferred to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  He goes on to state the GOMOR in question was in his OMPF when the awards board approved the LOM.  After the GOMOR was transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF there was no justification for review, it should not have been used against him again.  He continues by stating the lieutenant general who signed the recommendation for the award was aware that he had received a GOMOR and still believed he was deserving of the award.  In addition, the fact that this Board granted him FULL relief and moved the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF it means the GOMOR should never have been in the performance section of his OMPF.  He also states that revoking the LOM means he served 20 years in the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and Human Resources Command and received no recognition for his service.  He also states he does not believe that proper procedures were followed in revoking the LOM and that given the time that elapsed between the award being approved and revoked that an awards board could say they would not have approved the award had they known the GOMOR was in his records.



3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* A two-page continuation/explanation of his application
* His appeal to the HRC and the HRC response
* This Board’s previous decision to transfer his GOMOR to the restricted portion of his OMPF
* Three DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award) of the LOM
* An Army Times article
* His Congressional Testimony
* Division Briefing Charts 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant has been affiliated with the United States Army since 1974 with the exception of a brief break in service in 1981.  In 1982 he was appointed as a warrant officer and has been on active duty under the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program since 1988.  In 1985 he was notified that he was eligible to receive retired pay at age 60.  He was promoted to the rank of CW5 in October 2000.

2.  On 7 June 2005, while assigned to the Human Resources Command (HRC) – Alexandria he was issued a Memorandum of Reprimand by The Adjutant General of the Army essentially for misuse of his position and disregard for Army policies and regulations.  The imposing official directed that it be filed in his military personnel records jacket (MPRJ) for a period of 3 years or upon reassignment, whichever occurred first.

3.  On 23 November 2005, he was issued a GOMOR for driving while intoxicated (DWI).  The imposing official directed that the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF.

4.  On 18 January 2008, Permanent Orders Number 018-15, issued by the United States Army Human Resources Command awarded the applicant the LOM for the period 1 February 1998 to 14 January 2007.

5.  As of 8 April 2008, the applicant was ordered to active duty in an AGR status with the Arizona Army National Guard (AZARNG) and he continues to serve on active duty in the AZARNG.

6.  The applicant applied to this Board to have the 2005 GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF because it was the only blemish on his 
24 years of service and because he had continued to serve with distinction both before and after the incident.  On 19 March 2009, the Board directed that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF.
7.  On 15 June 2009, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, HRC dispatched a memorandum to the applicant informing him that on 22 May 2009, the Military Awards Board determined that had it known he had received a GOMOR, his award of the LOM would not have been approved and the board decided to revoke the LOM.  He was also advised that he could appeal the revocation in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 1-30a.  The details surrounding the discovery of the information that served as the basis for his LOM being revoked is not in the available records. 

8.  The applicant filed an appeal of the revocation of the award with the support of The Adjutant General of Arizona (a major general) and on 21 October 2009 the Chief, Military Awards Branch at HRC informed the applicant that the Commanding General, HRC had carefully considered and denied his appeal.

9.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF shows that during the period of 1992 to 1998 he was awarded three Army Commendation Medals and two Meritorious Service Medals.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards),  provides, in pertinent part, that once an award has been presented, it may be revoked by the awarding authority if facts subsequently determined would have prevented original approval of the award had they been known at the time.  The decision to revoke an award may not be delegated by the awarding authority.  In making the decision, the awarding authority may consider a statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence (with comments) from the individual concerned.  Upon revocation, the affected individual will be informed that he or she may appeal the revocation action through command channels to the Commander HRC for final review.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s performance of duty during the period in question is not in doubt, neither is the applicant’s misconduct.

2.  While the applicant would have the Board to believe the awards board was in error to revoke his LOM because he had his GOMOR transferred to the restricted fiche before the awards board became aware of its existence, his contention lacks merit.


3.  Although there is no explanation as to why the awards board was not made aware of the presence of the GOMOR in his OMPF at the time the LOM was approved it does not relieve that board of its responsibility to be consistent in its decisions and it does not appear that it was consistent to award the applicant the LOM after he had been reprimanded. 

4.  The applicant’s claim that his award was not properly revoked in accordance with the applicable regulation has also been noted and found to lack merit.  The Commander, HRC approved the award of the LOM and he revoked it through the awards branch in accordance with applicable regulations. 

5.  The applicant’s contention that he received no recognition for his 20 years of service in the area has also been noted and found to lack merit.  The applicant received numerous awards and some of them overlap the period of the LOM.  While it is understood why he desires the LOM, his lapse in judgment that caused him to be reprimanded diminished his service below that required for such an award.

6.  Accordingly, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that his LOM was improperly revoked, regardless of how the information became available to the awards board.

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)                                         AR20100019675



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019675



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013512

    Original file (20120013512.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DASEB Record of Proceedings, dated 18 August 2011, shows (in part): a. the NCOER covering the period the applicant was reprimanded does not make any reference to his misconduct; b. twenty-nine months had elapsed since the applicant received the GOMOR and: * there was no other derogatory information in his records * he had received three NCOERs with superior ratings and potential for promotion since the incident * he was selected as a Commandant's list graduate of Phase 2 of the Advanced...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013131

    Original file (20100013131.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 November 2008, after reviewing the GOMOR and the applicant's rebuttal, the commanding general directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF. Upon arrival, the officer met with the applicant's wife and she reported a verbal altercation began after the applicant came home drunk. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012849

    Original file (20130012849.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests: * that the 1998 Selective Retention Board (SRB) be set-aside for non-compliance with controlling regulations * an adjustment of his military technician retired pay from the date of his release at age 48 to age 55 projections (in effect, additional service credit) * promotion to the rank of colonel to place him in equal standing with his peer group at retirement * removal of a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023383

    Original file (20100023383.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Counsel requests: * Removal of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 June 2007, from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * Set aside of his Report of Inquiry (ROI) findings, dated 17 October 2009 * Reinstate him as an active duty U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer * Reinstate his security clearance * Restoration of back pay from his discharge date of 24 March 2010 2. On 29 March 2007, the applicant's senior commander appointed an AR 15-6 officer to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005407C070208

    Original file (20040005407C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 July 1997, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, United States Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), approved a change to the SF Tab removal criteria contained in Army Regulation 600-8-22 that was recommended by the CG, USAJFKSWC. He further stated that the authority of the CG, USAJFKSWC to revoke the SF Tab is well known throughout the SF community. Further, HRC Awards Branch officials approved the changes to the SF Tab removal criteria in 1997, more than five years before action was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | AR20090000899

    Original file (AR20090000899.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests a 23 November 2005 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be transferred from the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to his restricted file. The e-mail referenced by the applicant in his response to the GOMOR was included as part of the documents filed with the November 2005 GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF. A reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer level authority and are to be filed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004214

    Original file (20120004214.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests transfer of the letter removing him from the Drill Sergeant program from the performance portion to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). He petitioned the DASEB in March 2007 for transfer of the following documents to the restricted section of his OMPF: * A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 4 April 1994 * A Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 27 April 2004 * Letter removing him from the Drill...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016704

    Original file (20090016704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's record shows he served in an enlisted status in the Regular Army (RA) and the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 8 October 1991 through 2 November 2001, and he was appointed a second lieutenant (2LT) in the ARNG on 3 November 2001. On 15 May 2009, the Commanding General, United States Army Special Operations Command, informed the applicant he had reviewed the SF Tab revocation action, the supporting documents, and the matters submitted in the applicant's behalf, and found the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018886

    Original file (20080018886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further states that he was promoted to the rank of CW3 at the next regularly scheduled selection board convened to consider officer for promotion to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) and was awarded a new DOR of 1 June 2006. On 16 May 2005, a board of officers convened at the Department of the Army, Secretariat for Selection Boards, in Alexandria, Virginia to consider the case of the applicant who had been referred for consideration as to whether he should be removed from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015108

    Original file (20100015108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CG also noted: a. the GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as nonjudicial punishment; b. the GOMOR may be permanently filed in the applicant’s OMPF or unit Military Personnel File for up to 3 years or until the applicant's reassignment to another general court-martial jurisdiction; c. he intended to file the GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF unless he submitted statements or documents that provided a valid excuse for his conduct; d. the documents that formed the basis for...