BOARD DATE:	  5 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100027511 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his record as follows:

* The removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 May 2005, from his official military personnel file (OMPF) or in the alternative, transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF
* Restoration to the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Maneuver, Fire, and Effects (MFE) lieutenant colonel (LTC) Promotion List
* Retroactive promotion to LTC, effective 1 March 2009

2.  The applicant states the mischaracterization of his actions in the GOMOR as pursuing a personal relationship with a subordinate is inaccurate and works an injustice.  He was not selected by the FY 2010 MFE LTC promotion board because this GOMOR remains in his OMPF.  He further states he has served the Army well and faithfully and believes that his performance since the GOMOR, coupled with the contextual clarifications provided in his letters of support, have lived down the allegations therein, and that he has earned the promotion that has been denied to him.

3.  The applicant provides two letters of support; a letter from his Member of Congress, dated 25 October 2010; and a letter from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 16 September 2010.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20100018150 on 14 September 2010.

2.  The applicant provides two letters of support which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, they are considered new evidence and warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigation Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation is not available for review; however, investigative findings and recommendations resulted in a GOMOR and a subsequent referred DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)).

4.  The Board determined the GOMOR was properly imposed and therefore removal of it from his OMPF was not warranted.  Further, given the rank of the applicant and the age of the subordinate [U.S. Military Academy (USMA) cadet] affected, the intent of the GOMOR had not yet served its purpose.  Furthermore, any future promotion board should be able to review the applicant's entire record to determine his fitness for promotion to the next higher grade.

5.  The applicant provides two letters of support as follows:

	a.  His former rater and Chief of Staff of the U.S. Corps of Cadets at the time the GOMOR was issued, states that he is certain the GOMOR has served its purpose and the applicant possess the values, character and competence to continue his service as an outstanding lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army.  He believes the applicant's aggressive efforts to help a cadet at West Point created the misperception that he had ulterior motives for his behavior.  His conclusion at the time was, and still remains, that this was a misperception and miscommunication of the applicant's actions that led to the "perception" of inappropriate behavior.  The applicant was accountable for the perception and he was forthright in his acceptance of responsibility.  The former rater requests the Board consider that the cadet in question was scheduled to graduate in December 2007 due to an honor violation but the applicant and others saw great potential in her and identified the possibility of her working her way out of the sanction so that she could graduate with her class in May 2007; however, the applicant committed himself too aggressively to mentoring her toward her goal.  He further states the applicant did not abuse his office in pursuit of a relationship.  The applicant coordinated with and received endorsement from the USMA 


leadership to prioritize two honor packets.  The packets belonged to the cadet and her teammate.  He continues to believe the applicant's actions were honorable and selfless.  Since the incident the applicant has excelled in every demanding field grade position including service in Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Finally, affording him the opportunity to serve as an LTC is in the best interest of the U.S. Army.

	b.  The second letter of support comes from the officer who held the position of Honor Mentor (August 2004 - March 2005), USMA, at the time the GOMOR was issued.  He states he routinely interacted with the cadet and the applicant regarding her progress in the Honor Mentorship Program (HMP) and her goal of graduating with her class in May 2007.  Accusations that the applicant sought a relationship with the cadet and abused his office towards that end are incongruent with his personal knowledge of their interaction, the conversations he had with them about the cadet's goals, and the USMA norm of expediting an athlete's packet under certain conditions that the cadet's case met.  The cadet and her parents had high praise and appreciation for the applicant's mentorship and support.  This is evident by his knowledge that the applicant had dinner with the cadet's parents on one occasion and the cadet personally asked the applicant to pin her restored rank.  The applicant, in an attempt to ensure the cadet could graduate with her class, approached the Military Science course director and made arrangements for the cadet to make up the missing course during the Spring semester.  He is unsure if this contextual fact was discussed in the investigation.   Further, he is sure the applicant's continued interaction with the cadet following her release from the HMP was motivated by his concern for her goal of graduating with her class.  Although he cannot attest to having detailed knowledge of their interactions beyond the HMP period, it seems the applicant's earnest zealousness to support the cadet became misconstrued.  He hopes the personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the assertions have clarified the context lost in this matter.  He strongly recommends removing the GOMOR from his records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant received a GOMOR for poor judgment, conduct unbecoming an officer, and misuse of his position by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with numerous cadets between July 2004 and March 2005.  He was afforded the opportunity to review all of the evidence against him and to submit matters on 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.


2.  The applicant submits two letters of support from his former rater and the cadet's honor mentor.  Each letter contends that the applicant's interaction with the cadet was based on misperception.  They never witnessed, nor do they believe, there was ever any inappropriate intention to have a personal relationship with the cadet; nor did he misuse his position to foster such a relationship.  They contend the applicant's sole motivation was to see the cadet succeed, overcome her honor violation, and graduate with her class.

3.  The fact remains the GOMOR was issued as a result of a formal investigation in which the applicant accepted responsibility for his actions.  Although the letters of support are considered valid they do not substantiate that an error or injustice occurred and do not outweigh the findings of the investigation.  They are insufficient evidence upon which to base a removal of the GOMOR.

4.  Further, he argues the late filing caused him to be removed from the LTC selection list; however, he has not provided any evidence to show he made an attempt to correct this administrative error at any time between May 2005 and the date he discovered that the GOMOR was posted to his OMPF.  To not question the absence of the GOMOR in his OMPF for over 3 years is clearly an attempt to benefit from this administrative error.  The applicant's achievements are noteworthy and have not gone unrecognized; however, his contention that he was unaware the GOMOR had not been filed in his OMPF is not plausible.  The available evidence does not show the GOMOR has served its intended purpose.  Therefore, it should not be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF.

5.  In view of the above, his request for reconsideration 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100018150, dated 14 September 2010.



      __________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)                                         AR20100027511



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100027511



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1