IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000471 


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 removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  He did not have an inappropriate relationship with private (PV2) J-----n.  The GOMOR is unfair and unjust; he was never given the evidence it was based on.  The filing of the GOMOR in his OMPF will ruin his career for something he did not do.  He wrote his rebuttal under duress; nobody advised him and he did not think about what he was doing.  He wrote his rebuttal and agreed with the GOMOR because he gave up and believed the harsh judgment passed on him by the commander's inquiry (CI), investigating officer (IO), and the general.

	b.  He was scheduled to leave Hawaii with his family and he had already cleared housing when his permanent change of station orders were revoked due to the investigation.  He and his wife were living in a hotel with their 2-year old daughter over the Christmas holidays and it was very frustrating.  All he and his family wanted to do was get out of Hawaii and get back to the United States.

	c.  In a previous case similar to his, the Army Board of Correction for Military Records (ABCMR) found that an applicant's contention his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) was unjust because he was not given a copy of an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) report had some merit.

	d.  The IO that conducted the CI did not let him (the applicant) see the witness statements and the IO only quoted the statements of Soldiers who had it in for him (the applicant).  It was unfair that the IO said he made a false statement for which he was reprimanded, but he did not get to see the statement.

3.  The applicant provides his Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) appeal with supporting documents and the DASEB Record of Proceedings (ROP).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant executed an oath of office on 2 September 2005 and he was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Quartermaster Corps (QM) warrant officer.  He entered active duty on the same date.  He served in staff and leadership positions and he was promoted to chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 2 September 2007.  He was assigned to the 209th Aviation Support Battalion (ASB), 25th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB), 25th Infantry Division, Wheeler Army Airfield, HI.

2.  In October 2008, several Soldiers in the 209th ASB filed complaints with the chain of command that they suspected an inappropriate relationship occurred between the applicant and PV2 J-----n, a Soldier he supervised, while the unit was at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA, in September 2008.  A CI was subsequently conducted.

3.  In the CI findings and recommendations, dated 11 December 2008, the IO found the applicant's relationship with PV2 J-----n was inappropriate and violated Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy), paragraph 4-14b, which states, in part, relationships between Soldiers of different ranks are prohibited if they compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of the supervisor's authority; cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; and/or create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the chain of command to accomplish its mission.  The IO stated he based his findings on statements of several witnesses stating they observed PV2 J-----n entering and exiting the applicant's room at all hours of the day and night.

4.  On 16 December 2008, Colonel (COL) L----y, the 25th CAB commander, recommended the 8th Theater Sustainment Brigade Commander, Major General (MG) M---n, issue the applicant a GOMOR for his misconduct.  COL L---y stated while the applicant denied an inappropriate relationship existed, his statement was contradicted by multiple witnesses.


5.  On 31 December 2008, the applicant was presented with the GOMOR issued by MG M---n.  The GOMOR stated the applicant was being reprimanded for his actions surrounding the applicant's inappropriate relationship with a female enlisted Soldier and for lying to the IO about the relationship.

6.  The reprimand further stated the applicant's conduct was inexcusable and incompatible with the high standards of an Army warrant officer, the applicant displayed extremely poor judgment by engaging in a relationship with an enlisted female, and he made the situation worse by providing a false statement.  His gross disregard for proper behavior was inexcusable for a leader and his actions caused the commander to have grave doubts concerning the applicant's judgement and fitness for future military service.  MG M---n stated he was imposing the reprimand as an administrative measure under Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

7.  On 5 January 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and submitted a rebuttal.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated he agreed with the findings of the CI of an isolated inappropriate relationship between himself and an enlisted Soldier and his lapse of judgment in his handling a Soldier's personal matter was not as professional as the Army expects of an officer.  He further stated he accepted his punishment with respect and that it was clear to him that he lacked professional sensitivity in dealing with relations when it came to enlisted members.  He had learned that vertical bonds between different rank structures were limited.  He made an honest mistake in trying to help a Soldier in need, and he requested the GOMOR be filed locally in his military personnel records file.

8.  On 15 January 2009, after carefully reviewing the rebuttal matters submitted by the applicant and his chain of command's recommendations, MG M---n directed the GOMOR be filed in the performance portion of his OMPF.

9.  On 8 August 2010, the applicant filed an appeal with the DASEB requesting removal of his GOMOR from his OMPF.

10.  On 29 October 2010, the DASEB determined the evidence presented did not establish clearly and convincingly that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust.  Accordingly, the DASEB denied his request to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF.


11.  The applicant accomplished the following since receiving the GOMOR:

* he received an "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified" rating for his change of rater OER for the period 1 August 2009 through 1 June 2010
* he completed the 8-week Supply Systems Technician Warrant Officer Advance Course in 2010
* he was awarded an Army Achievement Medal in 2010

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 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 Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in December 2008 for having an inappropriate relationship with a female enlisted Soldier and for lying to the IO about the relationship.  The GOMOR was based on a CI that reached that conclusion based on statements of multiple witnesses.  He was provided with an opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf and he did so.  The GOMOR was ultimately filed in the performance section of his OMPF.

2.  The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier.  In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority.

3.  Notwithstanding his contention that he was under duress when he submitted his rebuttal, in his rebuttal he agreed with the findings of an isolated inappropriate relationship and his lack of judgment.  In addition, Army Regulation 600-20 states inappropriate relationships are relationships between Soldiers of different ranks that compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of the supervisor authority; or cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.

4.  The applicant, a CW2 serving in a supervisory position, was found to have had an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate enlisted female Soldier in the rank of PV2.  As a warrant officer, he was serving in a position of trust, responsibility, and accountability, and he was directly responsible for the development, training, welfare, and morale of all the Soldiers in his section.  He failed to live up to Army values by compromising the integrity of the supervisor authority.  His conduct demonstrated a lack of professionalism, displayed a lack of judgement, and raised questions about his fitness for future military service.

5.  The quality of service of a Soldier is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army or prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The ABCMR is generally reluctant to remove adverse information from an OMPF when it places the applicant on a par with others with no blemishes for promotions, assignments, and other favorable actions.  When it does remove unfavorable information, it only does so if it is untrue or unjust.  In this case, the applicant's GOMOR does not appear to have served its purpose (which might warrant transferring it to the restricted section of his OMPF), and the evidence presented does not show that the GOMOR is untrue or unjust.  In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to the requested relief.

6.  The applicant states a case previously considered by the ABCMR found an applicant's contention his OER was unjust was found to have some merit.  However, the case is not relevant as ABCMR cases do not set precedent and each case is considered on its own merits.  

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)                                         AR20110000471



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000471



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1