IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110007885 


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 transfer of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and all associated documents from the performance section to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  his two appeals to the Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB) were denied;

	b.  he tremendously regrets and accepts full responsibility for his actions resulting in his receipt of the GOMOR and he has worked extremely hard to overcome its effects;

	c.  he has been consistently adversely affected by the GOMOR for the past 3 years and believes the intended purpose for its issuance has been served based on reasons that include:

* he was removed from consideration for promotion to major (MAJ) below the zone (BZ)
* he was considered but not selected for promotion by his primary board
* he was denied the opportunity to command a military police (MP) company

	d.  he believes he has strong potential for continued service in the Army if the GOMOR is transferred; however, if not, he is sure he will not be selected for promotion by the fiscal year (FY) 2011 MAJ selection board held in October 2011 and consequently discharged, thereby being unable to fulfill his goal of being a career Soldier; and

   e.  he asks consideration be given to his complete OMPF, a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) received in February 2011, and the letters he submitted supporting the transfer of the GOMOR.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and the list of documents indicated thereon.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant (2LT) on 13 July 2001.  He was ordered to active duty on
2 January 2002.  He trained and served in areas of concentration 31A (Military Police) and 38X (Civil Affairs).

2.  On 2 January 2008, the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC issued the applicant a GOMOR for fraudulently submitting a claim for reimbursement of expenses that did not occur during a permanent change of station (PCS) Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move.  On 4 January 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

3.  On 15 January 2008, the CG who issued the GOMOR directed it be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

4.  The applicant's OMPF includes four DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the periods ending 1 November 2008, 9 April 2009, 9 April 2010, and 5 November 2010 following the imposition and filing of the GOMOR.  The first and second reports evaluated him as a Civil Affairs officer in the 19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, U.S. Army, Korea, and were highly favorable reports.  The last two reports evaluated him as the Company Commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment (HHD),
6th Ordnance Battalion and were also highly favorable reports.  Each of the reports contained rater and senior rater recommendations for his promotion to MAJ.


5.  The applicant twice petitioned the DASEB on 5 May 2009 and 17 July 2010 for transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF.

   a.  On 10 September 2009, the DASEB determined the evidence presented in the applicant's case did not clearly and convincingly establish that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust and unanimously voted to deny this request.  In addition, the evidence presented did not provide substantial evidence that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose.
   
   b.  On 23 August 2010, the President, Army Special Review Boards, informed the applicant that a thorough review of his petition failed to provide sufficient substantial new evidence to meet the threshold of proof that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose.  As a result, his request was returned without consideration by the DASEB to prevent their possible denial of his request and to prevent placement of another unfavorable document in his OMPF.

6.  On an unknown date, the applicant was identified by the FY2010 MAJ, Maneuver, Fires and Effects Promotion Selection Board to Show Cause for retention on active duty.  The results are not included in the applicant's OMPF; however, a letter of support states he was retained by the Board of Inquiry.

7.  The applicant provides a memorandum from the now-retired CG who directed the filing of the GOMOR in question.  He purports to now direct the filing of the GOMOR be rescinded and removed completely from the applicant's OMPF.  It is noted, however, the imposing officer lacks the authority to direct the removal or transfer of GOMOR once it is filed in the OMPF.

8.  The applicant provides six supporting letters for his request to transfer the GOMOR in question to the restricted section of his OMPF.  These letters were provided by the following individuals:

* Deputy Commanding General (DCG), 1st Sustainment Command, Fort Bragg, (currently retired)
* Assistant Chief of Staff, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, G4
* Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Materiel Support Center, Korea
* Assistant Chief of Staff, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, G3
* Chief, Munitions Branch, Director for Logistics, Engineering and Security Assistance (J4), U.S. Pacific Command
* Commander, 6th Ordnance Battalion

9.  The DCG, 1st Sustainment Command, the applicant's CG and senior rater at the time the GOMOR was issued, attests to his strong belief that the purpose of the GOMOR has been served.  He notes:

   a.  the repercussions that have befallen the applicant as a result of the reprimand;
   
   b.  the applicant is an officer and standout leader the Army can ill-afford to lose and is needed in its ranks; and
   
   c.  the applicant's MSM received in February 2011 is an indicator of his outstanding performance and potential.

10.  The Assistant Chief of Staff, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, G4, the applicant's rater at the time the GOMOR was issued, states:

	a.  despite the battalion commander's decision not to give the applicant the opportunity to command an military police company, the applicant continued to pursue command opportunities and was selected to command an ordnance company;

	b.  the applicant was rated in the top three company commanders in his brigade on his first company commander OER;

	c.  it is in the Army's best interest to retain and promote the applicant; and

	d.  the intended purpose of the GOMOR has been met; therefore, it should be moved to the restricted section of his OMPF.

11.  The Assistant Chief of Staff, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, G4 (the brigade commander at the time the GOMOR was imposed); and the Chief, Munitions Branch, Officer of the Director for Logistics, Engineering and Security Assistance (the battalion commander at the time the GOMOR was imposed) who both selected the applicant to command HHD, 6th Ordnance Battalion indicate:

	a.  the applicant was selected based on his performance as the 19th ESC-G9, and his open and honest responses to the GOMOR in question;

	b.  the applicant suffered inordinately from his receipt of the GOMOR in that he was denied an earlier opportunity to command, was noncompetitive during two previous promotion boards, flagged, and professionally embarrassed in front of his fellow officers as the MP battalion commander, at the time, announced to his company commanders and staff, the issuance of the GOMOR and his removal from the battalion;

	c.  the applicant continued to perform exceptionably well as a company commander and he is clearly among the very best officers and leaders in today's Army;

	d.  the applicant received a favorable unanimous vote following a Field Board of Inquiry to show cause for retention in the Army in December 2010; and

	e.  the applicant was granted a top-secret security clearance on 29 December 2010 that demonstrated his fitness for special trust.

12.  The applicant's current chain of command provides supporting statements indicating the applicant

* is one of the very best commanders in the brigade and number one out of five commanders in the battalion;
* is one of only four out of twenty commanders exhibiting potential for battalion command;
* excelled in command, grew professionally, and improved all unit readiness categories
* has proven his supply and maintenance systems, family support, and training are the best in the brigade

13.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files.  Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) states, in pertinent part, that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF, or that it has served its intended purpose to support transfer from the performance portion to the restricted section of the OMPF.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly shows the GOMOR was issued and filed in the OMPF in accordance with the governing law and regulation.  By regulation, in order to remove this document from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that the document is untrue or unjust.  No such evidence has been provided in this case.

2.  However, the governing regulation does authorize the transfer of a GOMOR from the performance to the restricted section of the OMPF when it can be determined that the document has served its intended purpose.  The evidence of record in this case shows the applicant has now accepted responsibility for his actions.  Further, it is likely the GOMOR was responsible for the applicant's
non-selection for special assignments and promotion, and has clearly placed him behind his peers.  In spite of this, the applicant has responded positively to the reprimand, as evidenced by his continued outstanding performance, which is attested to by his chain of command during the time in question and his current chain of command. 

3.  The record also contains a supporting statement from the CG who directed the filing of the GOMOR in his OMPF.  This official now supports not only the transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted section of the OMPF, but its removal.

4.  Given the strong leadership support by the applicant's subsequent and current chain of command; and based on the passage of time, during which the applicant has been non-selected for special assignments and promotion; and because of the applicant's continued value to the Army, the GOMOR in question has served its intended purpose.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to transfer the GOMOR and associated documents to the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring the 2 January 2008 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and all related documents from the performance section to the restricted section of his OMPF based on it having served its intended purpose.



      ___________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)                                         AR20110007885



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110007885



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1