IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  2 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014161 


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 a previous request that a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states he received a GOMOR for failure to train Soldiers.  He contends the record clearly shows that during his time in theater, two training sessions were conducted by the proponent for military intelligence from Fort Huachuca, AZ, and an MTT (mobile training team) from Guantanamo Bay.  He adds that the GOMOR issuing authority is in support of removing it because the benefit to the Army has been met. 

3.  The applicant provides the following

* Letter, dated 25 July 2011, from the imposing official
* Letter, dated 8 March 2009, from his former brigade commander (previously considered)
* Letter, dated 1 June 2009, from his former battalion commander (previously considered)
* Letter, dated 28 May 2009, from his former battalion executive officer (previously considered)


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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090014177, on 25 May 2010.

2.  The applicant provides a letter from the imposing general officer, which was not previously considered by the Board; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such, warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  After having had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and executed an oath of office on 6 May 1988.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 1 April 2010 with a date of rank of 18 June 2009 and is currently serving on active duty in Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status.

4.  During the 2004/2005 time frame, several Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers) investigations were conducted to look into allegations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and violations by U.S. Soldiers of Interrogation Rules of Engagement.  Extracts of these investigations were previously provided and summarized in the original Record of Proceedings.

5.  The investigations concluded that several U.S. Army Soldiers committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/Baghdad Central Confinement Facility (BCCF).  Furthermore, key senior leaders in both the 800th Military Police Brigade and the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade failed to comply with established regulations, policies, and command directives in preventing detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib/BCCF during the period August 2003 through February 2004.

6.  On 8 April 2005, after having served as Assistant Brigade S-3, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade in Iraq, he was reprimanded by Lieutenant General (LTG) J.R.H., Commanding General (CG), USAR Command, for his failure as the deputy operations officer at the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) for the 325th MI Battalion.  The GOMOR stated that during his deployment to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he did not live up to the standards expected of him as a leader of Soldiers.  His failure to properly train Soldiers and implement the checks and balances necessary to prevent and detect abuses helped create an environment in which his Soldiers mistreated detainees on numerous occasions.  The GOMOR goes on to state that his actions caused the imposing officer to question his judgment and potential for continued service.  
7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and submitted a rebuttal. He stated the following:

	a.  He was not originally selected for the operation; therefore, he was not available during the planning phase for training.

	b.  Soldiers at Abu Ghraib were from three different battalions and as such, they should have been trained from their respective commands.

	c.  The dysfunctional command and control relationships of the organizations operating at Abu Ghraib were previously documented.

	d.  He should not be reprimanded for any incidents involving personnel outside of his supervisory control.

	e.  He did not have the ability to effectively influence the command and control relationships which lie at the heart of the issue of "failed leadership."

	f.  He did ensure that Soldiers received training and the IROE briefing which involved approved methods for use during interrogations.

	g.  He instructed all of his Soldiers to report any violations of the rules concerning interrogations to the officer in charge.

	h.  Abuse of detainees existed throughout the military and the problem was systematic rather than based on his failure to conduct training.

	i.  The problem of detainee abuse by the military extended far beyond his span of control, thus attributing incidents of abuse to his failed leadership does not withstand the facts discovered by numerous investigations.

	J.  During his time at Abu Ghraib, training was being conducted by a team from Fort Huachuca, AZ and from Guantanamo.

8.  On 29 April 2005, the CG carefully considered the applicant's rebuttal and ordered the GOMOR filed in the performance section of his OMPF.

9.  On 18 June 2009, in response to his petition to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) granted him partial relief.  The DASEB directed the GOMOR be transferred from the performance to the restricted section of his OMPF.

10.  On 25 May 2010, the ABCMR reviewed voluminous evidence pertaining to the Abu Ghraib investigation but determined the evidence did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, the Board denied his request to remove the GOMOR from his records.

11.  He submitted a letter, dated 25 July 2011, from LTG J.R.H. the imposing officer (now retired) who opines that in his judgment, the GOMOR has served its intended purpose.

12.  Since the transfer GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF, the applicant:

* Was promoted to LTC with a date of rank of 18 June 2009
* Was awarded the Army Staff Identification Badge, Meritorious Service Medal, and the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal
* Completed the 2-week reserve Components National Security Course
* Received an officer evaluation report with a rating of "outstanding performance"

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, ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.  The objectives of this regulation are to apply fair and just standards to all Soldiers, protect the rights of individual Soldiers and, at the same time, permit the Army to consider all available relevant information when choosing Soldiers for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility; prevent adverse personnel action based on unsubstantiated derogatory information or mistaken identity; provide a means of correcting injustices if they occur; and ensure that Soldiers of poor moral character are not continued in the service or advanced to positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility.

14.  Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files), paragraph 
3-2 (Policies), provides that except as indicated in paragraph 3-3 (Filing of information exempt from the filing process), unfavorable information will not be filed in an official personnel file unless the recipient has been given the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and make a written statement, or to decline, in writing, to make such a statement.  This statement may include evidence that rebuts, explains, or mitigates the unfavorable information.  The issuing authority should fully affirm and document unfavorable information to be considered for inclusion in official personnel files.  Unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.

15.  Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) provides that once an official document has been 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 the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  It states only those documents listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections:  performance, service, or restricted.  Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) provides guidance for filing administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature.  It states that the letter, referral correspondence, member's reply, and other allied documents (if they are specifically directed for file by the letter or referral correspondence) will be filed on the performance section of the OMPF.  All other allied documents not listed will be filed in the restricted section of the OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was reprimanded on 8 April 2005. There was substantial, credible evidence established by various investigations of the applicant's failure as the deputy operations officer at the JIDC for the 325th MI Battalion.  During his deployment to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he did not live up to the standards expected of him as a leader of Soldiers.  His failure to properly train Soldiers and implement the checks and balances necessary to prevent and detect abuses helped create an environment in which his Soldiers mistreated detainees on numerous occasions.  His actions caused the imposing officer to question his judgment and potential for continued service.  

2.  The applicant provided a rebuttal.  The imposing official considered his rebuttal and directed the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF.  There is no evidence of process flaws in the administration of the GOMOR and the filing determination.  Additionally, there is no evidence that the GOMOR was imposed in error.

3.  Among the purposes of filing unfavorable information is protection not just of the Soldier's interests but the Army's as well.  The applicant violation should not go unrecorded in his OMPF simply because the imposing official has now opined that the GOMOR has served its purpose.

4.  The applicant's achievements since the GOMOR was transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF are noteworthy.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to remove it from his OMPF.  

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to grant 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090014177, dated 25 May 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)                                         AR20110014161



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014161



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1