IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 July 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021630
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:
The applicant defers his request, statement, and evidence to counsel.
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:
1. Counsel requests:
* The results of the applicant's adverse separation board proceedings, dated November 2007, be set aside
* The applicant's subsequent discharge, dated 22 October 2008, be voided
* The applicant be reinstated into the U.S. Army Reserve in order to complete the time needed for full retirement
* A personal appearance before the Board
2. Counsel states the allegations against the applicant were vague, unspecific, unproven, and unfactual, and overall were minor in nature.
3. Counsel provides:
* DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ))
* Unsigned memorandum for record from a senior defense counsel
* DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 25 November 2004 through 25 September 2005
* Notification of Involuntary Separation Action Memorandum
* Statement from Ms. DRC, an Area Supervisor
* Statement from Major (MAJ) RH
* Administrative Separation Board proceedings
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), from sergeant (SGT) SAY
* DA Form 2823, from MAJ JDB
* Statement from Dr. H
* Two memoranda from lieutenant colonel (LTC) PLM, Chief Administrative Law
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Medical Services Corps (MSC) captain (CPT) in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and executed an oath of office on 17 October 1996.
3. He served in a variety of assignments and he was honorably released from the ARNG and transferred to the 73rd Field Hospital of the USAR. He was promoted to MAJ on 6 December 2004. He served as an optometrist, part of Task Force Medical Falcon, Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo.
4. On 29 August 2005, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for:
* Wrongfully and dishonorably telephone SGT SAY to engage in inappropriate conversations on divers occasions between 1 and 30 April 2005
* Wrongfully and dishonorably make comments or inquire about Ms. DRC (being pretty, being cute, her relationships) during an examination between 6 February and 12 March 2005
* Wrongfully and dishonorably attempt to lick Ms. KF's ear while hugging her on or about 28 March 2005
5. His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand and forfeiture of pay. He appealed his punishment on 29 August but (according to the DA Form 2627) his appeal was denied by the next higher commander (a general officer).
6. Counsel submits a memorandum for record, dated 5 November 2007, authored but unsigned by MAJ RNT, a Judge Advocate Senior Defense Counsel, wherein he requested the whole proceedings be set aside and contended that the evidence was insufficient to find the applicant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. The disposition of this memorandum for record is unknown. It is unclear if it was submitted by the senior defense counsel or who it was submitted to, or whether action was taken.
8. During the month of September 2005, the applicant received a "Relief for Cause" OER which covered 10 months of rated time from 25 November 2004 through 25 September 2005 for his duties serving as "Optometrist" while assigned to TF Medical Falcon in Kosovo. His rater was LTC JDB, the TF Executive Officer, and his senior rater was Colonel JMF, the TF Commander. The OER shows the following entries:
* Part IVa (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for "Honor," "Integrity," "Respect," and "Duty"
* Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) the rater placed an "X" in the "No" in the "Conceptual" skills and the "Building" and "Learning" Actions
* In Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Unsatisfactory Performance - Do Not Promote" block
* In Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block and rated him as "Below Center of Mass"
9. After having been referred to the applicant, the OER was signed by the rating officials and the applicant on 27 September 2005. It was processed by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command shortly thereafter.
10. On 20 May 2007, by memorandum, the Commanding General (CG), USAR Medical Command (MEDCOM), notified the applicant that involuntary separation action was initiated against him and that he was required to show cause for retention in military service. He cited the reasons as the findings by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) of several incidents of inappropriate conduct by the applicant that merited his removal from military service. Specifically:
* Obsession with Ms. DRC, a linguist supervisor (offensive comments)
* Inappropriate behavior with Ms. HF, an interpreter (hugged and attempted to kiss her ear)
* Inappropriate behavior with SGT MA (kissed her on the neck)
* Inappropriate comments to MAJ TG, Medical Chief Surgeon (called him Pxxxy Whooped)
* Inappropriate behavior toward SGT SAY (fraternization)
* Personal misconduct, Ms. DP, during an eye examination
11. On 5 November 2007, an administrative separation board convened at the USAR MEDCOM, Pinellas Park, FL, to consider if the applicant should be retained or removed from military service, in accordance with Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers). The separation board found by the preponderance of evidence that the applicant committed the acts of personal misconduct (inappropriate behavior) and that his conduct rose to the level of conduct unbecoming a USAR officer. The board also found his actions warranted separation and recommended his discharge with a general characterization of service.
12. On 11 March 2008, the Chief, Administrative Law, USAR MEDCOM reviewed the administrative separation board findings and recommendation and deemed it legally sufficient.
13. On 19 March 2008, the CG, USAR MEDCOM, approved the administrative separation board's findings and recommendation and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general characterization of service.
14. On 14 June 2008, the Chief, U.S. Army Reserve ordered the applicant discharged from the USAR for moral or professional dereliction of duty, specifically multiple acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer. He ordered his separation be characterized as general, under honorable conditions.
15. The applicant was discharged from the USAR on 22 October 2008 with a general, under honorable conditions, characterization of service.
16. The applicant and counsel elected not to petition the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge.
17. Army Regulation 135-175 prescribes the policies, criteria, and procedures governing the separation of Reserve officers of the Army. Paragraph 2-11 (Moral and professional dereliction) states while not all-inclusive, existence of one of several listed or similar conditions, unless successfully rebutted, authorizes involuntary separation of an officer due to moral or professional dereliction. Officers discharged for any of the listed reasons may be furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate, or other than honorable conditions discharge - in pertinent part, acts of personal misconduct (including, but not limited to, acts committed while in a drunken or drug-intoxicated state), special derogatory evaluation report, and/or conduct unbecoming an officer.
18. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicants request for the correction of a military record. It states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. With respect to the personal hearing, the applicants request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.
2. The applicant committed various acts of misconduct that led to acceptance of NJP and a relief for cause OER. While deployed with TF Falcon in Kosovo during the period February through June 2005, a CID investigation confirmed several incidents of inappropriate conduct. As required by the governing Army regulation, due to moral or professional dereliction, the applicant was notified that he was considered for separation action.
3. An administrative separation board subsequently convened for the purpose of determining if the applicant should be discharged. The board found the applicant committed moral or professional dereliction by committing multiple acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer and recommended his separation with a general discharge. The convening authority approved the findings and recommendations and the separation authority ordered him discharged.
4. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. His discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
5. Counsel essentially contends that all the allegations against the applicant were vague, unspecific, unproven, unfactual, and overall minor in nature. These are essentially the same arguments raised during the administrative separation board. That board considered the same arguments and reached the conclusion that they lacked merit.
6. The key issue here is that the applicant's actions were confirmed by CID; they were not vague, unspecific, unproven, unfactual, or minor in nature. He eroded the special trust and confidence awarded him as an officer and no longer possessed the professionalism or fidelity to be allowed to continue in the Army. Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
7. Therefore, there is no reason to void his discharge or reinstate him into the U.S. Army Reserve. As such, he is not entitled to 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 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) AR20110021630
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110021630
6
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006280
He had served in the Army for over 24 years at the time of his retirement. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to LTC on 1 March 2009. On 12 February 2013, he requested retirement in lieu of elimination in the grade of LTC after being notified of his identification to show cause for retention on active duty because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008856
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 30 July 2008 to 5 February 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). However, it states if he did not appeal within 3 years that it was untimely and he must address the situation to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). In Part VIIc, the senior rater...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062869C070421
He provides a five page statement to this Board that presents, in effect, his contentions: that he did not have an inappropriate relationship with a woman, not his wife, nor did he commit an act of assault on his wife; that the GOMOR and referred OER are based on misconstrued circumstances and evidence; and that the evidence provided by the woman, not his wife, with whom he is alleged to have had an intimate relationship, was false. The rater wrote, “(The applicant) received a Memorandum of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012888
This means the applicant had no opportunity to review that information allegedly in the IO's informal investigation and his right to due process was violated because he had a right to review relevant evidence; e. the GOMOR and referred OER were based on the IO's alleged investigation but since no "true" investigation took place, there was no Report of Investigation to which the applicant could respond; f. the applicant did not violate Article 133 of the UCMJ. The CG indicated that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005540
The applicant states per Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board [AGDRB] and Grade Determinations), paragraph 2-4(e), he met the criteria for retirement in the grade he held at the time of his release from active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program as demonstrated by his evaluation reports and awards. However, the evidence of record confirms that while serving on active duty in the rank of MAJ, the applicant was convicted by a civil court of attempted receipt...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003555
During this confrontation, the applicant told COL Cxx that he could not counsel her because he was not in her chain of command. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she was discharged on 27 February 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable behavior, and she received an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058069C070420
At TAB C, a copy of an 8 June 1998 memorandum from the applicant to the Commanding General of V Corps appealing his Article 15; a 4 June 1998 Memorandum for Record prepared by the applicant, subject: Procedural violation during Article 15 hearing; an 8 June 1998 memorandum from the applicant’s defense counsel to the Commanding General of V Corps regarding legal errors in the Article 15; a 4 June 1998 statement from an Army staff sergeant [identified hereafter as SSG DAH] who was to appear as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013211
The applicant requests reversal of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) decision to place him on the Retired List in the rank/grade of major (MAJ)/pay grade O-4 instead of lieutenant colonel (LTC)/pay grade O-5. Any officer who has been the subject of any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation, proceeding or inquiry (except minor traffic infractions) since the officers last promotion, will have the case forwarded to the AGDRB to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021373
The applicant requests the removal of Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) covering the periods 20050617 20051115, 20070416 20080331, and 20080401 20090206 from his official records. Counsel requests that the three contested OERs be removed from the applicants official records. The applicant also received a relief for cause OER ending on 15 November 2005 (first contested OER) in which he received a NO rating in Part IV Performance Evaluation Professionalism under Duty. 5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018150
The applicant requests: * The removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 May 2005 from his official military personnel file (OMPF) or in the alternate, transfer 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 GOMOR is currently filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF. ...