BOARD DATE:	  18 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021645 


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), dated 11 March 2011, and a relief-for-cause officer evaluation report (OER), dated 11 May 2011, from her official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

* she received a GOMOR that was permanently filed in her record in May 2011
* she also received a relief-for-cause OER which indicates negative Army values as a result
* she underwent a board of inquiry to determine the status of her reprimand, as well as whether she should be retained in the military
* the board of inquiry found that she did not commit the offenses that she was charged with in the GOMOR
* she was told by the Human Resources Command Promotions Branch that she needed to request that this Board remove the above documents
* the investigation was not completed correctly, it was based on hearsay and perception
* she was given improper advice from the legal assistance office when she first received the GOMOR
* she was never told she could refuse the charges which she would have had she known
* the GOMOR and the OER are entirely false and need to be removed from her record
3.  The applicant provides DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant accepted an appointment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the rank of second lieutenant (O-1).  Effective upon her acceptance of appointment, she was ordered to active duty for 3 years.

2.  On 17 February 2009, the applicant received a GOMOR for having a married officer spend the night in her living quarters on 14 January 2009.  On 15 January 2009, her commander ordered her to have no further contact with the officer and she violated that order by sitting and talking to that officer in the CATFISH Air Pax Terminal at Joint Base Balad, Iraq.  She was told that her blatant disregard for authority was conduct unbecoming an officer and by forming a relationship with a married officer, she set an example that lacked integrity and failed to adhere to institutional values.  She acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and indicated that she was submitting matters in her own behalf.

3.  The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf indicating that she agreed her conduct was unbecoming of an officer; however, she was very much in love with the officer and had been for some time.  She went on to articulate the feelings she had for the officer and she apologized for any embarrassment or distraction she caused for her command or unit.  She stated that she fully accepted whatever disposition deemed appropriate and would try to learn and grow from her experience.

4.  On 9 March 2009, the deputy commanding general directed that the GOMOR be filed in her OMPF.

5.  The applicant was promoted to first lieutenant (O-2) on 9 July 2009.

6.  The applicant petitioned the President, Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for transfer of the GOMOR from the performance portion of his OMPF to the restricted portion.  The DASEB denied her request on 14 October 2010, stating that there was insufficient evidence to show the intent of the GOMOR had been served.

7.  On 27 January 2011, an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to conduct an informal Army Regulation 15-6 (Commander Inquiry) into allegation of fraternization and adultery involving the applicant and a specialist four, both assigned to the S1 section, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 504th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas.  
8.  On 15 February 2011, the IO found that the applicant and the specialist four had engaged in fraternization, as she admitted she was dating and was in love with him.  The IO also found that there was an improper relationship between the applicant and the specialist four.  The IO found that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to conclude that an adulterous relationship existed.  The IO recommended that the applicant be removed from her position of Brigade S1 Officer-in-Charge, receive a GOMOR, and immediately dismissed from the U.S. Army.

9.  On 11 March 2011, the applicant received a GOMOR for fraternization by maintaining an improper relationship with a subordinate Soldier and making false official statements.  On 22 January 2011, she voluntarily admitted to having a romantic relationship with a married subordinate male Soldier under her supervision and her fellow Soldiers alerted her command.  Also, during the course of her romantic relationship, she became aware that her subordinate was using an illegal synthetic drug and she allowed her personal feelings for that Soldier to override her duties as an officer by not acting on the information.  When questioned about the romantic relationship she made false official statements by denying the offense to an IO.  In the GOMOR she received she was instructed to immediately acknowledge the reprimand in writing and to forward any matters to be considered in extenuation, mitigation, or rebuttal through her chain of command within 7 days.  She was told that any matters she submitted before a decision was made on where the GOMOR would be filed would be considered.  She acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and indicated that she was submitting matters on her own behalf.

10.  On 23 March 2011, the applicant submitted a memorandum requesting that the GOMOR be filed locally until she was transferred to another General Court-Martial Convening Authority.  She stated she understood she failed to meet her responsibilities as a leader and that she put her unit and herself in an unfavorable and compromising position.  She took full responsibility for her actions and she stated she could unequivocally ensure that never again would her judgment be compromised or her actions be dishonorable.  She stated she understood the consequences of fraternization and would in no way be involved with such activities in the future.  She stated she had begun to see a counselor and had taken steps to redouble her efforts to be a better Soldier.

11.  On 21 April 2011, the commanding general directed that the GOMOR be placed permanently in her OMPF.

12.  The applicant received a Relief for Cause OER on 11 May 2011 for the rating period 28 July 2010 through 1 March 2011.  In Part IV - Performance Evaluation – Professional (Rater), part a. (Army Values), she was rated "No" on honor, integrity, and duty.  In Part V – Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater), part a. (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rated Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion) she was rated "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote."  The rater commented that the applicant failed to maintain the Army Values of Honor, Integrity and duty and he directed her suspension, then relief from the S1 position following an AR 15-6 investigation which substantiated charges of fraternization, maintaining an improper relationship with a subordinate Soldier and making false official statements.  In Part VII – Senior Rater, she received a "Do Not Promote" rating by her senior rater and he commented "Unfortunately she did not uphold the Army values of duty, integrity, and honor.  Her character and officership have been compromised; she received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand.  Officer requires a long period of rehabilitation and deep-drive reflection about character and officership."

13.  The applicant submits a DA Form 1574 which shows that a board of officers convened on 28 September 2011.  Section IV (Findings) states "The Board having carefully considered the evidence before it, finds that the applicant, by a preponderance of evidence, did, while deployed to Iraq, violate General Order #1 in 2009 for cohabitating with a married officer which is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, as well as violation a no contact order issued by CPT ___ which is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ.  The Board having carefully considered the evidence before it, finds that the applicant, by a preponderance of evidence, did not, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, fraternize and maintain an improper relationship with a subordinate enlisted Soldier which is in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ, as well as make a false official statement which is in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ.  Furthermore, the applicant had knowledge of the subordinate Soldier with whom she was having an improper relationship was using an illegal substance but failed to report this information to her chain of command."

14.  The DA Form 1574 shows the board of officers recommended that she be retained in the Army.

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policy and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interest of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.  It states 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.

16.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) replaced Army Regulation 623-105 on 17 December 2004.  It establishes the policies and procedures for preparing, processing, and using the evaluation reports.  The regulation states that an OER accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  The burden of proof in appealing an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly nullifies the presumption of regularity.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  Her supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  However, the DA Form 1574 she submits contradicts itself and is unclear.  The evidence of record shows the IO found that she and the specialist four had engaged in fraternization, as she admitted to having a romantic relationship with the specialist four.  The IO also found that there was an improper relationship between the applicant and the specialist four. 

3.  The IO found that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to conclude that an adulterous relationship existed between her and the specialist four.  The IO recommended that the applicant be removed from her position of Brigade S1 Officer-in-Charge, receive a GOMOR, and immediately dismissed from the U.S. Army.

4.  The evidence of record shows she voluntarily admitted to having a romantic relationship with a married subordinate male Soldier under her supervision and her fellow Soldiers alerted her command.  She took responsibility for her actions and stated she could unequivocally ensure that never again would her judgment be compromised or her actions be dishonorable.  She stated she understood the consequences of fraternization and would in no way be involved with such activities in the future.  She stated she had begun to see a counselor and had taken steps to redouble her efforts to be a better Soldier.

5.  She has not shown that the GOMOR and/or the Relief for Cause OER she received are erroneous or unjust, or that the information contained therein, is untrue.  She has presented insufficient evidence that she was given improper 

advice from the legal assistance office.  She has provided no evidence showing the AR 15-6 investigation was not completed correctly and was based on hearsay.

6.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, 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.

7.  The appropriate authority directed the filing GOMOR in her OMPF and the GOMOR and OER were properly filed therein.

8.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request 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 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)                                         AR20110021645



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021645



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1