IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120001976
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 that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 17 June 2010 be transferred to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states that in June 2010 he was given a GOMOR for having an affair with a female major in his unit while deployed to Afghanistan during the 2008 2009 timeframe. He goes on to state that he turned himself in to his supervisor shortly after his arrival at 1st Cavalry Headquarters because the female major would not let him and his family alone after he tried to break it off. He continues by stating that despite being selected for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3), he has been placed in a Department of the Army administrative flag status while his file goes before a promotion review board. He also states that he fully expects to be non-selected because of the letter, but he believes that he has done what has been asked of him personally and professionally to warrant a second chance for promotion next year. He concludes by stating that several of the senior officers with whom he had worked since his lapse in judgment have written letters in his behalf.
3. The applicant provides five third-party letters of support and a copy of his Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) proceedings.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 June 1998. He completed his training as an air defense early warning systems operator and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 May 2004.
2. On 22 August 2006, he was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Air Defense Warrant Officer One (WO1) with a concurrent call to active duty. He was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first duty assignment and was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 22 August 2008.
3. On 17 June 2010, a GOMOR was issued to the applicant for having an adulterous affair with a married field grade officer between March and July 2009 while deployed to Afghanistan, while he was married to an enlisted Soldier.
4. The applicant submitted a four-page memorandum to the commanding general admitting to the misconduct and requesting that the GOMOR not be filed in his permanent records so that he could prove that he had something to contribute to the Army and that he had learned from his lapse in judgment.
5. After reviewing the applicants response, on 15 July 2010, the commanding general directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicants OMPF.
6. On 3 October 2011, the applicant appealed to the DASEB requesting that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF based on intent served. He provided copies of his officer evaluation reports and four third-party statements in support of his application. The applicant advised the DASEB that he had been selected for promotion to the rank of CW3, but he was pending a promotion review board due to the GOMOR.
7. On 10 November 2011, the DASEB concluded that the applicant had failed to show the GOMOR had served its intent and voted unanimously to deny his appeal.
8. Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing of unfavorable information in the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive GOMOR or admonition will be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general officer or the officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contention that the GOMOR should be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF based on intent served has been noted and found to lack merit.
2. The GOMOR was properly imposed on 17 June 2010 in compliance with applicable regulations and it is properly filed in the applicants OMPF in accordance with the applicable regulations.
3. The available evidence clearly shows the applicants conduct was not the conduct expected of a chief warrant officer with the amount of service and experience he had.
4. The applicants conduct violated the trust placed in him as a leader, an officer, husband, and father. The passage of such a short amount of time since the imposition of the GOMOR does not overcome such misconduct.
5. The applicant does not dispute his guilt in the matter and contends that he simply wants the GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF so as to be eligible to be considered for promotion again, which appears to be self-serving and is not considered a valid reason for such an action under the circumstances.
6. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request to transfer his GOMOR from the performance section of his OMPF to the restricted section of his OMPF.
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) AR20120001976
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120001976
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020213
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for transfer of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), formerly known as the Army Military Human Resource Record. Documents in the restricted folder of the OMPF are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; show...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018886
He further states that he was promoted to the rank of CW3 at the next regularly scheduled selection board convened to consider officer for promotion to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) and was awarded a new DOR of 1 June 2006. On 16 May 2005, a board of officers convened at the Department of the Army, Secretariat for Selection Boards, in Alexandria, Virginia to consider the case of the applicant who had been referred for consideration as to whether he should be removed from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017923
The applicant states in 2007 his initial Federal Recognition Board (FRB) voted not to recommend him for promotion to CW3. A Federal Recognition Notification memorandum, dated 19 June 2008, informed the applicant his request for promotion to CW3 was not favorably considered by the FRB that convened on 12 June 2008. The opinion points out the applicant received a Federal Recognition Notification memorandum, dated 19 June 2008, informing him the FRB did not favorably consider him for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016575
Additionally, the three OERs submitted by the applicant since the GOMOR was imposed, rated his performance as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote," and recommended him for promotion to major. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for conduct unbecoming an officer and making a false official statement. Therefore, the applicant's outstanding performance of duty rendered after the issuance of the GOMOR and his support from his chain of command is sufficient evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007077
The applicant requests removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 21 September 2005, from the restricted section of his official military personnel file (OMPF). He provided the same statements from CPT Z_________l, CPT T____g, and SGT G_____n that he had submitted in rebuttal of his GOMOR. He contends the GOMOR was based on a perception of an improper relationship with a female Soldier within the battalion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006408
The applicant requests transfer of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 August 2010, and Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) letter, dated 27 November 2012, from the performance folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to the restricted folder. The DASEB Record of Proceedings stated the applicant received the GOMOR 2 years prior, there was no other derogatory information in his records, and he received only one OER since receipt...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016932
On 30 September 2011, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), after examining the applicant's record and the documents he submitted in appeal, determined the evidence did not provide substantial evidence that the record of NJP in question had served its intended purpose or that its transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. As a result, it would be appropriate to transfer the NJP record and all related documents, including the GOMOR, to the R portion of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021625
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the transfer of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 August 2008, from the performance section to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for misconduct and that it was filed in his OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001276C070205
The applicant requests removal of General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) from his official military personnel file (OMPF) and reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion consideration to chief warrant officer three under the 2004 and 2005 criteria. The applicant contends that the DASEB denied his request for removal of the GOMOR and that prior to his second consideration by the chief warrant officer three promotion board he requested that the DASEB reconsider...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003111
The applicant requests removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 October 2009, and a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report OER)) for the period 1 May 2009 through 1 February 2010 (20090501 thru 20100201, hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (also known as Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). c. Procedural background: (1) On 8 July 2011, the applicant submitted an appeal to the DASEB, requesting...