Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005301
Original file (20120005301.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  24 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005301 


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 a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from the performance portion of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) or placed in the restricted portion of her AMHRR.

2.  The applicant states that she received a GOMOR for being in an inappropriate relationship with a married junior enlisted Soldier.  The applicant continues at that time she lost her grandmother, with whom she had a very close relationship.  As a result, she was slightly depressed and not thinking clearly when making certain decisions, such as fraternizing with a junior enlisted Soldier.  She accepts full responsibility for her actions.

3.  The applicant states due to the GOMOR in her AMHRR she has been denied promotion to the rank of captain twice, which resulted in her being involuntarily separated from active duty.  Pictures of her inappropriate behavior and emails suggested that there was a relationship between her and the junior enlisted Soldier, but to her defense, she states that there was no relationship involved.

4.  She petitioned the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) requesting the GOMOR be removed from her AMHRR and or transferred to the restricted portion of her AMHRR.  However, the petition was 



denied.  In the interim she joined the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in November 2011, and she was assigned to Tripler Army Medical Center, HI.  She contends for the last four years, she has continued not to give up on her dreams of serving her country and has stayed strong and positive through the whole ordeal.

5.  The applicant further contends that she has learned a lesson from her lack of judgment and has not been afraid to share the experience with others.  She believes the continuation of the GOMOR in the performance portion of her AMHRR is unjust because she is a different person now versus four years ago.

6.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* a Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation, dated 7 May 2008, with exhibits A through Y 
* the GOMOR, dated 26 September 2008 and allied documents
* a DASEB response and allied documents, dated 1 September 2009
* a DASEB decision, dated 6 April 2010
* three Officer Evaluation Reports (OER's) for the periods 4 May 
2009 through 18 December 2009, 19 December 2009 through 
18 December 2010, and 19 December 2010 through 13 July 2011
* two Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) certificates

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army at the rank of second lieutenant, Nurse Corps, on 21 December 2005.  On 1 July 2006, she entered active duty.  She was assigned for duty as a medical surgical registered nurse at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington, DC.

2.  On 7 May 2008, an Investigating Officer (IO) completed an AR 15-6 investigation.  The investigation centered on an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and a married junior enlisted Soldier.  

3.  The IO found that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant and the junior enlisted Soldier did violate AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), Chapter 4, paragraph 14c(2), which addresses "Dating, shared living 





accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel."  The IO noted that the photographic evidence in exhibits J, K, L, and M clearly showed inappropriate and intimate physical contact between the applicant and the junior enlisted Soldier.   

4.  The IO further noted that the nature of the physical contact in the photographs was outside what would be considered appropriate social contact and was intimate in nature.  Additionally, the text in the exhibit H demonstrated a relationship outside of a purely professional context did exist.  The IO concluded there was evidence of a sexual relationship existing between the applicant and the junior enlisted Soldier.  Sworn statements from all witnesses state they did not know or did not believe that a relationship existed between the applicant and the junior enlisted Soldier.  Interviews with both the applicant's and junior enlisted Soldier's supervisors indicated that this had little to no impact on unit morale or cohesion.  

5.  The IO recommended that nonjudicial punishment be administered.  The IO further recommended that both parties receive a minimal adverse action of an official reprimand and that a maximum penalty consideration should be no higher than a general officer’s Article 15.

6.  On 26 September 2008, the applicant was reprimanded via GOMOR from the Commanding General (CG), North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington, DC.  The GOMOR was based on evidence from the AR 15-6 investigation that she had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a married junior enlisted Soldier with whom she worked. 

7.  The CG stated the evidence showed:

* she had an inappropriate relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier
* she appeared in photographs with the junior enlisted Soldier that depicted an intimate physical relationship
* she appeared in photographs with other enlisted Soldiers at her residence and the residence of another enlisted Soldier
* text messages from internet social network pages belonging to her and the junior enlisted Soldier demonstrating that a relationship existed outside of a purely professional context




8.  The CG further stated, "Your actions are unacceptable and fall below what I expect of an officer in the United States Army.  As an officer, you are expected to conduct yourself with the highest standards of ethics and professionalism and to set a positive example for your fellow officers and subordinates.  By fraternizing with a married junior enlisted Soldier, you clearly failed to meet those standards you are expected to uphold.  Your actions cast doubt on your fitness to continue to serve in positions of responsibility and leadership in the United States Army."

9.  On 30 September 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

10.  On 5 November 2008, the CG directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's AMHRR.

11.  On 1 September 2009, the applicant petitioned the DASEB to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted portion of her AMHRR.  She submitted character statements of support from her former supervisors attesting to her character and outstanding duty performance, and recommending that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted portion of her AMHRR.  In addition, she provided an OER for the period 17 June 2008 through 3 May 2009, showing she received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote," from the rater, and a rating of "Best Qualified," from the senior rater.  All of the rating officials recommended her for immediate promotion to the next higher grade.

12.  On 27 October 2009, the DASEB returned her request without action.  An official of the DASEB stated a review of her AMHRR showed that she initiated the request before one year had elapsed.  The applicant was informed to resubmit her request after she received another OER evaluation report showing consistent, solid duty performance over a sustained period or when there was other substantial evidence that supported transfer of the GOMOR in question.

13.  On 7 January 2010, she petitioned the DASEB to transfer the GOMOR from her performance portion to her restricted portion of her AMHRR.  On 1 April 2010, the DASEB denied her request based upon the GOMOR's intended purpose not having been served.

14.  The appellant submitted three OER's for the periods:

* 4 May 2009 through 18 December 2009
* 19 December 2009 through 18 December 2010
* 19 December 2010 through 13 July 2011

15.  The reports show that she received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from the raters, and rating of "Best Qualified" from the senior raters.  All of the rating officials recommended her for immediate promotion to the next higher grade.

16.  The applicant provided two ARCOM Certificates showing she was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service during the periods 23 October 2006 through 2 May 2009 and 10 September 2009 through 31 July 2011.

17.  There is no record of other derogatory information in the applicant's military service records.

18.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides, in pertinent part, that an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any 
general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier.  The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made.

19.  A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance portion of the AMHRR.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7.

20.  Only memorandum of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted portion of the AMHRR.  Normally, such appeals will be considered only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers.  The above documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted portion of her AMHRR was carefully considered.  The GOMOR was given based on her inappropriate relationship with a married junior enlisted Soldier.  The CG, North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and WRAMC noted the applicant's actions cast doubt on her fitness to continue to serve in positions of responsibility and leadership in the United States Army.

2.  The applicant provided several commendable OER's from active duty and the USAR from June 2008 to July 2011.  She further provided character letters from two former supervisors and two ARCOM Certificates.  However, in this case good performance and achievements alone are insufficient to mitigate her indiscipline in the Army and are not a sufficient basis for transferring a GOMOR from the performance portion to the restricted portion of her AMHRR.

3.  By regulation, in order to support removal of a document properly filed in the AMHRR there must be clear and convincing evidence presented that shows that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR.  

4.  Presumably the CG made her decision to file the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR only after careful consideration of all the factors presented by the IO and evidence of record shows the applicant elected not to rebut GOMOR.  It appears the CG made an appropriate decision to file the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR.  Further, this document was properly processed and filed in the performance portion of her AMHRR in accordance with the applicable regulation.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support transferring the GOMOR from the performance portion to the restricted portion of the applicant's AMHRR or removal of the document.  As a result, there is insufficient basis for granting 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)                                         AR20120005301





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005301



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003111

    Original file (20140003111.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006481

    Original file (20120006481.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests: * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 May 2009, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)) * in the alterative, transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted section of his AMHRR * the applicant's promotion to captain (CPT) * the applicant's reinstatement on active duty * a personal appearance 2. Counsel states: * the allegations which served as the basis of the GOMOR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015172

    Original file (20120015172.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 January 2009, from his Official Military Personnel File (now known as his Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR)). The applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal to the DASEB on 8 May 2012 and the DASEB denied his appeal on 28 June 2012 stating the following: * the BOI is limited to making a determination whether to retain (with or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016368

    Original file (20130016368.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests the: a. transfer of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from the performance section of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) to the restricted section; and b. appropriate redaction/removal of his referred DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), covering the rated period from 28 October 2007 through 6 February 2008, hereafter referred to as the contested AER. On 4 February 2008, the applicant's spouse filed a complaint...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004219

    Original file (20120004219.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only alleged evidence of adultery was a phone call between the investigating officer (IO) and a woman who never provided a statement for this investigation. f. the applicant and Mrs. D.V. made allegations against the applicant regarding adultery with Mrs.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007255

    Original file (20140007255.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Since the GOMOR, his record has been exemplary as evidenced by the Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) he received over the last 4 years; one of which was given to him by the same command he served under when he received the GOMOR. A GOMOR may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018180

    Original file (20120018180.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests: a. removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 20 July 2010, and the resultant general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 22 July 2010, from the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File); b. or alternatively transfer the DA Form 2627 and the resultant GOMOR to the restricted section of the applicant's AMHRR; and c....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150014471

    Original file (20150014471.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests: * removal of a referred officer evaluation report (OER) (hereafter identified as the contested OER) which covers the rating period 18 January 2011 through 31 July 2011 * alternatively, if the Board does not support removal, counsel requests its transfer to the restricted folder of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) 2. Counsel continues: * SSG JEG's character was brought into question during the investigation, and there were statements which described...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000795

    Original file (20130000795.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests correction of the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) by removing a: * General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 December 2009 * DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 1 February 2009 through 20 November 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) 2. The GOMOR was correctly filed. d. The applicant and his counsel did not provide clear and compelling evidence that shows the ratings in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003594

    Original file (20150003594 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of two General Officer Memoranda of Reprimand (GOMORs) and a Relief for Cause (RFC) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his record. The applicant provides copies of: * a 9 page personal brief titled "Brief in Support of Application for Discharge Upgrade" * an 8 September 2011 AR 15-6 (Procedures For Investigating Officers And Boards Of Officers) investigation with attachments * a 19 November 2014 Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASAB)...