IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 December 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120009356
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 correction of his retired grade to show he retired as a major/0-4.
2. The applicant states that with the exception of one incident, outlined in the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) he received, he served honorably for more than 21 years. He states he was the one who brought the incident to the attention of his superiors and had he not, it never would have been known by the Army. He claims he took full responsibility for the incident and accepted his punishment. He states the Army believed he was serving honorably enough to deploy him for a second year after the incident and placed him in positions of responsibility, where he served more than adequately. He states that to give him this additional punishment after all this time is incredibly unfair and unjust.
3. The applicant provides the documents identified in his application in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The record shows, after prior service in an enlisted status, the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on
18 August 1999. He entered active duty in that status on 23 January 2000.
2. The record shows he was promoted to first lieutenant on 25 October 2000, to captain on 1 October 2002, and to major on 1 May 2009.
3. On 12 May 2010, the applicant received a GOMOR for cheating on the National Certification Examination for Nurse Anesthetists on 5 January 2010. The imposing general officer (GO) stated the applicant was reprimanded for his actions and that the applicants decision to cheat on a certification examination was unacceptable and that these actions fell far below what the Army expects of an officer and health care professional. The GO indicated the applicant exhibited tremendous immaturity and a serious lack of integrity which caused him to question the applicants fitness for continued service.
4. On 21 March 2012, the Commanding General (CG), 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, initiated elimination action on the applicant for misconduct and moral professional dereliction.
5. The applicant requested retirement in lieu of elimination and on 21 March 2012, the CG, 101st Airborne Division, recommended approval of the applicants request and that the applicant be retired in the grade of captain given that was the last grade in which the applicant served honorably.
6. On 10 May 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), after review by the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), approved the applicants retirement in lieu of elimination and directed the applicant be placed on the Retired List in the grade of captain/0-3E.
7. The applicant provides the packet he submitted to the AGDRB requesting retirement as a major/0-4, which included supporting statements by two colonels who recommended the applicant be retired in the grade of major/0-4 based on his honorable service to the country and the Army while holding that grade with the exception of one minor and isolated incident.
8. Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the AGDRB and other organizations delegated authority to make grade determinations on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. It states, in part, that a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive. The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits. Considerations include the nature and severity of misconduct and the grade at which the misconduct was committed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants request to correct his retirement grade to major/0-4 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms the AGDRB appropriately considered the applicants case and determined his misconduct which took place while he was serving as a major/0-4 was severe enough that his prior service in that grade was not sufficiently meritorious to support his retirement in that grade. As a result, absent any evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant to show any error or injustice in the AGDRB process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support 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) AR20120009356
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120009356
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012690
The applicant states the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered information that was erroneously placed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AHMRR) and has since been removed. He provided a memorandum from the Commanding General, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, dated 27 February 2013, wherein MG J____ C. M____ stated he did not intend for the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation to be placed in the applicant's AMHRR as an allied document to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005984
Her record shows she was promoted to MAJ on 19 June 2005. Her record contains an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the rating period 26 October 2009 through 4 June 2010. d. Her senior rater checked the block "Below Center Of Mass, Do Not Retain" and stated "[Applicant's] conduct and performance has been unacceptable for an officer in the United States Army and cannot be tolerated.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011848
The applicant states he served on active duty in the rank of major for more than 6 years and is being retired in the rank of captain based on a determination by the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). Instead, an officer is retired in the highest grade served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the SA or the Secretary's designee. _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...
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 | CY2014 | 20140020641
The applicant states: a. However, this one incident on her record forced her to retire and she was placed on the Retired List in the rank of 1LT/O2E. During that time she was a company commander and CSM G was the Battalion CSM.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008481
He further indicated that his action was not intended to support the applicant’s retirement in his current rank, and he submitted matters for consideration in determining the applicant’s appropriate retirement grade. On 31 October 2002, the PERSCOM Chief, Officer Retirements and Separations Section, submitted the applicant’s retirement packet to the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) and requested it evaluate the applicant’s file to determine the highest grade in which he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012597
As such, I have removed him from command. The applicant is more focused on that the GOMOR-imposing officer has since decided the GOMOR has served its intended purpose, and that since the GOMOR-imposing officer supports removal of the GOMOR from his records, he must also support removal of the contested OER from the same records. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's AMHRR, the applicant's contentions and arguments, and the evidence submitted in support of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004979
The applicant requests the removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his official military personnel file (OMPF). A memorandum of reprimand 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 section. As such, the GOMOR was correctly filed in the performance section of his OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009277
The memorandum stated the action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination: * a series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a GOMOR, dated 12 May 2010 and a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 24 May 2007 - 30 June 2010, which were filed in his official military personnel file * conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the foregoing items 6. On 18 April 2012, the applicant submitted a request for a retired grade determination in the rank of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007867
l. The IO did not state that the evidence supported that a sexual relationship existed between the applicant and the spouse of the E-7. The E-7 alleged that the applicant had an inappropriate sexual relationship with his spouse. The available evidence shows that the applicant received a GOMOR as a result of his conduct from 2001 until at the very least April 2011.