BOARD DATE:	  18 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011747 


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 the removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from the restricted section of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the official military personnel file. 

2.  She states:

* she now has letters of support of her chain of command with a recommendation for removal of the GOMOR
* earlier this year, she applied for the Intermediate Level Education (ILE) course
* an After Action Report, Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Officer Professional Development Education (PDE) Board has requested she show cause for retention in the USAR based on the GOMOR in her records
* the outcome of this request would determine her future as a Soldier
* the GOMOR does not define her as a Soldier and/or a person; she has served for 31 years as an enlisted Soldier, noncommissioned officer (NCO), and commissioned officer

3.  She provides:

* Two letters of recommendation
* Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) decision
* Notification letter to show cause for retention
* Orders assigning her to the Warrior Transition Unit
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant previously served in an enlisted capacity in the USAR and held military occupational specialties 91C (Practical Nurse) and 91B (Medical Specialist).  She served in various positions and attained the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.

2.  She was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the USAR, Army Nurse Corps, and executed an oath of office on 23 December 1993.  She served in a variety of assignments and she attained the rank of captain on 25 July 2001.

3.  On 26 February 2003, the USAR Command issued her a Notification of Eligibility for Retired pay at Age 60 (20-year letter).  

4.  She entered active duty on 10 September 2004.  She served in multiple assignments, including Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. 

5.  On 14 January 2008, an Army Internal Review, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, provided law enforcement officials (U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID)) with copies of a travel voucher settlement packet submitted by the applicant to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).  An analysis of the travel documents revealed between April 2006 and June 2007, the applicant submitted a fraudulent lease claiming she was paying rent in the amount of $3,850.00 per month.  Additionally, from July 2007 to the present, she claimed to rent the same property for $4,200 per month.  On         23 January 2008, she was advised of her rights which she waived and she admitted she prepared a fraudulent lease to make the filing procedures easier for herself.  

6.  The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Military District of Washington (MDW) believed there was probable cause she had committed the offense of fraud when she provided a fraudulent lease to DFAS. 

7.  On 26 May 2008, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, MO, published orders promoting her to major, effective 26 May 2008.

8.  On 18 July 2008, the Commanding General (CG), MDW, reprimanded the applicant for her actions.  The GOMOR states:

	a.  Between 1 April 2006 and 1 July 2007, she submitted documents to DFAS requesting reimbursement of rental expenses.  Contrary to her claims, a review of her tax records revealed she had purchased the property on 16 May 2006.  In a sworn statement to CID, she admitted that she had her mother sign a fictitious lease with blank receipts which she submitted to DFAS.  Ironically, an audit revealed that had she filed accurate vouchers, her legitimate reimbursements would have exceeded what she claimed in rent.

	b.  As an officer, her integrity should be beyond reproach.  It mattered little that her dishonesty did not result in a financial gain.  An officer's integrity cannot be measured in dollars and cents.  Her obligation, as an officer and a Soldier, was to simply give DFAS her actual living expenses.  She failed in that mission.  The CG added that he seriously questioned whether she, an officer who would involve her own mother in a criminal scheme, has the integrity necessary for continued service.

9.  She acknowledged receipt and submitted a rebuttal wherein she stated:

* She highlighted her performance and achievements as an Army Nurse
* She assured the CG that there was no malice on her part
* She took full responsibility for her actions
* She learned a valuable lesson and indicated such behavior would not be repeated
* She requested the GOMOR not be placed in her official records

10.  On 6 and 7 August 2008, her immediate and senior commanders recommended the GOMOR be filed in the AMHRR and on 11 August 2008, the CG, North Atlantic Regional Medical Command, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, also recommended the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant's AMHRR.  

11.  On 12 August 2008, after carefully considering the reprimand, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and all matters submitted by the applicant in defense extenuating or mitigating, along with the recommendations of subordinate commanders, the CG ordered the GOMOR be placed permanently in the applicant's AMHRR.  

12.  She was honorably released from active duty on 11 September 2008 and she was transferred to a Reserve unit. 

13.  On 22 September 2011, the DASEB voted to transfer the GOMOR from the performance to the restricted section of her AMHRR and stated this action is not to be considered retroactive and therefore did not constitute grounds for promotion reconsideration. 

14.  On 12 April 2012, she was considered by the FY11 USAR Officer PDE Board.  The majority of the members of this board recommended that she be required to show cause for retention in the USAR.  

15.  She submitted:

	a.  A letter of recommendation, dated 25 May 2012, from the CG, USAR Sustainment Support Command, Los Alamitos, CA, who recommends removal of the GOMOR from the applicant's records because it has served its purpose.  He describes her as an officer with exceptional qualities as a Soldier, leader, and mentor.  He comments on her performance and describes her as a highly competent officer who will continue to make positive contributions to the USAR.   

	b.  A letter of recommendation, dated 20 May 2012, from her supervisor, a colonel, who also recommends removal of the GOMOR from the applicant's records because it has served its purpose.  He describes her as a professionally competent officer who can be counted on to accomplish multiple duties or responsibilities. 

16.  Her records show she has received the following awards and officer evaluation reports (OERs) since receipt of the GOMOR:

* OER for the rating period 2 February 2010 through 13 September 2010 that shows she was rated "Outstanding Performance – Must Promote," "Best Qualified," and "Above Center of Mass"
* OER for the rating period 4 February 2009 through 3 February 2010 that shows she was rated "Outstanding Performance – Must Promote" and "Best Qualified" 
* OER for the rating period 5 May 2008 through 11 September 2008 that shows she was rated "Outstanding Performance – Must Promote" and "Best Qualified" 
* Army Commendation Medal for service from 6 September 2006 to          11 September 2008
* Meritorious Service Medal for service from 12 February 2009 to              12 February 2010

17.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides 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.

18.  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 section.  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 OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-37.  Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and standards) provides 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.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) governs the composition of the AMHRR and states that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.  Table B-1 covers authorized documents and states administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature are filed in the performance section of the AMHRR.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted fraudulent vouchers to DFAS.  An internal Army review discovered discrepancies in her settlements and a subsequent CID investigation confirmed the offense.  In a sworn statement, she admitted that she committed fraud.  

2.  Accordingly, she received a GOMOR.  She was afforded the opportunity to review all of the evidence against her and to submit matters on her own behalf prior to a final filing decision.  Her chain of command provided their recommendations and after carefully considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, and all matters submitted by the applicant, along with the recommendations of subordinate commanders, the CG ordered the GOMOR be placed permanently in the applicant's AMHRR.  

3.  The GOMOR is an administrative tool used by the imposing officer to train and rehabilitate.  Once the GOMOR was filed in her AMHRR, it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.

4.  As the GOMOR indicated, it mattered little that her dishonesty did not result in a financial gain.  An officer's integrity cannot be measured in dollars and cents. The quality of service of a Soldier in the Army is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit to the Army or is prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant – previously a senior NCO - was a commissioned officer with several years of prior enlisted service.  

5.  Her conduct was inexcusable and her actions brought discredit to herself, the Officer Corps, and the Army.  Her actions displayed a lack of discipline and raised questions about her ability to effectively perform as a leader.  Her call to show cause for retention is a natural consequence of her actions.  

6.  The DASEB considered her service and achievements.  Based on that consideration, the DASEB ordered the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted section of her AMHRR.  However, this action does not negate what she did.  A Soldier's achievements seldom outweigh integrity violations.  

7.  Most importantly, at the time she was under investigation by CID, her records were not flagged.  Additionally, no entry was made of the GOMOR on her OER at the time.  As such, HRC published a promotion order promoting her to MAJ while under investigation.  It is clear that by a windfall, the applicant has already received relief that is normally not otherwise available to others. 

8.  The GOMOR is correctly filed.  The applicant has not proven this GOMOR to be either untrue or unjust.  She should not be entitled to any 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)                                         AR20120011747





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011747



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1