BOARD DATE:	19 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013037 


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 2 April 2007, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states the GOMOR was posted to his AMHRR incorrectly against the final written intent of the issuing authority (IA).  The GOMOR is unjust and was written and issued based on incorrect information.

	a.  The applicant states the GOMOR was issued to him on 2 April 2007 but was not filed in his AMHRR.  His battalion commander informed him that there was a GOMOR at Fort Leonard Wood, MO that had not been posted to his AMHRR.  This GOMOR was written based on incorrect evidence and prior to charges being dropped.  The applicant contacted the IA and the Department of the Army Inspector General seeking clarification as to the status of the GOMOR.

	b.  The applicant contends the IA never received the original rebuttal he had sent in 2007.  He sent another copy of that rebuttal.  After reviewing the rebuttal, the IA decided to file the GOMOR locally at Fort Leonard Wood because it had not been filed in his AMHRR.  On 17 November 2011, the IA sent a digitally signed email stating his intention to his Judge Advocate General (JAG) advisor as well as to his Aide de Camp and to the applicant.

	c.  The JAG, Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), WA stated that because the IA did not receive the rebuttal in 2007, he did not have all the information required to make a decision, so the placing of the GOMOR in his AMHRR could be considered unjust.

	d.  The applicant contends he informed his entire chain of command on numerous occasions over the next several months.  The JBLM Inspector General's Office stated in December 2011 that the IA's letter was of sufficient legal merit to stop all posting because the GOMOR was never filed and the letter stated his final intent.

	e.  The applicant states that on 14 February 2012, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) informed him that two GOMORs had been filed in his AMHRR.  He questioned HRC about how they received the GOMORs and he was told they were received by courier from JBLM.

	f.  The applicant states an investigation was initiated by the chain of command to determine how the GOMORs from Fort Leonard Wood were posted to the AMHRR against the IA's final written guidance and without guidance from the chain of command.  A determination could not be made as to why or how someone at JBLM obtained the GOMORs, why all the protocols and posting procedures were disregarded, or why the IA's guidance was ignored.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Exhibit A: Letter from Counsel, dated 24 April 2007
* Exhibit B: Memorandum from applicant to his chain of command, dated  13 April 2007
* Exhibit C: Email communication between the applicant and Imposing Authority, dated between 15 and 17 November 2011
* Exhibit D: Email communications between the applicant and the JAG, JBLM, dated 22-23 February 2012
* Exhibit E: DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 15 June 2012
* Exhibit F: Email communication between the applicant and the Executive Officer, Office of the Inspector General, dated 22 and 28 December 2011
* Exhibit G: Email communication between iperms@us.army.mil and the applicant, dated 15 February 2012
* Exhibit H: Email communication between the applicant and iperms@us.army.mil dated 21-22 February 2012
* 
Exhibit I: DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) dated 5 September 2012
* Exhibit J: Email communication between JAG, JBLM and trial counsel, dated between 2 July and 22 August 2012
* Exhibit K: Memorandum from Legal Assistance Attorney, dated 12 May 2011
* Exhibit L: Memorandum from Legal Assistance Attorney, dated 28 June 2013
* Exhibit M: GOMOR, dated 2 April 2007

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was a captain (CPT) serving at JBLM.

2.  Records show that, on 2 April 2007, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, issued the applicant a GOMOR, wherein he reprimanded the applicant for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on 18 March 2007.  The GOMOR was given as an administrative action and not as punishment.  The commander advised the applicant that he intended to file the GOMOR in his OMPF, but would not make a final determination until after receiving and considering any response submitted by the applicant.  The applicant was afforded a 7-day period in which to submit any matters for consideration before the commander made his filing determination.

3.  On 13 April 2007, the applicant responded to the GOMOR.  In that response, he stated he had read and understood the unfavorable information presented against him.  He requested that the commander consider his mitigating factors and file the GOMOR locally in lieu of in his OMPF.  He stated he was stopped for 
a minor traffic violation on 18 March 2007.  Later he was charged with DWI.  He stated that he took full responsibility for his actions and was prepared to accept the consequences for his lack of judgment and to learn from his gross mistake.  He stated this incident had taught him a valuable lesson about responsibility, accountability for actions, and the necessity to exercise sound judgment at all times.  He acknowledged as an officer in the U.S. Army that he was held to a higher standard of conduct and accountability and was looked to for leadership.  He was trusted with Soldier's lives and the Army's equipment.  He realized his actions placed his leadership abilities and character into question.  He contended this incident was completely out of character.  He had served his country as a combat engineer for over 5 years during which he never had a single disciplinary action brought against him.  He had been an exemplary Soldier since entering the U.S. Army in 2002.  He is a combat veteran who served in Iraq.  He had attended the Officer Candidate School and he was commissioned on 
7 September 2006.  He received the Army Commendation Medal for exemplary service to his unit.  He stated that as a second lieutenant in the Engineer Officer Basic Course his career was only beginning.  He prayed that his lack of sound judgment in one isolated incident did not ruin his opportunity to excel and grow in the U.S. Army.

4.  On 4 May 2007, the IA concurred with the recommendation of the applicant's entire chain of command and directed filing of the GOMOR in his OMPF.  However, the filing of the GOMOR in his OMPF was not accomplished in a timely manner.

5.  On 22 December 2011, the IA stated in an email communication to the applicant that he could not remember receiving a response to the GOMOR in 2007.  After reading the applicant's email with attached rebuttal to the GOMOR, the IA decided to file the GOMOR locally.  He advised the applicant to stay out of trouble.

6.  The applicant's AMHRR shows that on 14 February 2012 two GOMORs with related documents were filed in the Performance folder.  These GOMORs included the subject GOMOR, dated 2 April 2007, for DWI; and a second GOMOR, dated 5 April 2011, for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.

7.  On 25 June 2012, the applicant submitted a request to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) wherein he requested the subject GOMOR, dated 2 April 2007, be removed from his AMHRR.  He argued the reprimand was improperly filed and not in accordance with the final decision of the IA.

8.  The DASEB noted in its record of proceedings that the IA in 2011 had reversed his original decision of 2007 and decided to file the subject GOMOR locally.  It was also noted that the original filing decision had not been implemented until 14 February 2012.  The DASEB determined that the IA did not provide sufficient explanation to justify changing his original filing decision.

9.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contention that the GOMOR, dated 2 April 2007, should never have been filed in his AMHRR, the DASEB determined the GOMOR was properly filed in his AMHRR.  The DASEB found the applicant had not demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR.  The DASEB denied the applicant's request to remove the subject GOMOR from his AMHRR.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) provides that all personnel information recorded under the authority of this regulation is the property of the United States Government.

	a.  Once recorded, it will not be removed except as provided by law or this regulation.

	b.  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 one or more of the following:

* The ABCMR
* The DASEB
* Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, HRC
* The AMHRR custodian when documents have been improperly filed
* Commander, HRC, ATTN: HRC-PDO-PO, as an approved policy
 change to this regulation
* Chief, Appeals Branch, National Guard Personnel Center

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the GOMOR in his AMHRR should be removed because the IA had intended it to be filed locally.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows that in 2007 the applicant was charged for DWI and that he was issued a GOMOR as a result.  The applicant's response to the GOMOR clearly states that he made a "gross mistake" and had learned 
from it.  On 4 May 2007, the IA concurred with the recommendation of the applicant's entire chain of command and directed filing of the GOMOR in his AMHRR.

3.  The record shows that the applicant apparently did not learn from his "gross mistake" because in April 2011 he received a second GOMOR for the same type of misconduct.

4.  It is noted that the GOMOR issued in 2007 was not filed in a timely manner.  However, this does not mean that its subsequent filing was improper.  Furthermore, the IA's decision in December 2011 to file the GOMOR locally is moot.  He had already made a determination in 2007 to file the document in the applicant's AMHRR, where it became a permanent part of that file.  There is no substantiating documentation showing that the GOMOR is incorrect or unjust.  There is no evidence showing that the applicant was denied due process.

5.  The statement made by the JBLM Inspector General's Office in December 2011 is unsupported by law or regulation.  Simply because the IA later chose to change his filing decision does not mean he has the authority, without explanation, to do so.  The IA’s final filing decision was made in 2007 and still stands, irrespective of the delayed filing status.

6.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in this case.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20130013563



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013037



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1