IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  14 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130016226 


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 27 October 2008, from his official military personnel file, now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He did not know about the 3-year statute of limitations to request correction of his AMHRR until recently.

	b.  He left the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Battalion in November 2008 because he was nominated to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Algeria.  The same individuals behind his AMHRR issues initially tried to block his nomination.  The files were deliberately placed in his AMHRR.  At the time they did cause him to start a fight which could have more than likely caused him to be removed from the Embassy assignment.  The work he performed at the U.S. Embassy was extremely crucial for him for take such a risk.  He was the only Department of Defense employee capable of translating classified correspondences that included both the Office of Security Cooperation and the Defense Attaché Office.

	c.  Because he was supposed to serve for only one year at the Embassy, he promised himself not to fall in their trap and deal with the issue once he left Algeria.  However, because of the role he played at the Embassy and the relationship he developed with the Algerian Government, he was twice asked to extend his tour there, which he accepted.  Therefore, he served in Algeria from November 2008 to November 2011.  He requests the Board review all of the noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) he received during this assignment.  When he finally reported to Fort Stewart, GA, in January 2012, he felt he needed to establish himself with his new chain of command before he could tackle his AMHRR issue.  He felt that having some support from his chain of command could be beneficial to his case.  

	d.  Sometime after arriving in the 92nd Engineer Battalion at Fort Stewart, GA, his S-2 served him with a Statement of Reasons (SOR) from the Central Clearance Facility (CCF) informing him of their intention to revoke his Secret clearance.  Most of the reasons indicated on the SOR derived directly from his AMHRR; they included being titled with bigamy and being disrespectful to his chain of command, etc.  Additionally and perhaps most importantly, the SOR indicated that "SHAPE records revealed he had developed severe stress-related symptoms that had caused him to commence medication which resulted in his hospitalization at the Fort Hamilton Military Hospital in Brooklyn, NY."  Because this information was totally inaccurate and definitely fabricated, he decided to respond to the SOR, but chose the option which gave him the right to obtain relevant records/documents prior to responding.

   e.  As this whole situation was unfolding, his clearance was suspended which caused a prohibiting reenlistment code of 9P be placed on his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), indicating that he was no longer qualified to be retained in his current military occupational specialty (MOS) which required a minimum of a Secret clearance for senior NCOs.  This entire situation was unfolding at the very same time the Master Sergeant (MSG) promotion board was getting ready to convene.  Obviously, when the board results were published, he was selected to be separated under the Qualitative Selection Program (QSP).

   f.  As he continued to wait for the records he had requested from the CCF, he was also due to deploy in January 2013.  He is currently stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan.  Once there he continued to check with the S-2 almost daily about the requested documents.  Not only did those records never arrive, his clearance was finally revoked causing the battalion S-2 to remove all of his access to any government computer, his access to the Secure Internet Protocol Router, Non-Secure Internet Protocol, and Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange, to be revoked and he was not allowed to enter any location where secret information was displayed.  This situation lasted over two months and caused him great humiliation.

   g.  The CCF officials insisted they had proof and directed him to undergo another mental evaluation.  Despite the fact that he still had yet to receive the documents that he had requested since 2012, he finally subjected himself to their request by responding to the SOR and undergoing a mental evaluation at the Kandahar Airfield Hospital.  After CCF conducted a full investigation of all the accusations, his clearance was reinstated and upgraded to Top Secret with sensitive compartmented information.  All of his accesses were restored and he is now ready to appeal the QSP Board’s decision.  He submitted an appeal in April and on 17 July 2013 he was advised to direct his concerns to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

   h.  In December 1992, he married Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  Less than two weeks later, she informed him that she was going down south.  After waiting for her a couple of months and not hearing from her he left the house and moved on with his life.  He later met someone and developed a relationship with her.  When they both decided to get married, he contacted an attorney to file for divorce on his behalf.  The attorney informed him that because his marriage to Renee lasted less than a year, it could be annulled according to New York State Law, which he said was a much easier process.  He finally found Renee at home one day and served her with the document.  She did not hesitate and even went with him to a notary public to have the document notarized.

   i.  After transmitting the document to his attorney, he was advised that he was not a free man.  It wasn’t until 2002 when his first sergeant informed him that some woman was claiming to be his wife and had two children by him.  After discovering who she was, he immediately contacted the law office in New York to inquire about the problem.  He was assured the annulment was done.  He decided to go to New York to get to the bottom of the problem.  Before doing so, however, he was ordered to start an allotment supporting her two children whom she claimed were his children.

   j.  He found out the attorney he used had been disbarred for misconduct.  The law office quickly secured him a court date.  At the court date, the judge stated he could not make any final decision until Renee was served.  A person was hired to serve her and she refused to answer her door.  The bigamy charges were investigated by both the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and the Army Inspector General (IG) in 2006 while he was assigned to SHAPE in Belgium.  It is also important to note that at the time the investigation was ongoing his divorce with his then-current wife was final.

   k.  When the investigation was completed he received a letter of concern and the allotment he was paying was raised from $177.00 to $570.00.  Sometime after assuming the duties of S-3 NCO in Charge, he discovered that the child support payment in absence of a court order was a temporary relief that should last no longer than 18 months.  By that time, he had already been paying for nearly five years.  After completing paperwork he was told he was not able to stop his allotment for $570.00, but he did.  While at the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) he received an email that his child support payment issue had come up again and he needed to restart the allotment.  

   l.  Captain (CPT) J---en K----ck (Company Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), SHAPE Battalion) contacted the school and asked them to expel him unless he started the allotment.  He went to the Commandant’s office and was told to start the allotment or pack his bags.  He requested the chance to tell his side of the story.  The Commandant decided not to expel him.  Next he had to deal with CPT K----ck who claimed in counseling that he hoodwinked his commander by stopping his child support payments.  CPT K----ck then informed him that he was requesting the receipt of an Article 15.  Upon receipt of the Article 15, he chose a court-martial instead.  Up to the point when he left SHAPE Battalion nothing ever came up with the court-martial.

   m.  He is also willing and stands ready to swear under oath that he never appeared in Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) J—l W-----ms' (Battalion Commander, SHAPE Battalion) office to receive a notification for a GOMOR nor did he ever refuse to sign such notification.  Because of the lack of a strong or believable case for an Article 15 or a court-martial the chain of command waited until he left the command to sabotage his entire AMHRR with misleading information.  A totally different command investigated the bigamy case which ended with a Letter of Concern that was to be filed locally.  The issue which the new command had to deal with was the child support.  There isn’t one good reason for them to dig up the bigamy issue and file it in his AMHRR other than to destroy his career.

   n.  Since his arrival in the 92nd Engineer Battalion, Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx already informed his former commander that one of the children who is now 18 years of age is in fact not his.  Although CPT Bxxxx did write a memorandum for record (MFR) about such revelation, he was unable to be given a copy because the Judge Advocate General advised him against doing so.  He also received a memorandum from JAG stating that the child support payments in the absence of a court order was only intended for a limited time (18 months) to allow the claimant to secure necessary court orders.

   o.  Bigamy is a serious offense, not only because it is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) but because it is a criminal offense that can land the offender in jail.   Furthermore, he has yet to receive an NCOER with a mention of bigamy.  At a minimum, one should expect to see a "NO" checked on some of the Army Values (especially Integrity and Honor) of his NCOER.

   p.  He requests correction of his records be removing the second GOMOR from his AMHRR because it is misleading, inaccurate, and partly fabricated.  It is specifically missing the Article 15 proceedings in which he chose to receive a court-martial.  After a careful review of his NCOERs it will become evident that he has been a victim of a dishonest, misleading, and unjust chain of command, which was only motivated by their unjustified obsession to put an end to his military career.

3.  The applicant provides:

* ERB
* 1993 Annulment Summons
* 1994 Annulment Judgment
* DD Form 2658 (Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change an Allotment)
* 2002 letter for his attorney confirming annulment
* 2007 Memorandum of Concern
* 2007 Results of Commander’s Inquiry memorandum
* DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form)
* Four NCOER’s between 2008 and 2011
* Two email correspondences from CPT K----ck
* 2012 Waiver of the Army Regulation 608-99 (Family Support, Child Custody, and Paternity) Requirement of Financial Support memorandum
* New York (NY) Supreme Court Case 636

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* A Supreme Court of the State of New York summons, dated 12 June 1993, wherein he requested annulment of a marriage
* An Annulment Judgment, filed on 3 March 1994, for annulment of his marriage to Renee Rxxxxxxxx

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 19 September 1995.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75C (personnel management specialist). 

4.  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside and/or overseas assignments.  He was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 on 1 January 2005 and sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 on 1 December 2007. 

5.  He served in Germany from 25 September 1997 through 29 October 2003 and 7 November 2003 through 1 December 2006.  At the time of the reprimand, he was assigned to HHC, SHAPE Battalion, Belgium. 

6.  On 16 August 2007, the applicant was counseled by his company commander for the misuse of his Government Travel Card.  On the same date, he acknowledged the counseling.  Also on the same date, a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action was initiated against him for adverse action.

7.  On 12 September 2007, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully using his Government Travel Charge Card on 2 and 5 August 2007.  His punishment included a written reprimand and extra duty.  He did not appeal the punishment.  The imposing commander directed the Article 15 be filed in the restricted folder of his AMHRR. 

8.  On 19 September 2007, his battalion commander reprimanded him for the misuse of his Government Travel Card and overall personal affairs.  The commander further alerted him to pay off any and all remaining outstanding loans or bills, show proof that he was continuing to pay off a housing debt, show significant proof that he was working toward a divorce, and show proof that he had given a  blood test to establish paternity.  

9.  He provided copies of the following:

   a   A DA Form 2656, dated 16 April 2000, which shows he started an allotment in the amount of $177.60 per month to Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.

   b.  A letter from his attorney, dated 30 March 2002, confirming an annulment was done for him.

   c.  A Memorandum of Concern, dated 15 June 2007, wherein the applicant’s company commander advised the applicant that:

		(1)  The letter was to express his (the company commander's) concern with the applicant’s situation with regard to his marriage to Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  While the findings of the CID investigation would not lead itself to bring about bigamy charges, the chain of command was concerned in how he was currently addressing the issue.  They understood the particulars in the problem, but the fact remained that he had not taken the necessary steps to put that difficult aspect of his life behind him.  The chain of command had tried to assist him and he had not followed through.

		(2)  As an NCO who was (at the time) promotable to SFC, it was difficult to be an effective leader when his personal life was not in order.  He needed to take a hard look at his current situation and get it fixed.  The applicant owed it to the children that may be his to do the proper follow through, regardless of the relationship that he had with Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  If he had done everything he could do concerning the blood test and other factors were preventing him from completing the situation he had with Ms Renee Rxxxxxxxxx, that was one thing.  However, this was not the case.

		(3)  The letter of concern would be filed with his local file in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information).  On 15 June 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the memorandum.

	d.  Results of Commander’s Inquiry memorandum, dated 21 June 2007, wherein the applicant’s company commander advised the IG of the following:

		(1)  Separate investigations were conducted by the unit and the U.S. Army CID.  While the informal Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers) unit investigation was not conclusive in its findings, the CID investigation did determine that the applicant did commit the offense of bigamy when he unlawfully married Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxx and Ms. Melanie Hxxx (Bxxxxxxxxxx) while still legally married to his first wife, Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  Copies of both investigations were enclosed in the report.

		(2)  The investigation also showed that the applicant tried to annul the marriage to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  He was informed telephonically that his annulment was complete by his lawyer and he married Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxxx in 1993.  The applicant divorced Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxxxxx in 2000 and married Ms. Melanie Bxxxxxxxxxx in the same year.  The applicant was notified in 2002 that his marriage to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx was not properly annulled.  The applicant attempted to terminate the marriage again.  He spent a great deal of money to complete judicial proceedings, but was unable to do so because Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxx was unable to be served, despite numerous attempts by the applicant and local authorities.  The applicant divorced Ms. Melanie Bxxxxxxxxx in 2006.

		(3)  Upon legal review, CPT J--es A-----us, from the Northern Law Center, recommended to the command that a letter of concern be given to the Soldier.  The reason for that action was because the applicant thought the annulment was completed back in 1993 and went on with his life.  When he was notified that the marriage to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx was not annulled, the applicant went to great lengths to rectify the situation.  He wasn’t able to complete the action through no fault on his part.

10.  He further provided copies of the following:

   a.  A DA Form 4856, dated 3 April 2008, which shows he received counseling for being directed by his commander to restart his allotment for child support payments and to show proof that the allotment was set up by 7 March 2008 but it had not been done by one month later.  He submitted his disagreement on the same day.

   b.  Four NCOERs between 2008 and 2011 which show his performance was rated "Excellence/Successful" and "Among the Best" for each rating period.

   c.  Email correspondence from CPT Kxxxxxx, dated 29 February 2008, wherein she advised him that his being married to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx had resurfaced and that she was ill-informed to authorize him to stop his child support payments.  She further advised him to execute a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) II Order, hire an attorney with a receipt for a retainer and filing for divorce in New York and obtain deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing through a private company that was legally admissible in a New York court.

   d.  Email correspondence from CPT Kxxxxxx, dated 3 March 2008, which advised him that she (the commander) was tired of his insubordination and while she could not make him get an attorney and take a DNA test, she could order him to restart his child support allotment.  If he did not comply by 7 March 2008 he would be faced with UCMJ action upon his return.  She requested to see proof of the allotment taking place by the end of the week.

11.  In an MFR dated 8 April 2008, CPT Kxxxxxx summarized the dependent issues and misconduct committed by the applicant by stating:

   a.  The applicant had been married three times and was never officially divorced from his first wife.  His first wife claims the applicant fathered two of her children.  The children were born on 21 June 1993 and 21 November 1995.  The applicant also fathered a child out of wedlock with Ms. Vanetra Jxxxx.  The applicant’s biological daughter was born on 8 January 1997.

   b.  The applicant’s first wife was Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx; they were married in December 1992.  He tried to do an annulment in June 1993.  The applicant stated he received a verbal telephone call that his marriage to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx was annulled.  After what he thought was a completed annulment, he married for a second time to Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxx in August 1993.  While allegedly married to Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxxx, he had been claimed to have fathered a second child with Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx and did in fact father a child with Ms. Vanetra Jxxxx.  He later divorced Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxx in January 2000.  He then married again for the third time in April 2000 to Ms. Melanie Hxxx.

   c.  In 2002, the applicant’s previous command informed him of his marriages and his dependent issues.  He was ordered to provide proof of his marriage and annulment to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxx.  He was unable to provide these documents.  He was also ordered to remove Ms. Melanie Hxxx from Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and add Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxx. Those orders were never fulfilled.  Ms. Melanie Hxxx and the applicant divorced  in July 2006.

   d.  In 2006, separate investigations were conducted by the unit and by the U.S. Army CID.  While the informal 15-6 unit investigation was not conclusive in its findings, the CID investigation did determine that the applicant did commit the offense of bigamy when he unlawfully married Ms. Ikhlas Axxxxxxxx and Ms. Hxxx while still legally married to his first wife, Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxxxx.  Furthermore, after further review of his dependent issues, it was her opinion the applicant could also be changed with adultery.

   e.  The applicant had attempted to rectify his dependent issues back in 2002, but was unsuccessful.  In the same year, he initiated his dependent support to Ms. Rxxxxxxxxx in the amount of $177.60 per month.  In June 2007, his dependent issue resurfaced and he was counseled to fix it.  A couple months later, in August 2007, he was ordered to increase his dependent support to Ms. Renee Rxxxxxxxx to $570.00 in accordance with Army Regulation 608-99.  He continued these payments until December 2007.  In January 2008, he submitted a request to stop spousal support payments.  When the applicant’s request came through for stopping spousal support, he decided to stop his child support payments as well, which was never authorized. 

   f.  The command was notified in the end of February 2008 that the applicant stopped his child support payments.  After legal review, the command directed him to restart his child support payments.  He had not complied with these orders and the command sought UCMJ punishment.

12.  In an MFR dated 28 August 2008, the Chief, Military Pay, SHAPE, stated a pay inquiry on the applicant per his command revealed the applicant’s child support allotment was restarted on 7 April 2008 in the amount of $589.00.  That allotment was increased on 10 April 2008 to $662.18.

13.  On 12 August 2008, he was issued an administrative letter of reprimand for disobeying a written lawful order and disobeying Army Regulation 608-99.  The GOMOR stated:

   a.  On 3 March 2008, CPT K----ck ordered the applicant to restart his allotment for the support of his children and provide proof the allotment was started by 7 March 2008.  The applicant did not restart the allotment until 7 April 2008.  Additionally, he did not provide proof of allotment until Article 15 proceedings were initiated on 23 April 2008.  Regrettably, after that incident, he continued a repeated pattern of misconduct.  On 2 and 3 August 2008, the applicant was in Germany, without authorized leave or pass.  Then on 4 August 2008, he missed physical training formation and 0900 work call.

   b.  As a senior NCO, he was required to enforce Army regulations and follow orders.  The complications surrounding his marriage to Renee Rxxxxxxxx were understood; however, that did not absolve him of the requirement to obey lawful orders and Army regulations.  Following counseling after his return from the Advanced NCO Course, he continued to disobey Army regulations by not having an authorized leave or pass for Germany on 2 and 3 August 2008.  That demonstrated his continued failure to set the example for Soldiers and showed a continued pattern of misconduct.    

14.  An acknowledgement memorandum is attached to the letter of reprimand.  This memorandum contains the hand-written entries "Soldier refuses to sign."  Underneath this entry, the names and signatures of three officials (Battalion S-1 NCO, Company Commander, and Battalion Executive Officer) are listed.  

15.  On 29 August 2008, the applicant’s battalion commander recommended the letter of reprimand be filed permanently in the applicant’s AMHRR.  The battalion commander stated he recommended the filing due to the applicant’s pattern of misconduct, disrespect to superiors, and failure to follow orders.

16.  On 1 September 2008, the applicant’s company commander recommended the GOMOR be filed permanently in the applicant’s AMHRR.  CPT K----ck stated the applicant was an unprofessional Soldier.  He did not own up to anything.  He also disrespected her while she read him the administrative reprimand.

17.  On 2 September 2008, the garrison commander recommended the GOMOR be filed permanently in the applicant’s AMHRR.  He stated the behavior brought to light in the letter of reprimand illustrated a pattern of misconduct and a lack of respect for the applicant’s chain of command.

18.  On 27 October 2008, the Commanding General, 21st Theater Sustainment Command, stated that on 12 August 2008 the applicant's battalion commander reprimanded him for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and disobeying the requirements set forth in Army Regulation 608-99 to pay support to his dependents.  The applicant had refused to sign the acknowledgement of receipt of the administrative reprimand on 13 August 2008 and chose not to submit matters on his behalf.  After carefully examining the matters, he ordered the administrative reprimand permanently filed in the applicant’s AMHRR.

19.  There is no evidence he applied to the Department of the Army Suitability Board for a transfer of this GOMOR to the restricted folder of his AMHRR.

20.  He also provided copies of the following:

   a.  A Waiver of the Army Regulation 608-99  Requirement of Financial Support memorandum, dated 26 January 2012, wherein a legal assistance attorney, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA, stated:

		(1)  The applicant requests that the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority completely relieve him of his regulatory obligation to provide monthly financial support in the amount of $977.10 to his wife, Renee, as a matter of law because he and his wife separated in 1992.  Moreover, he has provided financial support to his wife continuously since 2002, as mandated by Army Regulation 608-99.

		(2)  From May 2002 to December 2011, he continually maintained his wife with monthly payments of up to and exceeding $700.00 per month.  Army Regulation 608-99 does not require a Soldier to pay his spouse any monetary support for a period exceeding 18 months.  Also, the applicant and Renee lived in an uninterrupted period of separation since December of 1992.  Army Regulation 608-99 does not require any monetary payments from a Soldier to his estranged spouse if the period of separation exceeds 18 months.  In this case, the applicant and his wife have been separated in excess of 260 months; therefore, Army Regulation 608-99 does not apply.

		(3)  The applicant attempted to seek an annulment of his marriage to Renee in November 1993, but his New York-based attorney did not complete the paperwork and the annulment failed.  Subsequently, the State of New York Bar disbarred the applicant’s attorney for various acts of misconduct and this annulment action was left in a state of limbo.  The applicant for years had tried to remedy this situation and had finally returned to a continental United States station (after being abroad since 1998) where he could effectively pursue his case.

   b.  New York Supreme Court Case Number 637 which pertains to disciplinary proceedings against his attorney.

21.  A review of his record located on the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) shows the GOMOR is filed in the performance file of his AMHRR.

22.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides the policy for authorized placement of unfavorable information in individual official personnel files.  It provides that:

	a.  Unfavorable information will not be filed in an official personnel file unless the individual has been given the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and make a written statement, if desired, that rebuts the unfavorable information.  The referral to the recipient will include reference to the intended filing of the letter and include documents that serve as the basis for the letter.

	b.  A GOMOR, regardless of issuing authority, may be filed in the AMHRR only upon the order of a general officer.  Statements and other evidence will be reviewed and considered by the officer authorized to direct filing.  Once an official document has been properly filed on the AMHRR, 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 that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR.  Only GOMORs, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted section.  Such 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.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) prescribes the policies governing the AMHRR Management Program.  It also prescribes the composition of the AMHRR.  This regulation states that once a document is placed in the AMHRR it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was reprimanded for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and disobeying the requirements set forth in Army Regulation 608-99 to pay support to his dependents.  He was given the opportunity to acknowledge the administrative reprimand and submit statements on his own behalf but he refused to sign (as evidenced by three officials).  After carefully examining the matters, the Commanding General ordered the administrative reprimand permanently filed in the applicant’s AMHRR.

2.  The ABCMR is not an investigate agency.  Furthermore, the ABCMR does not normally reexamine issues and/or findings by CID or the IG.  This is the appropriate investigative agency's function and it will not be upset by the ABCMR unless the determination is clearly unsupported by the evidence.  The applicant in this case was investigated by CID.  His chain of command determined he committed the offense in question.  He was given an opportunity to submit a rebuttal but he elected not to do so.  In other words, there is no violation of his rights. 

3.  The GOMOR is an administrative tool used by the imposing officer to train and rehabilitate.  Once the GOMOR was filed in his 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.  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 was an NCO in the rank/grade SSG/E-6, promotable to SFC/E-7, performing in a position of trust and authority.  Among the purposes of filing unfavorable information is protection, not just for the Soldier's interests but for the Army's as well.  Here, the applicant violated that trust.  

5.  There is a reluctance to remove from the AMHRR or transfer adverse information to the restricted section of an AMHRR when it places the applicant on par with others with no blemishes for promotions, assignments, and/or other favorable actions.  When it does move unfavorable information, it only does so if it has truly served its intended purpose.  Here, not only is the GOMOR properly filed, and not only has the applicant not proven this GOMOR to be either untrue or unjust, his continued denial of personal responsibility clearly shows it has not served its purpose in this case. 

6.  Based on the evidence of record and documentation he provided, he has not met the burden of proof.  He has provided insufficient evidence to show that the GOMOR contained significant inaccuracies, was untrue, and was inappropriately filed in his AMHRR.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20130016226



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130016226



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1