IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018087 


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) from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  The person who initiated the complaint would not speak with the investigator or assist in the investigation in any way.  This case should have been dismissed at that point, as stated by her lawyer.  It was not.  She was defending herself against a slanderous, doctored word document which was the entire basis for the investigation.  This was her due process of the law and it was violated.  Her entire Army career was ended because of this "process."  The case should have been thrown out. 

	b.  The military records are unjust because the entire investigation was in violation of her civil rights, specifically her due process of the law.  When the person who initiated the investigation would not do more than send in a doctored word document, which could be shown to be changed very easily, and would give no more evidence then fade away, the investigation should have been stopped.  Nobody in her 20-man team ever saw anything inappropriate.  Her rights were violated and, since she was attacked by three Afghan men, her mental status was not where it should have been, she was just going through the motions.  She wants her record cleared for no more reason than peace of mind.  She should never have been subjected to such scrutiny.

3.  The applicant does not provide any evidence; however, she states all the evidence is contained in her OMPF. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and executed an Oath of Office on 23 May 2007.  She entered active duty on 7 August 2009. 

2.  She completed the Army Medical Department Basic Officer Leader Course.  She was promoted to captain in June 2010 and she served in Iraq from July to December 2011.  

3.  At the time of her incident, she was assigned to the 772nd Surgical Team, Task Force Medical – East, Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fenty, Afghanistan.  

4.  On 13 October 2011, an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to investigate allegations of a possible fraternization and an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and Staff Sergeant (SSG) JDS, both assigned to the 772nd Medical Detachment (Field Surgical Team) at FOB Fenty.  

5.  The IO found: 

* the applicant and SSG JDS violated the visitation policy of Combined Joint Task Force 1 (CJTF-1) General Order Number 1, dated May 2011, and Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy)
* the applicant and SSG JDS were both married to other people at the time
* the fraternization between the applicant and SSG JDS appeared to create an adverse impact on discipline, authority, and morale; however, the surgical team's performance had not been compromised
* the fraternization issue compromised the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command
* there was a perception of partiality by the applicant toward SSG JDS
* there was also a perception that the applicant and SSG JDS' relationship was exploitive in nature

6.  The IO recommended that the applicant receive a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report and a GOMOR and that she be relocated to Bagram to work as a nurse at the hospital.  

7.  On 20 January 2011, the Deputy Commanding General (CG), CJTF-1 reprimanded the applicant for engaging in an improper sexual relationship with a married noncommissioned officer (NCO), who was not her husband.  The reprimand stated:

	a.  Between 1 August and 1 November 2011, at FOB Fenty, she deliberately stayed late in the office when this NCO was working, routinely sat close to him as she watched movies in public view of other Soldiers, and took an exorbitant amount of time at meals with him.  She violated the visitation provisions of CJTF-1 General Order Number 1 by allowing this NCO into her personal living space.  Her Yahoo chat log with this NCO provided irrefutable evidence that she was engaged in an adulterous relationship with him.  Specifically, she stated "we can't act as if we are doing anything wrong...I was sore form [sic] the time we f---d so it was worth it."  Her misconduct is further amplified by the fact that she was advised about the perceptions regarding the fraternization from three different officers of different ranks, including her supervisor.  The perception of an inappropriate relationship between her and this NCO was pervasive throughout the unit. 

	b.  Her actions represented a significant departure from the standards of conduct expected of a commissioned office.  Her actions adversely impacted morale, discipline, and authority in her unit, and the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.  Her lack of sound judgment in the conduct of her responsibilities caused the Deputy CG to have serious doubts about her continued service as a commissioned officer. 

8.  On 14 December 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR.  She indicated she had read and understood the unfavorable information against her.  She submitted a rebuttal wherein she stated: 

* despite the irrefutable evidence against her, she did not have an adulterous relationship with SSG JDS
* the email account referred to in the GOMOR is not her email account
* she was genuinely sorry and she regretted her actions
* she admits to fraternizing with SSG JDS who is a family friend
* she realizes she should have known better 

9.  Her immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders recommended the GOMOR be permanently filed in her OMPF. 

10.  On 20 December 2011, subsequent to a legal review for legal sufficiency and after careful consideration of the applicant's case and the chain of command's recommendations, the imposing general officer ordered the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.  The GOMOR is currently filed in the performance section of her OMPF.
11.  On 7 June 2011, an officer elimination action was initiated against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfer and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.

12.  On 10 July 2012, she submitted a resignation in lieu of elimination conditioned on receiving a general discharge.  Her chain of command recommended approval.

13.  On 18 September 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) approved her resignation and ordered her discharged from the Army with an under honorable conditions discharge.

14.  She was discharged on 9 October 2012.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b by reason of unacceptable conduct with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  She completed 3 years, 2 months, and 3 days of active service. 

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 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.

16.  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.  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 Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7.  Paragraph 7-2 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.


17.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance section of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (DASEB or this Board). 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant, a married commissioned officer, was reprimanded for engaging in an improper sexual relationship with a married noncommissioned officer, who is not her husband.  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 and she did so.  Notwithstanding he denial of adultery, she did admit to fraternization which lends credence toward the finding that she created a perception of an inappropriate relationship.

2.  After careful consideration of the applicant's case and the chain of command's recommendations, the imposing general officer ordered filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.  The GOMOR is currently filed in the performance section of her OMPF.

3.  The quality of service of a Soldier in the Army is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit in the Army or prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant was a commissioned officer in the rank of captain, performing in a position of trust and authority, in a combat environment.  Here, the applicant violated that trust.  

4.  Among the purposes of filing unfavorable information is protection, not just for the Soldier's interests but for the Army's as well.  There is a reluctance to remove or transfer adverse information to the restricted section of an OMPF when it places the applicant on par with others with no blemishes for promotions, assignments, and other favorable actions.  When this Board does move unfavorable information, it only does so if it has truly served its intended purpose. 

5.  Here, not only is the GOMOR properly filed, and not only has the applicant not proven this GOMOR to be either untrue or unjust or that it has served its purpose, her continued denial of personal responsibility clearly shows this GOMOR has not served its intended purpose.  She 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)                                         AR20130018087



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018087



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1