IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002421 


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 her Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period ending 20 March 2010.

2.  The applicant states due process dictates that the OER be removed.  The command, despite having insufficient evidence, gave her a referred OER and refused to change course.  She submitted documents to remove the referred OER.  Unfortunately the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) declined her appeal.  On 8 December 2010, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) notified her to show cause to be retained.  In April 2013, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) found that the allegations referred to in the OER were not supported by the preponderance of evidence.  This referred OER has twice cost her non-selection for lieutenant colonel and significant bureaucratic hurdles with chemical battalion leadership.

3.  The applicant provides copies of –

* a 5-page self-authored review of the circumstances surrounding her OER 
* the OER in question (tab 1) 
* an 8 December 2012 Initiation of Elimination Notification (Retention Show Cause Board) (tab 2)
* a 26 May 2010 OER appeal (tab 3)
* a 26 May 2011 OSRB Proceedings (tab 4)
* 10 April 2013 Board of Inquiry Proceedings and determination (tab 5 and 6) 
* a 4 March 2010 General Officer Memorandum of Record (GOMOR) (tab 7)
* the applicant's rebuttal to the GOMOR (tab 8)
* a 25 March 2010 Senior Defense Counsel opinion related to the propriety of the GOMOR with three supporting statements and a news article related to the applicant's command's performance (tabs 9-12)
* a 3 April 2013 HRC Initiation of Elimination and Board of Inquiry Proceedings (administrative elimination board) notice (tab 13)
* an 8 September 2009 Individual Sick Slip (tab 14)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a Regular Army major, was commissioned on 8 October 1997 with promotion to major (MAJ) effective 13 August 2007.

2.  The applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Armor Center Training Command in the position of a training development writer on 3 October 2005.
 
3.  The applicant and Sergeant First Class (SFC) R____ report meeting in 2006 while they were both serving at Fort Knox but at that time their relationship was purely a working relationship.

4.  SFC R____ was assigned to duty in Korea in June 2006 for a period of 24 months.

5.  The applicant attended the Intermediate Level Education course at Fort Leavenworth, KS from 11 August 2008 through 12 June 2009.

6.  A 26 May 2009 U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Leavenworth memorandum to the applicant's command states:

"(The applicant) has had extensive medical evaluation and treatment over the past year due to chronic and worsening abdominal pain which required extensive hormonal treatments for severe endometriosis.  I believe this hormonal treatment contributed significantly to her significant weight gain.  Following her hormonal treatment, she had abdominal surgery from which she is now just completely recovering and indeed is still on medical profile as recommended by her surgeon.  (The applicant) is now able to focus on a good exercise and weight loss program and has already started losing weight.  She feels she will be able to get back to being able to do all required exercise by the time her profile is over."


7.  The applicant and SFC R____ married on 27 June 2009.

8.  She assumed command of Bravo Company, 110th Chemical Battalion (TE), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA on 15 August 2009.  At this time her husband was stationed at Fort Knox, KY.

9.  On 11 February 2010, an informal Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was completed.  The investigating officer (IO) shows that:

   a.  In a statement taken by the IO from the applicant during the investigation, she responded to the following questions as follows:

(1) When did the relationship between you and SFC R____ expand beyond a normal work relationship?
   Response – In 2006 while he was in Korea. 

(2)  When did you and SFC R____ begin dating?
   Response – 2006.

(3)  When did you and SFC R____ decide to get married? 
   Response – 2007

(4)  Is there anything you would like to add in regards to the allegations that you and SFC R____ engaged in a prohibited relationship?
   Response - "We were never co-located after his stationing in Korea and my attendance at ILE.  Before getting married we visited JAG at Fort Knox and were told that once we were married there would not be any questions."
      
   b.  In a statement taken from SFC R____ during the investigation, he responded identically to the applicant on dates and circumstances of their relationship and as follows to the additional questions:

(1)  Did you and (the applicant) seek legal advice before the marriage? If so, who did you see, and what was their advice?
   Response – "I called JAG and talked with one of their civilians (I don't remember any names) inquiring about relationships and marriages between Officers and Enlisted Soldiers and was told that if we got married there was no legal action that could be held against us."

(2)  Is there anything you would like to add in regards to the allegations that you and (the applicant) engaged in a prohibited relationship?
   Response – "I understand that a relationship between an enlisted Soldier and Officer may be prohibited, but at this stage in my life where l am about to retire, with possible Iraq and Afghanistan deployments still ahead, I didn't want to pass up on a chance to be happy for the rest of my life.  (The applicant) is a Chemical Officer and I am a Tank Master Gunner.  Our paths should not cross when it comes to chain of command or being assigned to the same unit; but if it did, one of us would remove ourselves from that situation.  We know our responsibilities as an Officer and NCO and will never let our relationship get in the way of us doing our job according to Army regulations."

   c.  In a statement taken from Mr. C____ A____, the applicant's supervisor at Fort Knox in 2005-2007, Mr. A____ stated he saw no indicators of an inappropriate relationship, nor was he aware that the chain of command or anyone else observed or expressed a concern over any inappropriate relationship.  (NOTE: The supervisor is the only person the IO could locate at Fort Knox who had any knowledge of any type of relationship between the applicant and her husband prior to their marriage.)
   
   d.  In his findings the IO stated he found that, based on the statements from the applicant and her husband, they had a prohibited relationship that began sometime in 2006.
   
   e.  In his recommended actions the IO stated:
   
      (1) Army Regulation (AR) 600-20 (Army Command Policy) does not prohibit marriages between officers and enlisted personnel.  However, paragraph 4-14c(2) prohibits certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, to include dating.  The paragraph goes on to explain that this prohibition against dating does not apply to marriages, but paragraph 4-14c(2)(a) specifically states "When evidence of fraternization between an officer and enlisted member prior to their marriage exists, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization." 
   
      (2)  The IO opined that he had found that prior to their marriage the applicant and SFC R____ had violated paragraph 4-14c by engaging in the prohibited relationship of dating and they, therefore, were subject to punishment under Article 92 (violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
      (3)  The IO did not believe circumstances justified UCMJ action and recommended the applicant receive an administrative reprimand.
      
      (4)  The IO cited AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14f, which provides that Commanders should seek to prevent inappropriate or unprofessional relationships through proper training and leadership by example.  The IO opined that not only did the applicant show poor judgment and disregard for regulations by entering into the inappropriate relationship, she also impaired her ability to set the example with regard to proper officer/enlisted personal relationships.  Since the findings indicate that the inappropriate relationship began in 2006 the applicant was a very senior captain with over 8 years of service at the time the prohibited relationship began.  She was a major with over 11 years of service when she married SFC R____.  These facts bring into question her judgment and ability to effectively command an Army unit.  He recommended the command consider her to be relieved for cause.

10.  On 21 February 2010, she was suspended from her assignment as Bravo Company Commander pending the finalization of an investigation for an alleged inappropriate relationship (fraternization).

11.  On 4 March 2010, the applicant received a GOMOR for an inappropriate relationship with an enlisted Soldier in violation of Army regulations and policy.
   
12.  The applicant appealed the GOMOR on 25 March 2010.

13.  In a 25 March 2010 memorandum, the applicant's legal counsel provided the following counter argument: 

a.  AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14 prohibits two types of relationships.  First, relationships that cause or appear to cause unfairness, are exploitative or coercive, or appear to compromise the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command are prohibited.  Second, "Dating, shared living accommodations...and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel…" are prohibited.  These prohibitions are specifically not applicable to marriage.  (The term dating is not defined by AR 600-20 or in the AR 15-6 investigation.)  Enlisted Soldiers and officers are permitted to marry.  Thus, the only part of (the applicant's) relationship that can be the subject of discipline is that which predates her 27 June 2009 marriage.  There is no evidence that she and SFC R____ were intimate before their marriage or that their relationship had any impact on their positions, responsibilities, or commands.

b.  Article 134, UCMJ prohibits officers and enlisted members from fraternizing, "…on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner... (if, such fraternization violated the custom of the accused's service...and...under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."  Further, Article 134 goes on the advise that, "factors to be considered include whether the conduct has compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale.  The acts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced by their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations of an officer."  Thus, as marriage is not prohibited by AR 600-20, it does not violate Army customs and is not prohibited.  Additionally, to violate Article 134 there must be some demonstrable prejudice to good order and discipline.

c.  There is no evidence that (the applicant's) and SFC R____'s pre-marriage relationship had any impact on her unit (a requirement under Article 134, UCMJ) or was intimate (a requirement under AR 600-20).  All evidence is to the contrary, the only witness to their pre-marriage relationship stated that there was no impact on the unit and he never saw them together outside of their duty day. 

d.  The negative statements utilized in the reprimand were not supported by the evidence of record.  There is absolutely no evidence that the "relationship" between (the applicant) and (her husband) was "intimate" before their marriage.  The investigation failed to define the term “dating” and their relationship did not go beyond a "normal work relationship" until after (her husband) was stationed in Korea.  This "dating" while on separate continents is clearly not within the scope of "intimate or sexual" relationships prohibited by AR 600-20.

e.  (The applicant) was married, and thus not in a relationship that is prohibited in any way when she took command on 13 August 2009.  No one from (the applicant's) current unit was interviewed during the AR 15-6 investigation.  Statements in support of the applicant from senior NCOs (the Command Sergeant Major and the Company B Team Master Sergeant) attest to there being no impact.  Additionally, there was no evidence that there was an impact on the unit (the applicant) was a member of prior to her 2009 marriage.

f.  (The applicant) is an exceptional leader as is evidenced by her impressive record and letters of support.  Additionally, the AR 15-6 investigation reveals that (the applicant) sought legal advice and then followed that advice.  This is what the Army expects of its leaders: to find out what right is and follow through.

14.  The GOMOR appears to have been voided or withdrawn as shown by the handwritten entry notation on the copy of the GOMOR the applicant provides.  The note states it was withdrawn by the issuing general officer on 8 April 2010. The withdrawal is supported by the fact that the applicant's iPERMS record does not include a copy of the GOMOR except as a part of the 2010 investigation report.

15.  On 6 May 2010, the applicant received the referred OER for a rating period ending 20 March 2010.

16.  The record contains two different copies of the referred OER.  The differences pertinent to this application are primarily that they show different rating periods covered and the number of months rated.

	a.  The copy utilized in her GOMOR shows the period covered as from 2 May 2007 through 20 March 2010 and the months rated as 6.

   b.  The copy of the OER in her iPERMS evaluation section shows the period covered as 1 July 2008 through 20 March 2010 and months rated as 8. 

	c.  Both copies of the OER show the following:

      (1)  Part IVa (Performance Evaluation - Professionalism (Rater)), regarding "Army Values," the rater box-checked "No" for Integrity and Duty.
      
      (2)  Part IVc - (APFT) has an entry "No." 
      
      (3)  Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)), the rater box-checked, "Unsatisfactory performance, Do Not Promote," and followed with a negative comment at Part Vb:

"However, she concealed from the command that she had not taken an APFT since before her arrival to the unit in July 2009 and failed body fat standards in November 2009.  During the course of investigating multiple inappropriate relationships in her company, I learned that (the applicant) had married an NCO last summer shortly before taking command in August 2009, a fact which was common knowledge in her company, despite her efforts to keep the matter private.  Whether her conduct gave others permission to misbehave is unclear, but her ability to lead B Company is now nonexistent."
      
      (4)  Part Ve (Comment on Potential for Promotion), the rater commented:

"(The applicant) had a serious one-time lapse in judgment with regard to fraternization.  She made some efforts to adhere to the Army's fraternization rules, and may have acted on bad advice.  She is fully capable of contributing as a staff officer; a role in which she has previously excelled provided she makes progress to allowable body weight."

      (5)  Part VII (Senior Rater (SR)), at Part VIIa, regarding the SR's evaluation of the appellant's promotion potential to the next higher grade, the SR checked the box "Do Not Promote." 
      
      (6)  Part Vllb, regarding the appellant's potential compared with officers of same grade the SR indicated, "Below Center of Mass - Retain."
      
      (7)  Part VIIc, the SR comments:
      
"I relieved (the applicant) of her responsibilities as a company commander after it was discovered that she had married an NCO.  I have lost trust and confidence in her judgment.  (The applicant) should be retained on active duty and can still serve the Army."

17.  On 26 May 2010 the applicant appealed the OER.  She stated –

* the OER contains both administrative and substantive errors
* her name was misspelled and her middle initial is incorrect
* the "from" date is incorrect
* there is no basis for the evaluations in Part IV, Blocks a. 2. and 7
* she was on profile and unable to take an APFT 
* she did participate in one height/weight evaluation in November 2009 but was unable to participate in a weight loss program at that time due to her profile
* was not counseled by her superiors after her initial counseling
* the narrative also alludes to her legal marriage to a Noncommissioned Officer prior to being rated by my rater and senior rater
* her marriage was investigated by the command and no information of any inappropriate relationship was found of the rules on fraternization and her legal marriage
* the evaluation is not based upon her actual performance but upon her marital status

18.  An Annual OER for period 21 March 2010 through 20 March 2011 shows the appellant was rated for eight months as the Provincial Reconstruction Team Operations Officer and in a deployed status under different rating officials; she had passed an APFT on 28 September 2010 and was in compliance with height and weight standards.  Both the rater and SR have assessed her performance as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote," and "Best Qualified," respectively.

19.  A 26 May 2011 Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) reviewed the applicant's Relief for Cause OER, utilizing the copy of the OER that shows the rating period covered as 2 May 2007 through 20 March 2010 and rated period of 6 months.  It was determined that the applicant had not provided compelling evidence to clearly and convincingly show that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the OER or that it contained material error that is inaccurate or unjust; therefore, it was determined that there was no basis to grant the relief requested.

20.  The 25 June 2012 Board of Inquiry was convened to determine if the allegations of derogatory activity (fraternization) and conduct unbecoming an officer that had resulted in a referred OER were supported by the preponderance of evidence.  That board determined that the allegations were unfounded and did not support the allegations.  It was recommended the applicant be retained. 

21.  On 8 December 2012, officer elimination proceedings were initiated by HRC against the applicant in accordance with the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, because of misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction.

22.  On 10 April 2013, a Board of Inquiry convened to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service and if so recommend the type of discharge she should receive.  The principle reasons for her board dealt with the same reasons she received the 2010 referred OER, her marriage to an NCO, and her failure to pass the APFT during the rating period.  The board found that the evidence did not support the allegation derogatory activity with her husband or of a finding of conduct unbecoming an officer as referenced on her referred OER.  The finding and recommendation were –

* the allegation of derogatory activity resulting in a referred OER for the period of 1 July 2008 - 20 March 2010, in the notification of proposed separation, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence
* the allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer indicated by the above-referenced item, in the notification of proposed separation, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence
* the findings do not warrant separation 
* the applicant should be retained

23.  On the issue of the appellant's physical profiles and failure to pass an APFT, the medical reports referenced in concert with her appeals are shown as:

   a.  a 27 September 2007 DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) stating "No" entries for all three APFT events and all alternate APFT events;
   
   b.  a 20 November 2007 DA Form 3349, showing a temporary profile with an expiration date of 31 March 2008, "Needs MEB/PEB," and "No" entries for all three APFT events and all alternate APFT events; 

   c.  a 28 January 2008 DA Form 3349, showing a permanent profile, APFT restrictions "No" sit-ups, "Yes" entries for 2-mile run and pushups, and "No" entries for all three alternate events;

   d.  an 11 July 2008 DA Form 3349 showing a profile with an expiration date of 10 October 2008, "No" sit-ups, "Yes" for 2-mile run and pushups, and no entries for all the alternate APFT events.  Other functional limitations indicate, "On medications that cause abnormal weight gain";

   e.  an 11 July 2008 DA Form 3349 showing profile with an expiration date of 11 July 2009, for illness/disease and sleep apnea.  Other functional limitations indicate, "Allow access to continuous electricity supply at all times; must be allowed use of CPAP machine"; 

   f.  a 13 December 2008 Patient Discharge Instruction Sheet and Medication Schedule, showing "Lifting restrictions: 10 lbs for 4 days" and "as tolerated," and home care instructions and a list of medications;
   
   g.  a 15 December 2008 DD Form 689 showing the appellant's disposition as "Quarters'' for injury, followed by remarks: "post-op" and "Surgeon recommends 5 days convalescent leave through 19 December";

   h.  a 23 April 2009 DA Form 3349, showing a profile with an expiration date 23 June 2009, "No" entries for all APFT events, including all the alternate APFT events.  Other limitations as "Patient had surgery in December 2008 and was instructed by surgeon to begin light workout in Feb 2009 and increase as tolerated.  Please exempt from HT/WT due to recent surgery."
   
   i.  An 8 September 2009 DD Form 689 showing the appellant's disposition as "Quarters for left foot injury, and the remarks, "No Run, Jump, March, Ruck, IBA, Squats, Lunges', Climbing X 30 days";

   j.  a 9 March 2010 DA Form 3349 showing a profile with an expiration date of 9 May 2010 and "No" entries for all APFT events, including all the alternate APFT events.

   k.  6 May 2010 DA Form 3349 showing a profile with an expiration date of 12 June 2010, "No" mile run, and "Yes" entries for APFT sit ups and pushups.

24.  AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System (ERS).  This includes the DA Form 67-9 (OER).

   a.  Paragraph 2-18c provides in pertinent part that reviewers of relief OER's will ensure that the narrative portions of the OER contain factual information that fully explain and justify the reason for the relief; verify that any derogatory information is correct.

   b.  Paragraphs 3-20 states each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period.  It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports.  It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered.  The determination of whether an incident occurred during the period covered will be based on the date of the actual incident or performance; it will not be based on the date of any subsequent acts, such as the date of its discovery, a confession, or finding of guilt, or the completion of an investigation.  An exception to this policy is granted for Relief-for-Cause reports based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period.  Example: A rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period.  They may refer to the prior rating period to explain the reasons for relief.

   c.  Paragraph 3-25c stipulates any evaluation comments, favorable or unfavorable, will not be based solely on a rated Soldier's marital status.  There are limited circumstances involving actual and demonstrable effect on the rated 
individual's performance or conduct when comments containing reference to a spouse may be made.  These comments will be focused on the rated Soldier's actions, not those of the spouse.
   d.  Paragraph 3-58 states that an OER report is required when an officer or warrant officer is relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved. Relief for cause is defined as an early release of an officer from a specific duty or assignment directed by superior authority and based on a decision that the officer has failed in their performance of duty.  In this regard, duty performance will consist of the completion of assigned tasks in a competent manner and compliance at all times with the accepted professional officer standards.  These standards will apply to conduct both on and off duty.
   
25.  AR 600-20 prescribes the policy and responsibility of command, which includes readiness and resiliency of the force military and personal discipline and conduct.  It states at:

   a.  Paragraph 2-17, the "relief for cause" process is in effect when a senior commander loses confidence in a subordinate commander's ability to command due to misconduct, poor judgment, the subordinate's inability to complete assigned duties, or for other similar reasons, the senior commander has the authority to relieve the subordinate commander.  Relief is preceded with formal counseling by the commander or supervisor unless such action is not deemed appropriate or practical under the circumstances.  
   
   b.  Paragraph 4-14 states that certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel are prohibited.  First, relationships that cause or appear to cause unfairness, are exploitative or coercive, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command are prohibited.  Second relationships include dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operation requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel.  This prohibition does not apply to marriages.  When evidence of fraternization between an officer and enlisted member prior to their marriage exists, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization.  Commanders have a wide range of responses available including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action or adverse action.  Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is appropriate.  Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied.
   
26.  AR 623-3, as it relates to an appeal, stipulates that the evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.

27.  Training Circular (TC) 3-22.20 (Army Physical Readiness Training) provides guidance for Soldiers recovering from injury, illness, or medical condition, and specifically chapter 6 provides for guidance on physical readiness training for Soldiers who fail standards or are on medical profile. In pertinent part, as it relates to temporary or permanent physical profile, paragraph 6-6 provides that Soldiers recovering from injury, illness, or other medical conditions must train within the limits of their medical profiles (DA Form 3349) and be afforded a minimum train-up period of twice the length of the profile.  Prescribed train-up periods must not exceed 90 days before APFT administration or other unit physical readiness goal requirements in accordance with AR 350-1.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's referred OER initially had a number of administrative errors that appear to have been corrected at different times.  Her evaluation period covers a period of 21 months of which only 8 are reported as being rated.

2.  While the applicant's OER correctly states that she did not have a current valid APFT and she had failed a height/weight test in 2009, the preponderance of evidence shows that she was on profile during all but 3 months of that period which prevented her from completing the APFT.

3.  Additionally, the contention that she had not advised her command of this fact and that she had not notified the command of her 2009 height/weight failure is belied by the 26 May 2009 U.S. Army Medical Department memorandum to her command about her medical condition.

4.  The appellant has addressed the issues in her referred OER on numerous occasions.  With the exception of the OSRB, all of the boards and reviewers, including the brigadier general who issued and then revoked the GOMOR, have rendered the opinion that the evidence did not support the findings as noted in contested OER.  Even the BOI recommended the applicant be retained.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant and her husband were intimate before their marriage or that their relationship had any impact on their positions or responsibilities.  In fact there was no evidence that, prior to their marriage, their relationship was known to any member of their commands.

6.  The advice received from someone in legal at Fort Knox prior to her marrying was either incomplete or just bad.  However, it does show the applicant and her husband were attempting to comply with regulations.

7.  Although the total period covered by the referred OER commences prior to her marriage, the period actually rated commenced at the time she reported to Fort Lewis and after her legal marriage.

8.  Further, the rating official stated it was her marriage to an NCO that caused him to lose confidence in her warranting her relief, not that prior to her reporting to the command that she dated an NCO.

9.  Additionally, the actual 8 months of rated time was all after she was married and is not fraternization.  Her actual marriage to an NCO is not a prohibited activity.  Regulations state any evaluation comments, favorable or unfavorable, will not be based solely on a rated Soldier's marital status.

10.  Therefore, as a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to remove the OER ending 20 March 2010 and all related records from her records and enter an appropriate statement showing the period as a nonrated period.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  removing the OER ending 20 March 2010 and all records related to the OER and subsequent actions from her records; and 
    


   b.  enter an appropriate statement showing the period as a nonrated period.



      _____________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)                                         AR20140002421



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002421



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1