BOARD DATE:	  3 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006408 


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 transfer of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 August 2010, and Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) letter, dated 27 November 2012, from the performance folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to the restricted folder.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He believes the GOMOR has served its intended purpose and it is in the best interest of the Army to transfer it to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  Transfer of the GOMOR and DASEB letter would allow him to compete for and attain increased responsibilities within the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) and to continue serving the Army and his country.  His current and former supervisors and colleagues support this request as does Lieutenant General (LTG) C____ T. C____, the GOMOR-imposing officer who was a major general (MG) at the time.  LTG C____ clearly established his belief that the GOMOR has served its purpose.

	b.  He has always accepted responsibility for his actions and maintained his integrity.  Upon receipt of the GOMOR, he acknowledged and apologized for his wrongdoing.  He has continued to fight for his career and perform to his potential.  His officer evaluation reports (OER) depict the caliber of officer that he is and will continue to be.  His conduct has had a profound effect on his career and family.  Although it continues to be a struggle to overcome this single lapse in judgment, he has continued to strive to be the best leader possible.  He has learned a tremendous lesson and believes he is a better officer and leader because of it.

	c.  As a result of his misconduct, he was forced out of the special forces community, received no permanent change of station award, and was unable to become joint-service qualified.  He has been unable to complete a long-term health and education training program to obtain a master's degree that is required for retention in his field.

	d.  In July 2012, he filed a request with the DASEB to have the GOMOR transferred to his restricted folder, but his request was denied on 27 November 2012.  The DASEB stated the OER he received during the period he was reprimanded made no reference to his misconduct.  While true, he received a memorandum from his company commander stating he did not meet rater qualifications at that time.

	e.  As a result of the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of his OMPF, he was selected during the below-the-zone Major (MAJ) Medical Service Corps (MSC) Promotion Selection Board for show-cause proceedings that were initiated by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC).  On 19 March 2014, he was notified of initiation of the proceedings and he is currently undergoing a show-cause board.  He is hopeful the board will retain him on active duty and, with the GOMOR and DASEB letter filed in his restricted folder, he will again be competitive for promotion and advanced training and can continue to contribute to the Army at increased levels of responsibility.

	f.  He understands the seriousness of his request and that this is his last chance to remain on active duty.  He is approaching 10 years of active service and has completed 19 months of deployment.  He continues to volunteer for the toughest assignments, has been assigned to MAJ/O-4 billets during his last two assignments, demonstrated a solid performance over a sustained period, and has proactively sought every professional development opportunity throughout his career.

	g.  He completed airborne, air assault, and pathfinder training, the Joint Medical Planners Course, Officer Advanced Course, and other leadership courses.  He earned the Expert Field Medical Badge, Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star Medal, and other various awards.  In 2012, he was one of only two officers in his career field selected by the Office of the Chief of the MSC to attend Junior Officer Week to demonstrate his commitment to the Army and to our Soldiers.

3.  The applicant provides his Officer Record Brief, five DA Forms 67-9 (OER's), 15 memoranda, DASEB Record of Proceedings with cover letter, and an excerpt from MSC Today, volume 1, issue 16, February 2012.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior Reserve service, the applicant was appointed as an MSC captain (CPT) in the Regular Army on 1 October 2008.  He was assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (SFG), Fort Campbell, KY.

2.  On 16 August 2010, he received a GOMOR issued by MG C____ T. C____, Commander, Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), MacDill 
Air Force Base, FL.  The GOMOR stated:

	a.  The applicant was being reprimanded for multiple violations of a lawful general order, facilitation of alcohol use in a combat zone, and abhorrent failure to enforce standards.  Between 26 May and 13 June 2010, he consumed alcohol on numerous occasions while in a combat zone and assigned to the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula.  He also gambled for money during the same time frame.  His alcohol consumption and gambling violated paragraphs 3c and 3h of U.S. Forces-Iraq General Order (GO) Number 1.

	b.  His willful actions violated the high standards of personal conduct and exemplary behavior expected of a commissioned officer.  As an officer, he had an absolute, unquestionable duty to set the standard in exercising good judgment, leading by example, and conducting himself as a responsible professional at all times.  He utterly failed to do so and instead he demonstrated shamefully poor judgment and an unacceptable lack of foresight as to the consequences of his actions.  The SOCCENT Commander was deeply disappointed by his reprehensible conduct that raised serious doubts concerning his maturity, judgment, self-discipline, integrity, and potential for future service.  He discredited himself, 5th SFG, SOCCENT, and the U.S. Army.

	c.  MG C____ stated he was imposing the reprimand as an administrative measure under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  On 19 August 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and submitted a rebuttal.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated:

	a.  He had learned a great deal from his mistakes.  He acknowledged his actions were shameful and realized the seriousness of the reprimand.  He exercised poor judgment and he was disappointed and embarrassed by his actions.  He made a sworn statement admitting wrongdoing to the investigating officer (IO) and was aware that his personal actions and misconduct within the medical section were wrong, regardless of whom and how many officers were present or involved.  The investigation took countless hours of the command's time and attention away from the mission in Iraq and affected a large number of Soldier's lives.

	b.  He regretfully acknowledged that his actions were disgraceful, not only to himself but also negatively impacted the image of the 5th SFG and the entire special operations community.  He asked that MG C____ consider his willingness to take personal responsibility and that he never blamed anyone else for his actions.  He was truly sorry he did not seize the opportunity to lead or act as expected of an Army officer.  He felt his 6 years of unblemished service and his four previous deployments with the 5th SFG leading up to his mistakes demonstrated his leadership abilities.  He was a valuable officer who should be afforded the opportunity to continue his career as an environmental science officer.  As such, he respectfully requested consideration of the IO's recommendation and filing the GOMOR locally in his military personnel file.

4.  On 17 September 2010, MG C____ directed filing the GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF.  It is currently filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.

5.  On 17 December 2010, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), West Point, NY.

6.  While assigned to MEDDAC, West Point, he received "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified" ratings for his OER's covering the periods 15 June 2010 through 31 May 2011 and 1 June 2011 through 31 May 2012.

7.  He successfully completed the:

* Preventive Medicine Senior Leaders Course at Fort Sam Houston, TX, from 24 January to 3 February 2012
* MSC Company Grade Leader Development Course in Washington, DC, from 26 to 30 March 2012 

8.  On 26 June 2012, he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious service as the Chief, Environmental Health, Keller Army Community Hospital, West Point, for the period 17 December 2010 to 10 September 2012.

9.  On 28 June 2012, he was given authorization for the acceptance, retention, and permanent wear of the German Armed Forces Proficiency Badge, Gold Level.

10.  On 25 July 2012, he filed an appeal with the DASEB requesting transfer of his GOMOR to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  He submitted a letter of support, dated 25 July 2012, wherein LTG C____, the GOMOR-imposing authority, stated he fully supported the applicant's request.  LTG C____ further stated the reprimand had served its intended purpose and would be in the best interests of the Army to transfer it.  The applicant had admitted his wrongdoing, accepted responsibility, showed remorse, and did not attempt to excuse his mistakes.  Since the GOMOR, he had demonstrated he will not be held back by the mark on his record and had performed exceptionally at West Point.  He should have the opportunity to redeem himself and transferring the reprimand to the restricted folder would allow this.

11.  On 18 October 2012, his request was denied.  The DASEB Record of Proceedings stated the applicant received the GOMOR 2 years prior, there was no other derogatory information in his records, and he received only one OER since receipt of the GOMOR.  Although the OER depicted a solid performance, insufficient time had elapsed for him to demonstrate a solid performance over a sustained period.  Careful consideration was given to the recommendation of the imposing authority; however, the seriousness of his misconduct, along with his rank and duty position at the time of the misconduct, raised serious concern that it would be in the best interest of the Army at that time to transfer the GOMOR.  This Record of Proceedings is filed in the restricted folder of his OMPF.

12.  In a letter, dated 27 November 2012, the DASEB notified the applicant that his request had been denied as he had not provided sufficient substantial evidence that showed the intent of the GOMOR had been served.  This letter is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.

13.  He attended and successfully completed the AMEDD CPT's Career Course from 13 September to 16 November 2012 at Fort Sam Houston, TX.

14.  On 10 December 2012, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion (HHBN), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC.

15.  In July 2013, he received an "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified" rating for his OER covering the period 1 June 2012 through 31 May 2013 while serving as the Division Environmental Science Officer, HHBN, 82d Airborne Division.

16.  In a memorandum, dated 27 February 2014, he was notified by HRC that he was identified by the Fiscal Year 2013 MAJ MSC Promotion Selection Board to show cause for retention on active duty due to the GOMOR he received.

17.  On 19 March 2014, he acknowledged receipt of the elimination memorandum and elected to submit a request for a board of inquiry and a statement in his own behalf.  He submitted the following:

	a.  In a letter of support, dated 10 March 2014, Colonel (COL) D____ C. B____ stated that as the Environmental Science and Engineering Officer Consultant to the Surgeon General, he was charged with developing junior officers to serve as the next senior leaders.  The applicant was an outstanding officer and continually volunteered for the toughest assignments.  The applicant met each challenge and provided exceptional public health support in every position he filled.  He believed the applicant accepted responsibility for his actions and learned a lifetime lesson.  The incident solidified the applicant's commitment to always be professional, serve selflessly, and maintain the Army values.  The applicant was most deserving of a second chance and he should be retained on active duty.

	b.  In a letter of support, dated 14 March 2014, MAJ L____ N. G____ stated she had worked with the applicant for nearly 3 years at West Point and as his rater she could personally attest to his high standards for professional behavior, exceptional leadership, and widespread reputation as an exemplary and conscientious officer.  In several discussions, he was forthcoming about his mistakes resulting in the GOMOR and his personal commitment to growth and improvement as a result.  The applicant should be retained in the Army.

	c.  In a letter of support, dated 24 March 2014, MAJ J____ W. W____ stated he had worked with the applicant for the past 18 months at Fort Bragg and the applicant was the most professional and dedicated officer he had ever served with, let alone rated.  Regardless of his single lapse in judgment, his high level of performance as an officer and leader are evidence he has learned from his mistake, drove on exuding the warrior ethos, and it was in the best interest of the 82d Airborne Division, AMEDD, and the U.S. Army to retain the applicant on active duty.

	d.  In a letter of support, dated 27 March 2014, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) K____ D. K____ stated he served as the applicant's supervisor for over a year at West Point and during that time his performance was stellar.  The applicant served in a MAJ's billet and took charge of a shop that was underperforming.  He developed and implemented a comprehensive Environmental Heath Program that ensured the safety and health of the community and he was selected by a board of senior medical officers and recognized as one of the top junior officers in his field.  He was a model for the cadets and Soldiers.  He believed the GOMOR served its intended purpose and it was in the best interests of the MSC and the Army to retain the applicant on active duty.

	e.  In a letter of support, dated 4 April 2014, LTG C____ T. C____, the GOMOR-imposing authority, stated he gave his strongest support of the applicant's appeal of the show-cause proceedings.  The applicant had clearly demonstrated his talent and potential and should be allowed to continue to serve in the Army.  He clearly established his belief that the GOMOR served its intended purpose during the DASEB proceedings in 2012.  He understood that while the GOMOR was not transferred to the applicant's restricted folder, his justification for petitioning the board still stood.

	f.  In six additional letters of support, dated between 12 and 25 March 2014, a COL and five LTC's in various positions of responsibility spoke highly of the applicant and stated he was an exceptional officer, he had learned from his mistake, he deserved a second chance, and it would be in the Army's best interest to retain him on active duty.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states the performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  Once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board and the DASEB.

19.  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.

20.  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 folder.  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.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the GOMOR, dated 16 August 2010, and the DASEB letter, dated 27 November 2012, should be transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

2.  The evidence of record confirms he received a GOMOR for violating a general order by consuming alcohol and gambling in a combat zone.

3.  The applicant, an MSC CPT, was reprimanded for violating the high standards of personal conduct and exemplary behavior expected of a commissioned officer.  As an officer, he had a duty to set the standard in exercising good judgment, leading by example, and conducting himself as a responsible professional at all times.  

4.  In October 2012, the DASEB denied his request to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of his OMPF and determined he had not presented sufficient substantial evidence that showed the intent of the GOMOR had been served at that time.

5.  A GOMOR is primarily used as a tool for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance.  There is no doubt that after his mistake in 2010 the applicant has rebounded in an outstanding manner.  He accepted responsibility for his actions and has taken big leaps toward improving himself both personally and professionally.  He has rebounded since his incident and successfully completed several assignments, several training courses, received three best-qualified OER ratings, and he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.  It has been almost 4 years since he received the GOMOR and the GOMOR appears to have served its intended purpose.

6.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the GOMOR, dated 16 August 2010, and the DASEB letter, dated 27 November 2012, should be transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

__X______  __X______  __X__  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 transferring the GOMOR, dated 16 August 2010, and the DASEB letter, dated 27 November 2012, to the restricted folder of his OMPF.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140006408



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006408



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1