IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  29 January 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006786 


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 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 
13 June 2011, and the allied documents, and removal of a Relief for Cause (RFC) Officer Evaluation Report (OER), covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011, and the allied documents.

2.  The applicant states that she was relieved for cause as Commander, 
45th Sustainment Bridge (SBDE), 8th Theater Sustainment Command (TSC), Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, due to her superior officer's perceived loss in confidence in her ability to command.  He issued a GOMOR reprimanding her for misconduct and then completed an RFC OER.

3.  The applicant provides 54 documents identified in the list of enclosures provided by her counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the following actions –

* rescission and removal of the RFC OER (covering the period 
2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011) and allied documents from the applicant's OMPF
* rescission and removal of the GOMOR, dated 13 June 2011, and allied documents from her OMPF or, in the alternative, that the GOMOR and allied documents be transferred to the restricted folder of her OMPF
* removal from her OMPF of any and all references to the relief from command for cause and the findings of the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation

2.  Counsel states an AR 15-6 investigation was conducted about the command climate of the applicant's unit.  The investigating officer (IO) recommended that the applicant should be relieved from command.  On 23 May 2011, the applicant was suspended from command as the Commander, 45th SBDE, 8th TSC.  She was formally relieved for cause on 13 June 2011 and issued a GOMOR based on a loss of confidence in her ability to command and also reprimanded for her misconduct.  The applicant requested the GOMOR be filed locally, but the approving authority directed that it be filed in the performance folder of her OMPF.  The relieving officer then completed an RFC OER and acted as both her “senior rater and reviewer”, which was improper.

   a.  He states the applicant assumed command of the 45th SBDE on 2 June 2010.  In the Fall of 2010, an anonymous letter from the "45th Brigade Wives" was sent to Major General (MG) M____ J. T____, Commanding General (CG), 8th TSC.  The letter conveyed the complaint that their husbands worked long hours during the week and were required to work on weekends.  In response, MG T____ recommended the applicant conduct a command climate survey.

   b.  In November 2010, the applicant worked with an Equal Opportunity representative and conducted a Brigade-wide survey.  The review returned mixed results with some Soldiers expressing a positive perception of the applicant's leadership and some Soldiers expressing that she was a "toxic" leader.  The applicant briefed MG T____ on the results and he advised her to "be careful" and offered no further guidance.  The applicant adjusted her leadership approach.

   c.  On 7 January 2011, the Brigade Chaplain, Major (MAJ) J____ K____, submitted a Unit Ministry Team (UMT) Report on Soldier Morale in which he stated, "[t]he overall morale of Soldiers within the 45th SBDE [was] assessed as above average and stable."

   d.  In April 2011, a second anonymous letter from the "45th Army Wives" was mailed to Lieutenant General (LTG) F____ W____, CG, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) and routed to MG T____ on 21 April 2011.  The letter conveyed the complaint that their husbands were forced to work unnecessarily long hours.  It also placed personal blame on the applicant for officers having suicidal ideations, a couple of attempted suicides, and one actual suicide due to the bad work environment within the 45th SBDE.  One of the suicide attempts led to a Congressional Inquiry and MG T____ tasked the applicant to reply to the inquiry. The letter ridiculed MG T____'s decision to allow the applicant to reply to the inquiry, since she was the person who was supposedly "responsible " for the incident.

   e.  A Command Inquiry revealed that the person who committed suicide was assigned to the brigade less than a month.  A subsequent investigation revealed that the person had a troubled past, starting from childhood problems, and problems during a previous deployment and at a previous unit.

   f.  The applicant met with MG T____ to discuss a second anonymous letter.  She expressed her concern that Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) M____ G____, Deputy Commanding Officer (DCO), was undermining her authority by resisting changes.  She indicated that her staff's loyalty remained with the DCO who had been with the unit when it deployed to Afghanistan and for a long period of time before she assumed command.  MG T____ asked the applicant if she believed this was racially motivated and she told him that she did not believe so.  MG T____ offered to remove the DCO, but the applicant said it was not necessary since he was scheduled to depart the unit on 18 May 2011.

   g.  On 25 April 2011, the applicant informed MG T____ that her S-1 would be unable to attend an officer briefing due to mental health concerns that involved suicidal ideations.  Through efforts to get the S-1 branch qualified, the applicant subsequently learned that the officer was being treated for emotional issues not related to military service.  The officer may have perceived the applicant's efforts as denigrating her abilities rather than trying to assist in her professional development.  (The applicant later learned that the officer did not have suicidal ideations.)

   h.  On 27 April 2011, MG T____ appointed Colonel (COL) B____ A____, Executive Engagements and Services, USARPAC, to conduct an informal
AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate within the 45th SBDE command group and an assessment of the relations between the Brigade Commander, her brigade staff, and subordinate commanders.  The IO conducted 18 interviews, including one with the applicant.  The interviews were captured in sworn statements and submitted with the final report with the most negative statements at the beginning and the most positive statements at the end, indicating it was a work of advocacy, not an impartial report.  Counsel notes the S-1 had previously worked with the IO and that the one-sided nature of the report appears to be influenced by the partisan rancor encouraged by the DCO.

   i.  On 19 May 2011, the IO submitted her report to MG T____.  Counsel states the report is devoid of positive comments and attributes negative comments, such as "toxic environment" to individuals who did not make such statements.  The IO recommended the applicant be relieved from command or, in the alternative, the appointing authority personally inform the 45th SBDE command staff of his decision not to remove the applicant in order to obtain closure and move forward.  On 23 May 2011, MG T____ suspended the applicant from command and notified her of his intent to relieve her for cause.

   j.  On 7 June 2011, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the notification in which she acknowledged and accepted responsibility.  She indicated the suspension had allowed her time to reflect on "a variety of contributing factors" which "include [her] personality and leadership style, command philosophy, and the standard of excellence associated with its execution, and the staff's interpretation of [her] leadership style."  She then addressed each of the IO's findings and included statements from officers that the IO failed to interview. They painted a very different picture of the command climate than did the majority of those selected to be interviewed by the IO.  Specifically, some revealed the standards of the previous commander were sub-par and explained that many of those interviewed by the IO were irritated because the applicant was enforcing a higher standard.

   k.  On 13 June 2011, the applicant's request to retain her command was denied.  Her relief from command was accompanied by a GOMOR that reiterated the reason for her relief and also reprimanded her for misconduct.

   l.  On 20 June 2011, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR and requested that it be filed locally, as opposed to in her OMPF.  On 24 June 2011, MG T____ denied the applicant's request and directed it be filed in the performance folder of her OMPF.

   m.  On 4 July 2011, an article appeared in the Army Times that detailed the applicant's relief from command.  On 8 July 2011, the applicant sent a letter to General (GEN) M____ D____, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, requesting him to conduct an external investigation of her relief from command.  She outlined her concerns that the investigation was incomplete and biased.  She noted that MG T____ re-interviewed three officers who were previously interviewed by the IO and these officers may have provided additional information that the applicant had no opportunity to rebut.  Counsel concludes that the biased, partisan process caused unjust damage to the applicant's career, her credibility, and reputation.

   n.  On 13 July 2011, GEN D____ notified the applicant that he had received her request and forwarded it to the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG).  On 22 July 2011, MAJ J____ L____, an investigator with the DAIG, informed the applicant that he had been assigned to her case and he scheduled a telephone interview with her.
   o.  On 22 July 2011, MG T____ signed a referred RFC OER as both the rater and senior rater.  On 29 August 2011, the applicant submitted a detailed rebuttal to the referred OER and then signed the OER on 30 August 2011.

   p.  On 5 September 2011, the applicant submitted a request to MG T____ for redress under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and 
AR 27-10 (Military Justice), chapter 20.  She asserted that the relief was based on a faulty and biased investigation.  She requested "reinstatement into command" and also a second AR 15-6 investigation using an impartial IO who was independent of the 8th TSC.  On 7 September 2011, MG T____ denied the applicant's request.

   q.  In September 2011, the applicant submitted a request to the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) requesting to honorably retire in her current grade.  She also provided written matters for consideration by the AGDRB.

   r.  On 5 October 2011, the DAIG completed its investigation and concluded that the applicant's allegation that "MG T____ improperly relieved [her] from command was not founded."

   s.  6 October 2011, the applicant submitted another complaint pursuant to Article 138, UCMJ and AR 27-10 to Lieutenant General LTG F____ J. W____, CG, USARPAC.  As redress, she requested appointment of a new AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate under her leadership or, in the alternative, a determination that the AR 15-6 investigation in her case was flawed, incomplete, and biased and thus was insufficient as a basis to relieve her from command.  The request included a detailed 14-page addendum/attachment that outlined the errors and bias throughout the investigation.  The request also included statements from 21 current and former Soldiers of the brigade and 
13 statements from former Soldiers with whom the applicant had served earlier in her career.  They spoke of her dedication, superb attention to detail, and high moral and ethical standards.

   t.  On 6 October 2011, the applicant sent a letter to GEN R____ T. O____, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, notifying him of her pending Article 138 request before 
LTG W____ and asking for assistance in ensuring the review of her complaint was fair.  She expressed her concern that the close friendship of MG T____ and LTG W____ would not lead to impartial action on the Article 138 request.

   u.  On 26 October 2011, the applicant initiated a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the DAIG investigation.  On 7 March 2012, she received notification that her request was partially denied and that other portions were sent to USARPAC and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) for release determination.
   
   v.  The portion sent to the applicant included the DAIG's interview with her and COL A____ (the IO).  It revealed that COL A____ indicated to the DAIG that she was hesitant to conduct the investigation and that she had concerns about being able perform the investigation, which she relayed to MG T____.  The IO initially believed the investigation would take approximately five hours because the complaints within the headquarters mostly seemed to be centered on long work hours and frustrated spouses.  The IO also indicated that a negative theme emerged across all 17 of the witnesses.  However, counsel notes that this was inaccurate since many positive statements were provided during the course of the IO's investigation.

   w.  On 28 November 2011, LTG W____ denied her request to disapprove the IO's findings and recommendations and appoint a new IO.  He added that her alternative request to give her the opportunity to continue her military career without the stigma of being relieved from command fell outside the purview of an Article 138 complaint.  He advised her that her best option was to have the evidence of the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation removed from her official files.  He also provided her guidance on the proper method to do so was by seeking removal of the GOMOR and referred OER from her OMPF.  

   x.  On 17 January 2012, GEN O____ notified the applicant he was briefed on her Article 138 complaint and that he had no concerns that LTG W____, whom he viewed to be a fair and professional officer, would not objectively evaluate her complaint and make his findings free of bias or outside influence.  He advised her that if she remained unconvinced that she had received a fair evaluation after the process was complete, she could request redress to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

   y.  Since then, the applicant has received a large number of letters written on her behalf (addressed to the ABCMR) that request the ABCMR correct the injustices that have been done to her.  Counsel adds that some of those letters are attached to the applicant's petition.

   z.  Counsel concludes that the applicant's career, reputation, and dignity have been unjustly slandered.  The evidence provided shows that the command environment at the 45th SBDE prior to the applicant assuming command was more than relaxed, it was sub-par to Army standards.  The applicant resolved to make improvements and hold each officer and enlisted Soldier accountable for their actions and performance.  For some, this was an uncomfortable transition and they used their tenure and connections to campaign for the applicant's relief. Counsel opines that MG T____ may have decided that he was more interested in tranquility than bringing the Brigade up to standards, but it was unjust for him to violate regulations and present false information about the applicant in the GOMOR and RFC OER.  He adds, these actions by MG T____ were capricious, unjust, unfounded, and should be corrected by the Board.

   aa.  Counsel states the applicant has exhausted all administrative avenues of relief, but to no avail.  The unjust and untrue GOMOR and invalid RFC OER in her OMPF remain false and improper matters on her career record.

3.  Counsel provides 54 documents identified in a list of enclosures.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer, in the rank of second lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps, on 17 May 1986.  She was ordered to active duty on 4 June 1989 and appointed in the Regular Army upon promotion to MAJ (O-4) on 1 June 1998.  She attained the rank of COL (O-6) on 1 December 2008.

2.  Headquarters, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 27 April 2011, subject:  AR 15-6 Investigation Appointment, shows COL B____ A____ was appointed as an IO by MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, to conduct an informal AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate within the 45th SBDE command group, and an assessment of the relationship between the Brigade Commander, her brigade staff, and subordinate commanders.

3.  A DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) and Headquarters, USARPAC, memorandum, dated 19 May 2011, subject:  Findings and Recommendations, AR 15-6 investigation of the Command Climate of the 45th SBDE, show the IO provided the CG, 8th TSC, the findings and recommendations of the AR 15-6 investigation.  The IO conducted 18 interviews and obtained sworn statements from the Brigade Commander, two of the three battalion commanders (the third battalion commander was deployed), brigade staff officers, and senior enlisted Soldiers in the Brigade.

   a.  A review of the 18 individuals' sworn statements revealed the following –

* 12 indicated they were in a hostile/toxic environment.  They offered comments that described the Brigade Commander's condescending comments; her public criticism of leaders and staff; and the relationship as being confrontational and lacking respect
* five (5) indicated they were not in a hostile environment and generally offered relatively very short comments in response to the IO's inquiries.
* the applicant assessed the command climate as "average" and responded that "most leaders probably feel the command climate is low."  She described her relationships with the DCO, Command Sergeant Major (CSM), battalion commanders, and "some staff," respectively, as "strained," "good and improving," "okay, better than with DCO," and "strained."

   b.  The IO found the command climate within the 45th SBDE was poor.  She noted the toxic and/or hostile environment in the Brigade was substantiated by both battalion commanders and 10 staff officers that were interviewed.  The sworn statements and IO's notes documented instances where the applicant criticized, belittled, and demeaned the battalion commanders and brigade staff officers in the presence of their subordinates.  The IO also noted leaders had lost trust and confidence in the Brigade Command Team to lead them in their upcoming deployment and the Brigade Commander lacked the interpersonal, leadership, and management skills to lead the 45th SBDE.

   c.  The IO found the command relationships within the 45th SBDE were ineffective.  She noted the Brigade Commander and Brigade CSM did not work as a team; the Brigade Commander prevented the DCO from executing his responsibilities in support of the mission; relationships between the Brigade Commander and staff were dysfunctional; and relationships between the Brigade Commander and subordinate commanders was fair.

   d.  The IO indicated the Brigade Commander acknowledged that most leaders in the Brigade felt the command climate was low and toxic, and stated that relationships were "okay," "fair," and "strained"; the IO did not believe that the Brigade Commander (the applicant) completely grasped just how dysfunctional the relationships were within her command.

   e.  Based on her findings, the IO recommended the Brigade Commander be relieved from her command or, if the appointing authority did not approve the recommendation and the Brigade Commander remained in command, that the leaders within the 45th SBDE be informed by the 8th TSC leadership of the decision in order to obtain closure and go forward.

4.  On 13 June 2011, MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, issued a GOMOR to the applicant based on an AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate and relationship between her and her staff and subordinate commanders.  He noted the investigation detailed numerous abuses of her authority, oppressive leadership tactics, and toxic personal relationships between her and subordinate officers within her command.  He noted the IO concluded that her command climate was poor, command relationships were ineffective, and her subordinate leaders had lost trust and confidence in her ability to lead the 45th SBDE.  He reprimanded her for her misconduct.  He added that he had lost confidence in her ability to command and relieved her from command.

   a.  The GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ.

   b.  He notified the applicant it was his intention to direct that the GOMOR be filed permanently in her OMPF; however, he would fully consider all matters submitted by her before making his final decision.

   c.  The applicant was instructed to acknowledge receipt of the reprimand and that she had seven days to submit matters in rebuttal to the 8th TSC, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA).

   d.  Listed as enclosures to the GOMOR were an Acknowledgement and Report of Investigation (ROI).

   e.  On 20 June 2011, the applicant provided her response to the GOMOR.  She stated she was devastated, embarrassed, and apologized for her actions surrounding her relief from command.  She acknowledged that the Soldiers and officers of the 45th SBDE deserved the best leadership possible and that she failed them.  

    	(1)  She discussed things that she should have been more aware of and actions she should have taken to improve the situation within the staff and subordinate commands.  Specifically, she should have recognized the deteriorating command climate, solicited active involvement of her subordinate commanders and staff, and sought ways to improve shortcomings rather than pushing so hard.  She also acknowledged an enormous amount of time on self-reflection since the issue arose.  She offered her outstanding record of past performance, including her demonstrated leadership in battalion command.

    	(2)  She took full responsibility for her actions and inactions, and requested the GOMOR be filed locally.

   f.  On 24 June 2011, the approving authority indicated that he had carefully reviewed the case file and GOMOR pertaining to the applicant, and the additional matters submitted by the applicant for his consideration.  He directed filing the GOMOR in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.  Listed as enclosures to the filing directive were the GOMOR, dated 13 June 2011, and "Rebuttal Matters."

5.  A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed the GOMOR, dated 13 June 2011; filing directive, dated 24 June 2011; applicant's rebuttal to the GOMOR, dated 
20 June 2011; and DA Form 1547 with IO's memorandum, dated 19 May 2011, (a total of 14 pages) are filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

6.  A DA Form 67-9 (OER), covering the period 2 June 2010 through
13 June 2011, shows the applicant was relieved as Brigade Commander, 
45th SBDE, Schofield Barracks, HI.  

   a.  The rater (MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI), evaluated the applicant's performance and potential as "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote."  He explained, "During [the applicant's] year in command, her team provided outstanding sustainment support to include synchronization and management of maintenance, supply, service support, and financial management functions throughout USARPAC.  However, her establishment of a poor command climate called into question her ability to continue in command.  
I directed [the applicant's] relief from command effective 13 June 2011 based upon the findings of an AR 15-6 investigation which revealed a toxic and hostile command climate, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships between her and subordinate officers within the command, and a loss of trust, respect, and confidence among the leaders in her brigade."  He also noted in his comments, "Serving as rater and senior rater in accordance with AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 2-21."

   b.  The senior rater (also, MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI) evaluated the applicant's promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Do Not Promote."  He explained, "[The applicant] possesses a tireless work ethic; however, her judgment and conduct did not reflect that required of a senior commander.  Based upon the deficiencies in command climate detailed in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), block b (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance) of this report, I directed [the applicant's] relief from command effective 13 June 2011."  He also noted in his comments, "Serving as rater and senior rater in accordance with AR 623-3, paragraph 2-21(l)."

   c.  Part II (Authentication), block d (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?"), shows a checkmark in the box indicating a referred report and a checkmark in the box indicating "Yes, comments are attached."  The RFC OER also shows the rater/senior rater digitally signed the RFC OER on 22 July 2011 and the applicant digitally signed it on 30 August 2011.

   d.  On 29 August 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt and provided her rebuttal to the RFC OER covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011.  She stated that the remarks do not reflect her attributes, character, and did not occur during this rating period.  She added that the block checks are inconsistent with her last eight years of OERs, including OERs from this chain of command.
   
    	(1)  She asserted and provided comments that the AR 15-6 investigation did not support the following "No" block checks in Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism) of the OER –

* block a (Army Values), item 5 (Respect)
* block b (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), b.2 (Skills), item 2 (Interpersonal)
* block b, b.3 (Actions - Leadership), item 3 ((Motivating)
* block b, b.3, item 7 (Developing)
* block b, b.3, item 8 (Building)

    	(2)  She indicated that the rating in Part V of "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" and corresponding remarks were inconsistent with every OER she had received during her service in the Army.  She provided several examples of key accomplishments attributed to her leadership.

   	(3)  She also indicated that the rating in Part VII of "Do Not Promote" and corresponding remarks were based on a biased and seriously flawed AR 15-6 investigation.

    	(4)  She concluded that the remarks on the OER are incorrect and do not reflect her performance prior to her relief from command of the 45th SBDE.

   e.  A Headquarters, USARPAC, memorandum, dated 7 September 2011, subject:  Supplementary OER Review, shows that LTG F____ J. W____, CG, USARPAC, reviewed the RFC OER pertaining to the applicant; he found it clear, accurate, and complete; and that it complied with the regulation.  Accordingly, he forwarded the OER for further processing.

7.  A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed the RFC OER covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011; applicant's rebuttal to the RFC OER, dated 29 August 2011; and the supplementary OER Review, dated 7 September 2011, are filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

8.  A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 4 June 1989 and she was honorably retired from active duty based on sufficient service for retirement on 
30 April 2012.  She had completed 22 years, 10 months, and 27 days of net active service this period; 6 months of total prior active service; and 6 years and 26 days of total prior inactive service.

   a.  It also shows in –

* item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank):  "COL"
* item 4b (Pay Grade):  "O06"
* item 12 (Record of Service), block i (Effective Date of Pay Grade):
   "2008  12  01"  (1 December 2008)
* item 18 (Remarks), in pertinent part, "Retired List Grade COL"

   b.  The applicant and an authorized official digitally signed the DD Form 214 on 30 December 2011.

9.  A review of the applicant's OMPF failed to reveal evidence that she appealed the GOMOR to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB).  There is also no evidence that she appealed the RFC OER to HRC, Evaluations Branch, Fort Knox, KY.

10.  In support of her application, the applicant and her counsel provide the following documents.

   a.  45th SBDE, 8th TSC, Schofield Barracks, HI, Memorandum for Record, dated 7 January 2011, subject:  SBDE UMT Report of Soldier Morale, that shows MAJ J____ R. K____, Brigade Chaplain, assessed the overall morale of Soldiers within the 45th SBDE as above average and stable, and that the assessment had improved dramatically over the last reporting period.

   b.  A Letter to LTG F____ J. W____, CG, USARPAC, dated 17 April 2011, from the "45th [SBDE] Army Wives" asking for help regarding their concerns about the morale in their husbands' unit.  The letter specifically mentioned the applicant's name in their expression of matters related to their concerns.  They informed the CG that they had written several letters to the Inspector General (IG) and MG T____, CG, 8th TSC, but the situation had not improved.

   c.  A copy of the informal AR 15-6 investigation with the sworn statements of the 18 individuals interviewed by the IO and the IO's notes from each interview.
(Note:  The AR 15-6 investigation was previously summarized in this Record of Proceedings.)

   d.  Headquarters, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 23 May 2011, subject:  Suspension from Duties and Notice of Intent to Relieve for Cause, that shows MG T____ notified the applicant he received an AR 15-6 investigation completed on 19 May 2011.  The investigation revealed that she allowed the command climate in her unit to degrade to the point that the military readiness of her brigade was seriously undermined.  He informed her he had lost confidence in her ability to command, she was suspended from her assigned duties, and he was considering whether he should permanently relieve her from her duties as Commander, 45th SBDE.  He provided the applicant a copy of the ROI with all supporting evidence and advised her she had until 7 June 2011 to submit a rebuttal.

   e.  On 7 June 2011, the applicant provided her rebuttal to the ROI.  She acknowledged and accepted responsibility for what happened within the Brigade, including the command climate, readiness, and her relationships with subordinate commanders and staff.

    	(1)  She noted that after conducting a command climate survey in which some believed her leadership style was toxic, "I pulled back, decreased my visibility, and questioning during meetings, and made every effort to engage the DCO, staff, and commanders one on one."

    	(2)  She provided information on her relationships with the CSM, the DCO, the brigade staff, and the battalion commanders.  She addressed specific issues that were raised by individuals in their statements and offered explanations.  She also committed to taking specific actions to be more collaborative with subordinate leaders, if provided the opportunity to continue in command.

    	(3)  She also included memoranda/sworn statements from four officers and three noncommissioned officers (NCO) in support of her rebuttal to the ROI.

   f.  Headquarters, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 13 June 2011, subject:  RFC, that shows MG M____ J. T____ notified the applicant that she was relieved for cause from her position as Commander, 45th SBDE.
	
   g.  A letter from the applicant to GEN M____ E. D____, Chief of Staff,
U.S. Army, dated 8 July 2011, in which she requested an external investigation of her relief from command.  The basis for her request was that there was no misconduct, the relief from command action was based solely on the perceptions 
of the limited number of Soldiers interviewed (i.e., 16 of 1,500 Soldiers); and the IO concluded poor command climate.  She outlined her concerns that included  –

* the IO selected by the appointing authority
* the Soldiers chosen to be interviewed
* the IO's leading questions to the individuals interviewed
* the appointing authority's comment that he wanted to talk with her battalion commanders, possible influence those talks had on his decision, and that the information was not shared with her or added to the investigation
* her being undermined by the DCO
* her rater did not express concern with any aspect of her performance as Brigade Commander
* the implication that misconduct was involved

   h.   On 13 July 2011, GEN D____ notified the applicant that her packet was passed to the DAIG and that they would be in contact with her regarding her request.

   i.  An email message thread between MAJ L____, DAIG investigator, and the applicant arranging a telephone interview on 3 August 2011.

   j.  Office of the IG, Washington, DC, memorandum, dated 7 March 2012, with enclosures that responded to the applicant's FOIA request, dated 26 October 2011, requesting a copy of IG Case DIH 11-00073.   She was advised that the action constitutes a partial denial of her request and that she could appeal the denial decision in writing within 60 days.

   k.  The IG Preliminary Investigation provided cites from relevant Army regulations and offered analysis/discussion, in pertinent part, as follows –

* the IO was appropriately appointed based on meeting the qualification requirements for the investigation and the process of elimination of qualified officers (i.e., availability)
* the appointment memorandum directed the IO to investigate the command climate of the 45th SBDE command group (not the entire brigade), as well as assess the relationships between the applicant, the brigade staff, and subordinate commanders
* the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence
* there was no regulatory requirement for the number of witnesses to be interviewed
* the SJA, 8th TSC reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation and determined it to be legally sufficient
* the applicant received the required administrative process in the GOMOR action
* the applicant did not appeal her relief to the CG, USARPAC (the next higher commander)
* the applicant was properly relieved from command and she was provided the required administrative process in the RFC OER action
   l.  The IG investigator recommended recording the applicant's allegation that MG T____ improperly relieved a subordinate from command as "not founded."  The action was approved by the Acting The Inspector General.

   m.  A memorandum from the applicant to the CG, 8th TSC, dated 
5 September 2011, requesting redress under Article 138, UCMJ, based on his reliance on an unfair and partial AR 15-6 investigation to relieve her of command.  A letter, dated 7 September 2011, from the CG, 8th TSC, to the applicant notifying her that her request for redress was denied.

   n.  Army Review Boards Agency, memorandum, dated 13 September 2011, subject:  AGDRB, that notified the applicant that the AGDRB would recommend the highest grade in which she served satisfactorily for retirement.

   o.  A letter from the applicant to the Recorder, AGDRB, undated, that included 83 pages of enclosures for the AGDRB to consider.  
   
   p.  Office of the IG, Washington, DC, memorandum, dated 5 October 2011, that notified the applicant that the U.S. Army IG Agency concluded an inquiry of the allegation she made against MG M____ J. T____ that he improperly relieved her from command and determined it was not founded.

   q.  A memorandum from the applicant to the CG, USARPAC, dated 6 October 2011, requesting redress under Article 138, UCMJ, to determine if the AR 15-6 investigation in her case was flawed, incomplete, and biased and, thus, insufficient as a basis to relieve her from command.  She also provided enclosures for the CG, USARPAC, to consider that included two addenda to the Article 138, the AR 15-6 investigation and her rebuttal, her letter to GEN M____ E. D____, questions and letters of support, six OERs, and her awards and commendations.

   r.  Headquarters, USARPAC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 
28 November 2011, subject:  Article 138 Complaint, that shows LTG F____ J. W____, CG, USARPAC, reviewed the applicant's Article 138 complaint and the actions she requested.

    	(1)  He waived the requirement that the Article 138 must be delivered to the immediate superior commissioned officer within 90 days of the date of discovery of the wrong.
   
    	(2)  He noted that AR 27-10, paragraph 19-5a(3), provides that an action is generally inappropriate for resolution under Article 138 when Army regulations specifically authorize an administrative appeal.  He offered information on the avenues available for her to appeal the OER and GOMOR. 

    	(3)  He found her request that he appoint a new IO to conduct an investigation into the command climate under her leadership was an inappropriate subject matter for an Article 138 complaint.  He also found that the AR 15-6 investigation into the matter was complete and he found no evidence to substantiate the applicant's allegation that the "investigation into my command was tainted with bias." 

    	(4)  He concluded with the following findings regarding the decision to relieve the applicant for cause based upon the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation in question –

* her relief was not in violation of law or regulation
* was not beyond the Commander, 8th TSC's legitimate authority
* was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion
* was not materially unfair

   s.  A letter from the applicant to GEN R____ T. O____, Chief of Staff,
U.S. Army, dated 6 October 2011, in which she requested correction of the injustice that led to her relief from Brigade Command and the opportunity to retire from the Army with dignity and respect.

   t.   On 13 January 2012, GEN O____ notified the applicant that his staff thoroughly reviewed and briefed him on her complaint, the AR 15-6 investigation, the Article 138 complaint process, and other recourses available to her.  He expressed confidence that the Article 138 process would provide a fair evaluation of her complaint.  She was advised that if she remained unconvinced that she had received a fair evaluation after the process, she could request redress through the ABCMR.
   
   u.  Copies of 27 statements in support of the applicant's petition to the ABCMR, written during the period 4 January 2013 and 30 September 2013, as identified in the list of enclosures.  The authors include three general officers, several field-grade and company-grade commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCOs, and civilians.  The individuals served either as superior officers, peers, or subordinates to the applicant throughout her career, or they provided installation support services to the 45th SBDE.
   
    	(1)  The statements all provide strong endorsement of the applicant's personal character traits and professional attributes, as demonstrated by her in numerous assignments throughout her military career in which the writers came to know the applicant.  The applicant is identified as an officer highly respected for her competence, leadership, integrity, judgment, dedication, high standards, and ability to accomplish the mission.
 
    	(2)  Seven of the individuals indicated that they served under the applicant while assigned to the 45th SBDE and offer statements in support of the applicant pertaining to their period of service/assignment.  (Note:  The individual's periods of assignment cannot be definitively determined as correlating to the period under review in this case).  However, those individual statements include –

* LTC M____ M____, S-6, 45th SBDE
* LTC G____ B. K____, Logistics Officer, S-4
* Mr. (then MAJ) P____ E____, staff officer, S-3
* CPT C____ A. T____, 524th Combat Support Sustainment Battalion
* CW4 S____ G____, duty position at the time not indicated
* CW3 R____ G____, duty position at the time not indicated
* MSG T____ P____, Budget Analyst

11.  The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Article 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment), shows that any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.  The elements of this statute, include:

   a.  that a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and

   b.  that the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person.

12.  AR 27-10 prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the MCM, United States, 2008, and the rules for courts-martial contained in the MCM.  Chapter 3 (Nonjudicial punishment) shows nonjudicial punishment is imposed to correct misconduct in violation of the UCMJ.  Such conduct may result from intentional disregard of, or failure to comply with, prescribed standards of military conduct.

13.  AR 600-20 (Army Command Policies), chapter 2 (Command Policies), paragraph 2-17 (Relief for cause), provides:

   a.   When a higher-ranking 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 higher ranking 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.  Although any commander may temporarily suspend a subordinate from command, final action to relieve an officer from any command position will not be taken until after written approval by the first general officer (to include one frocked to the grade of brigadier general (BG)) in the chain of command of the officer being relieved is obtained.  If a general officer (to include one frocked to the grade of BG) is the relieving official, no further approval of the relief action is required; however, AR 623-3 concerning administrative review of relief reports remains applicable.

   b.  If a relief for cause is contemplated on the basis of an informal investigation under AR 15-6, the referral and comment procedures of that regulation must be followed before initiating or directing the relief.  This does not preclude a temporary suspension from assigned duties pending completion of the procedural safeguards contained in AR 15-6.  Any action purporting to initiate or direct a relief for cause on the basis of an informal investigation under AR 15-6 taken prior to completion of the procedural safeguards of AR 15-6 will be considered for all purposes as a temporary suspension from assigned duties.

14.  AR 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three folders:  performance, service, or restricted.  The Authorized Documents Table provides guidance for filing –

* administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature.  The letter/memorandum, referral correspondence, member's reply, and allied documents (if they are specifically directed for filing by the letter or referral correspondence) will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF unless otherwise directed.  All other allied documents not listed will be filed in the restricted folder of the OMPF
* the DA Form 67-9 will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF

15.  AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.

	a.  Chapter 7 (Appeals and Petitions) provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF.

	b.  Paragraph 7-2b (Appeals for Transfers of OMPF Entries) contains guidance on transfers of OMPF entries.  It states only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the OMPF.

		(1)  Appeals will normally be returned without action unless at least 1 year has elapsed since imposition of the letter and at least one evaluation report, other than academic, has been received in the interim.  Appeals approved under this provision will result in transfer of the document from the performance folder to the restricted folder of the OMPF.

		(2)  A GOMOR may be transferred upon proof that their intended purpose has been served or that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the Soldier concerned to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.

16.  AR 623-3, in effect at the time, prescribed the policy and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System, including officer, NCO, and academic evaluation reports focused on the assessment of performance and potential.  It shows in:

   a.  Chapter 2 (The Rating Chain):
   
    	(1)  paragraph 2-15 (Role of the senior rater or authenticating official), the senior rater is the senior rating official in the military rating chain and will ensure the evaluation reports that the senior rater and subordinates write are complete, provide a realistic evaluation of the rated Soldier, and are submitted to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) in a timely manner;

    	(2)  paragraph 2-19 (Mandatory review of OERs), when an officer is officially relieved of duties and an RFC OER is subsequently prepared, the RFC OER requires referral to the rated officer.  If the relief is directed by the rater or intermediate rater, the senior rater will do the review provided he or she is a U.S. Army officer.  Otherwise, the first U.S. Army officer in the chain of command or supervision above the individual directing the relief will review the reports; and

    	(3)  paragraph 2-21 (Supervisor as both rater and senior rater), addresses when a supervisor may serve as both rater and senior rater under circumstances other than due to the loss of a rating official.  A supervisor who would normally act only as a rater on an evaluation report may also act as a senior rater, providing he or she meets the minimum senior rater rank or grade requirement and the authority to do so has not been restricted by the next higher commander.  The provisions of this paragraph include, in pertinent part, an MG (includes a BG in an MG position) or higher, or Senior Executive System equivalent to an MG.

   b.  Chapter 3 (Army Evaluation Principles), paragraph 3-34 (Referred reports), that an OER with any negative or derogatory comments in Part V, blocks b or c; Part VI; or Part VII, block c, will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before being submitted to HQDA.

	c.  Chapter 6 (Evaluation Redress Program), section III (Evaluation Appeals):
   
   	(1)  paragraph 6-7 (Policies), that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered; and

    	(2)  paragraph 6-8 (Timeliness), because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible.  As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant and her counsel contend that the applicant's records should be corrected by the following actions –

* rescinding and removing the RFC OER (covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011) and allied documents from the applicant's OMPF
* rescinding and removing the GOMOR, dated 13 June 2011, and allied documents from her OMPF or, in the alternative, transferring the GOMOR and allied documents to the restricted folder of her OMPF
* removing from her OMPF any and all references to the relief from command for cause and the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation

2.  The evidence of record shows an AR 15-6 investigation was conducted by the IO within the parameters of the appointing instrument.  A number of the individuals interviewed by the IO described the command climate within the 
45th SBDE as hostile or toxic.  The IO found by a preponderance that the command climate within the 45th SBDE was poor and that command relationships within the 45th SBDE were ineffective.  The IO recommended, in part, that the applicant be relieved from her command.

   a.  The applicant was provided a copy of the ROI with all supporting evidence, she was afforded the opportunity to respond to the ROI, and she provided her rebuttal to the ROI.

   b.  The SJA, 8th TSC, reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation and determined it to be legally sufficient.

   c.  The IO's findings and recommendations, along with the applicant's rebuttal, were reviewed by the appointing authority.  

   d.  The approving authority approved the recommendation to relieve the applicant from her command.

   e.  Based on an allegation the applicant made against the AR 15-6 appointing authority that he improperly relieved her from command, the DAIG determined her allegation was not founded.

   f.  Thus, it is concluded that the AR 15-6 was properly conducted, the applicant was afforded due process with respect to the AR 15-6 investigation, and the findings and approved recommendation were within the authority and purview of the appointing authority.

   g.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing the AR 15-6 investigation and allied documents from her OMPF.  However, the evidence of record shows the documents are filed as allied documents to the GOMOR that is filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

   h.  The governing Army regulation shows that the letter/memorandum, referral correspondence, member's reply, and allied documents (if they are specifically directed for filing by the letter or referral correspondence) will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF, unless otherwise directed.  All other allied documents not listed will be filed in the restricted folder of the OMPF.

   i.  The approving authority's filing directive did not direct any allied documents be filed with the GOMOR.  Therefore, the AR 15-6 investigation and IO's memorandum of findings and recommendations should be transferred to the restricted folder of the applicant's OMPF.

3.  On 13 June 2011, MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, issued a GOMOR to the applicant based on an AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate and relationship between her and her staff and subordinate commanders.  He noted the investigation detailed numerous abuses of her authority, oppressive leadership tactics, and toxic personal relationships between her and subordinate officers within her command (emphasis added).  He reprimanded her for her misconduct, informed her that he had lost confidence in her ability to command, and relieved her from command.

   a.  The applicant was provided a copy of the GOMOR and the ROI, she was afforded the opportunity to submit matters in rebuttal, and she provided her rebuttal to the GOMOR.  The applicant acknowledged that she had failed the Soldiers and officers of the 45th SBDE, she took full responsibility for her actions (emphasis added) and inactions, and requested the GOMOR be filed locally.

   b.  Thus, based on the evidence of record, it is concluded that the applicant's actions, which formed the bases of and reasons for MG T____ issuing the GOMOR, did constitute misconduct.  Further, misconduct need not rise to the level of criminality but can instead consist of culpable mismanagement of responsibility and/or unacceptable performance, as is the case in this instance.

   c.  MG T____ reviewed the case file and GOMOR pertaining to the applicant, and the additional matters submitted by the applicant for his consideration.  He directed filing the GOMOR in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

   d.  The GOMOR, applicant's acknowledgement and rebuttal, the filing directive, and allied documents are filed in the performance folder of her OMPF.

   e.  There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant appealed the GOMOR to the DASEB.

   f.  By regulation, in order to remove a record from the OMPF, there must be compelling evidence to support its removal.

   g.  After a careful review of the evidence of record, it is concluded that the applicant has not submitted compelling evidence to disprove the facially-valid GOMOR that is filed in the performance section of her OMPF.  Therefore, the GOMOR, dated 13 June 2011, along with the authorized documents (less the allied documents addressed in paragraph 2i, above), are deemed to be properly filed and should not be removed from the applicant's OMPF.

4.  The RFC OER, covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011, relieved the applicant as Commander, 45th SBDE, Schofield Barracks, HI.  
   a.  The governing Army regulation shows that the applicant's immediate supervisor (MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC) was authorized to act as both rater and senior rater.  The applicant provided no evidence that the rating chain was not in accordance with the approved, published official rating scheme that was in effect at the time.

   b.  The applicant's contention that the ratings, overall evaluations, and comments on the RFC OER are inconsistent with every other OER she received during her service in the Army is not in dispute.  However, the rater/senior rater is charged with completing the OER based on the evaluated officer's performance during the period of service under review, without consideration of factors outside the rated period.  Moreover, the evidence of record shows that the rater's/senior rater's comments specifically address the reasons for the RFC OER.

   c.  An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in a rated officer's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  There is no evidence of record that refutes this presumption.

   d.  The RFC OER shows it was a referred report, the applicant was provided the report and afforded the opportunity to provide comments in rebuttal, and that she did submit comments in rebuttal.  In addition, LTG F____ J. W____, CG, USARPAC, subsequently performed a supplementary review and found the OER compliant with the regulation.

   e.  The supplementary review, OER, and applicant's rebuttal comments are filed in the performance folder of her OMPF.

   f.  There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant appealed the RFC OER to HRC, Evaluations Branch.

   g.  By regulation, in order to remove a record from the OMPF, there must be compelling evidence to support its removal.

   h.  After a careful review of the evidence of record, it is concluded that the applicant failed to submit evidence of a compelling nature to show that the
DA Form 67-9 filed in the performance folder of her OMPF is untrue, in error, invalid, or unjust.  Thus, the DA Form 67-9, along with the authorized documents, are deemed to be an accurate assessment of the applicant's duty performance during the period under review.  Therefore, there is no basis for altering or removing the contested OER from her OMPF.

5.  The letters/statements the applicant provides in support of her application were carefully considered.  A large majority of the statements offer evidence of the applicant's positive character traits and outstanding professionalism during periods of service that were prior to the period of service under review.

   a.  Of the 27 letters/statements, seven individuals indicated that they served under the applicant while assigned to the 45th SBDE and they offer strong statements of support.  However, it appears that only one of the individuals actually served in a key staff position in the Brigade, three or four served in some capacity in subordinate staff positions (i.e., not as key staff officers/NCOs), and the duty positions of two others cannot be determined from the letters.

   b.  The evidence of record shows the IO interviewed a total of 17 individuals (in addition to the applicant) from within the 45th SBDE during the AR 15-6 investigation.  Of the 17 individuals, two battalion commanders, eight officers, and two senior NCOs of the brigade staff categorized the environment as hostile or toxic and they offered comments that are at odds with those in the statements from the individuals the applicant now provides.

   c.  The IO arrived at her findings and recommendations based on a preponderance of the evidence obtained during the investigation into the command climate within the 45th SBDE command group and the assessment of the relationship between the Brigade Commander, her brigade staff, and subordinate commanders.

   d.  It is not clear why the applicant did not obtain and include statements from these individuals for her rebuttal to the GOMOR and/or the RFC OER.  In any event, it is concluded that those relatively few statements that would appear to be relevant and within the scope of the investigation for the period of service under review, provide insufficient evidence to reverse the conclusions reached by the IO and her rater.

6.  Thus, based on the available evidence of record, it is concluded that the approved AR 15-6 investigation, the applicant's GOMOR, and her RFC OER were proper, correct, and valid.

7.  Therefore, as a result of the aforementioned conclusions, there is an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief.  However, it would be appropriate to transfer from the performance folder to the restricted folder of her OMPF the DA Form 1574 and the Headquarters, USARPAC, memorandum, dated 19 May 2011, that are filed as allied documents to the GOMOR, dated 
13 June 2011.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring only (emphasis added) the DA Form 1574 and the Headquarters, U.S. Army Pacific, memorandum, dated 19 May 2011, subject:  Findings and Recommendations, AR 15-6 investigation of the Command Climate of the
45th Sustainment Brigade, that are filed as allied documents to the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 13 June 2011, to the restricted folder of her Official Military Personnel File.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to –

* rescinding and removing the Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (covering the period 2 June 2010 through 13 June 2011) and allied documents from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File
* rescinding and removing the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 13 June 2011, rebuttal, filing directive, and allied documents from her Official Military Personnel File
* transferring the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 
13 June 2011, rebuttal, and filing directive to the restricted folder of her Official Military Personnel File







* removing all references to the relief from command for cause and the findings of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation


      
      
      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140006786



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006786



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1