IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007248 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests:

* removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 November 2011, from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
* reinstatement in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), in the rank of captain (CPT), with a date of rank (DOR) that would have been established by the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) CPT Promotion Board
* consideration for promotion to CPT by a Special Selection Board (SSB) if she is reinstated in USAR in the rank of first lieutenant (1LT) 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, on 5 November 2011 she unjustly received a GOMOR from Brigadier General (BG) JTW.  She was punished for allegedly committing the offense of fraternization under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The brief from her counsel points out that all the elements of Article 134 (Fraternization) of the UCMJ were not met.  Additionally, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) from her brigade commander in addition to the GOMOR.  The evidence does not support a finding that she committed the offense and she believes all the facts and circumstances were not properly considered.  The GOMOR had the effect of causing her to be a two-time pass over for promotion which ended her officer career.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from her counsel and the following attachments:

* fourteen DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated between 15 May 2011 and 24 March 2014
* GOMOR, dated 5 November 2011
* fourteen statements of support, ten statements were undated and four were dated between 3 August 2013 and 25 February 2014
* five DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER))
* a self-authored statement from the applicant, undated
* two memoranda
* a letter
* orders
* a two-page list of names titled Non-Active Guard Reserve and National Guard Competitive Categories
* a page titled Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and two pages titled Article 134 (Fraternization) and Article 134 (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline)
* one page of a DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer (IO)/Board of Officers)
* United States versus Cohen, Airman First Class (AFC), U.S. Air Force (USAF), Number 04-0606, US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF), dated 7 April 2006

COUNSEL'S STATEMENT: 

Counsel states: 

	a.  The applicant requests the GOMOR she received from BG JTW be set aside.  She dated and married MSG BFK while both were working for the same USAR unit.  After self-reporting their relationship to their commander, Colonel (COL) BJI, they both received an LOR for fraternization that was placed in their local files for 1 year.  On 5 November 2011, BG JTW issued GOMORs to both individuals and the applicant's is filed in her OMPF.  BG JTW alleges the applicant violated Article 134, Article 133, Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation), and Article 134 of the UCMJ.

	b.  In October 2010, the applicant began a relationship with MSG BFK and she entered active duty on 1 November 2010 at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD), PA.  Per her mobilization orders, she was attached to LEAD for UCMJ, administrative, and pay purposes.  In February 2011, she was released from active duty and returned to her Troop Program Unit (TPU).  She started working at the U.S. Army War College as an Army civilian.  During a period of the applicant's command, MSG BFK did assume duty as the Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Brigade TPU, 94th Division (Force Sustainment (FS)), Harrisburg, PA, first sergeant (1SG), but the applicant did not rate him.  He was mobilized for the S-3 mission and was rated as such.  At no time was there any direct supervision or chain of command issue between the applicant and MSG BFK.

	c.  The applicant and MSG BFK continued to date but remained professional at all times.  In May 2011, as their relationships grew more serious, the applicant informed Command Sergeant Major (CSM) JAM, the brigade CSM, of their relationship and he told her he would inform COL BJI (emphasis added).  COL BJI gave the applicant a direct order to cease the cohabitation with MSG BFK and separately gave MSG BFK the same order.  MSG BFK asked if there was any way to resolve the matter and COL BJI stated "marry the girl."

	d.  In May 2011, COL BJI appointed an IO to conduct an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for IO and Board of Officers) investigation into the relationship and on 2 August 2011 the applicant and MSG BFK were married.  From the time the AR 15-6 investigation began until their marriage, both continued to work at the brigade with the applicant assigned to the TPU and MSG BFK mobilized in the S-3 position.  On 1 September 2011, the applicant received an unofficial copy of the LOR from COL BJI and assumed everything was over.  [The AR 15-6 and LOR are not available for review with this case.]

	e.  During the applicant's time at 2nd Brigade and under the leadership of COL BJI, she witnessed other relationships that had a significant and detrimental mission impact.  One relationship was between a single female, a USAR MSG, and a married staff sergeant (SSG) that resulted in the married SSG's spouse attempting suicide.  No investigation was undertaken regarding this incident.  Another inappropriate relationship occurred between two married Soldiers in the same unit.  One was a female sergeant (SGT) and the other was a SGM.  These two traveled on trips together and COL BJI was informed the SGT's new baby might be the SGM's child.  Again, nothing was investigated.

	f.  On 5 November 2011, the applicant received the GOMOR.  She acknowledged it and responded by asking that it not be filed in her OMPF.  On 19 December 2011, BG JTW determined the GOMOR would be filed in her OMPF.  On 6 January 2012, it was placed in the performance folder of her OMPF.  On 6 March 2012, at her request, the applicant received a copy of the AR 15-6 minus the DA Form 1574.  She was subsequently told it did not contain any recommendations from COL BJI.

	g.  In November 2010, the applicant was passed over for promotion [to CPT] because she had not completed her bachelor's degree.  She completed the degree in June 2011 and was selected for promotion to CPT by the board held in November 2011.  The board results were officially released on 1 March 2012 and on that date she received an email from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command stating her records had to go through the Department of the Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) process due to the GOMOR being in her OMPF after the board was held and prior to release of the board results.  

	h.  The applicant reached out to COL BJI for a letter to include with her PRB packet.  He agreed to provide one but did not do so after she told him that she and MSG BFK received GOMORs.  On 5 March 2012, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the PRB and in October 2012 she received the PRB results removing her from the promotion list.  On 29 October 2012, she was considered by a board for promotion to CPT and on 30 July 2013 she found out she was not selected.  In November 2012, the applicant was hospitalized for the stress and anxiety she experienced relating to the fraternization, disciplinary process, and promotion process she had experienced.

	i.  The applicant and her spouse requested assistance in October 2012 from the Inspector General (IG), 94th Training Division, and in March 2013 from the IG, 80th Training Command.  She reached out to the AR 15-6 IO about items in the report that she found untrue.  She reached out to COL BJI and to BG JTW to reconsider his filing determination but none of these steps helped.  She did learn from the IG that an "unofficial document" was used by BG JTW to make his final determination on the GOMOR.  

	j.  In June 2013, the applicant submitted a package to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) and received significant support from her current [at that time] chain of command to include BG B____, Commander, 87th USAR Support Command (East).  She provided a draft letter of recommendation to COL BJI.  Her efforts were unsuccessful and due to the GOMOR being permanently filed in her OMPF she was discharged from the USAR as a two-time non-select for promotion.  She is currently serving in the USAR as a SSG.

	k.  The initial legal error is the conclusion reached by COL BJI and BG JTW that a marriage between an officer and an enlisted member is fraternization in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  Paragraph 83 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) discusses fraternization.  This offense contains five elements, all of which must be proved by competent evidence before the alleged offense is committed.  The final element is the element totally absent any proof in the AR 15-6 investigation.  This element states "that, 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."

	l.  Paragraph 83c contains the caveat that "Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense.  Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances.  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."  No sworn statement in the AR 15-6 report gives any indication of a concrete, identifiable, compromise to the applicant's chain of command.

	m.  The sworn statement by SGT MBG makes no mention of a compromise to the chain of command.  SSG RGB stated he did not notice any unprofessional behavior by the applicant or MSG BFK.  Sergeant First Class (SFC) CDB stated the applicant had been at one battle assembly and MSG BFK was not present.  SFC ALH stated he observed the applicant and MSG BFK go to lunch and drive each other's car and that some Soldiers in the unit got counseled regarding fraternization and others did not.  In her sworn statement, MSG TVM based her conclusion that they were fraternizing based on rumor, speculation, and conjecture.  MSG SDI stated they conducted themselves in a professional manner.  SSG CLL stated nothing led him to believe their relationship was anything more than friends.  Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) RAG stated he never witnessed anything inappropriate between them.  Without all elements of the crime of fraternization, there is no punishable offense.  To base a career-ending GOMOR on speculation and conjecture is wrong and a denial of basic and fundamental fairness on the part of BG JTW.

	n.  A disturbing insight into BG JTW's mindset is found in the language of the GOMOR.  He alleges not only fraternization as an actionable offense but also conduct unbecoming an officer, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and failure to obey a lawful order.  Paragraph 60, MCM clearly states, "If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law."  Since all the elements of fraternization were not established then conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline also fails.  

	o.  Any comparison of a secret romance between an officer and an enlisted member being a violation of Article 133 is preposterous.  This article is intended to cover conduct such as dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, or cruelty.  Charges under Article 133 require proof of all the elements of the specific offense.  Since there is a stunning lack of proof of all elements of violation of fraternization, there cannot be a violation of Article 133.

	p.  On 6 May 2011, CSM JAM received a call from MSG BFK inquiring about how to handle rumors that he and the applicant were dating.  CSM JAM engaged MSG BFK in conversation and asked questions to elicit more facts about the dating situation and admitted to asking how long it had been going on.  As a senior member of the chain of command, CSM JAM had a duty to be vigilant in his conversation and only receive information that he knew to be incriminating.  See the attached United States versus Cohen for a definitive exposition of the reach and application of Article 31 (Right to Remain Silent), UCMJ.  Although Article 31 is often stated to be a personal right of each individual, under the facts and circumstances of this case the issue of MSG BFK's rights so closely intertwined with that of the applicant that her rights were violated through the actual violation of MSG BFK's rights.  As such, any information negatively implicating the applicant should be disregarded out of fairness.

	q.  It is also a well understood concept in military jurisprudence that an act of misconduct should only receive one act of discipline or correction.  Although the romance of the applicant and MSG BFK were not known until he self-reported it, COL BJI properly responded by initiating an AR 15-6.  Once it was completed, he issued the applicant a LOR to be locally filed for 1 year.  His response would have been appropriate had the applicant committed all the elements of fraternization.  The lack of knowledge of the romance is proof the final element of fraternization was not committed.  Even assuming the applicant's actions did amount to fraternization, the response from COL BJI was appropriate and any further intervention higher up the chain of command was unnecessary and improper.  

	r.  In issuing the GOMOR, BG JTW demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the facts and circumstances of the alleged fraternization.  He ignored paragraph 83c(1), MCM, which states, "The acts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude 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."  The GOMOR should be set aside as it violates the principle of duplicative punishment, is unsupported by the facts, and was issued without first-hand knowledge of the personal characteristics of the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was serving as a 1LT in the USAR.  She was assigned as the Company Commander, HHC, 2nd Brigade, 94th Division (FS), Harrisburg, PA. 

2.  She was ordered to active duty as a member of her USAR unit and entered active duty on 1 November 2010.  She was assigned as the Assistant S-1, HHC, 2nd Brigade.  She was released from active duty on 25 February 2011 to the control of the USAR.  She completed 3 months and 25 days of active service during this period of service.

3.  On 5 November 2011, she received a GOMOR from BG JTW, USAR, Commander, 94th Division (FS) Fort Lee, VA.  BG JTW stated:

	a.  A commander's inquiry [AR 15-6] that was completed on 10 July 2011 revealed the applicant shared living accommodations with and dated MSG BFK.  She carried on the relationship while she was the HHC Commander and MSG BFK was the acting 1SG and she and MSG BFK were married on 2 August 2011.  Her relationship was known by others within the command and compromised the perception of unfairness in violation of AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), paragraph 4-14.  This wanton fraternization violated the custom of the service that officers not fraternize with enlisted Soldiers.  Her conduct as a leader was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of her unit and brought discredit upon the Armed Forces.  Her actions violated Article 134, Article 133, Article 92, and Article 134 of the UCMJ.  

	b.  She was hereby reprimanded for poor judgment, lack of integrity, and a serious lapse of professional behavior exhibited by the handling of her personal affairs.  As an officer in the Army, it was incumbent upon her to conduct herself in accordance with Army Values and exhibit the qualities commensurate with her rank and position.  Her failures noted above undermined her reputation as an officer and leader and reflected poorly on the USAR and her division.

	c.  The reprimand was administratively imposed under the provisions of AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  He was considering filing the reprimand in the applicant's OMPF as a permanent document but would consider any written matters she wished to submit prior to his final filing decision.

4.  On 19 November 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR.  In a statement dated 12 December 2011 she stated:

	a.  She took full responsibility for the violation of the Army Fraternization Policy and respectfully requested the GOMOR not be placed in her OMPF.  She had been punished by the LOR from COL BJI.  She further based her request on AR 600-20 that states the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure good order and discipline are satisfied.

	b.  She wanted to reiterate her dedication to the Army; she had served 6 years as an active duty enlisted Soldier.  In 2003, she assumed legal guardianship of her younger sister that ultimately led to a hardship discharge.  In 2006, she enlisted in the USAR and in 2008 she was commissioned in the Adjutant General Corps.  She was very passionate about taking care of Soldiers and throughout her career her senior raters described her manner of performance as outstanding, superb, and exceptional.

	c.  On 22 October 2010, she received mobilization orders for the Installation Management Command (IMCOM) with duty at LEAD with a start date of 1 November 2010.  Her change of command was supposed to occur in October 2010 but was delayed until January 2011 due to issues with the incoming commander.  During the period she was on active duty she was also tasked as the Company Commander, HHC, 2nd Brigade.  She was unsure whether this was allowed but the needs of the unit had to be met.

	d.  During her time as the HHC Commander, MSG BFK was the acting 1SG; she did not rate him or provide input to his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER).  He was mobilized at the brigade in support of the S-3 and was rated in that capacity.  In her positions as the Assistant S-1 and HHC Commander, she had no influence on MSG BFK's mobilization orders for the brigade.

	e.  When she realized her feelings toward MSG BFK had changed, she requested to transfer from the unit but it was denied as she was in a key and essential position.  A short time later, they (the applicant and MSG BFK) informed the chain of command of their relationship.  A formal commander's inquiry was initiated by COL BJI and she and her spouse provided sworn truthful statements during the AR 15-6 investigation taking responsibility for the transgression.  COL BJI issued a direct order to cease cohabitation to which they both complied.  She and MSG BFK remedied the situation by getting married.  Upon conclusion of the AR 15-6 investigation, she received an LOR.  She believed COL BJI issued the locally-filed LOR based on his perspective that "the needs of good order and discipline had been satisfied" against the needs of the unit and in considering her record as a whole.  She believed he understood they were not trying to be disobedient, having been recognized as excellent Soldiers and highly regarded in both their respective units.

	f.  She requested BG JTW rescind his GOMOR and allow the locally-filed LOR to stand as the final administrative action.  She had fully acknowledged the transgression and understood that as an officer in the Army that perception could damage unit cohesion.  Her pursuit of happiness with her spouse was not intended to be defiant toward the Army and she did not feel her decision to share a life of love and happiness should negatively define her career from that point forward.  If the GOMOR issued by him was filed in her and her spouse's OMPF their careers would be tarnished and their opportunities limited.  She was privileged and proud to be a member of the Army and requested to continue to serve her country without the permanent filing of the GOMOR in her OMPF.

5.  On 19 December 2011, after considering the applicant's rebuttal statement and the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct, BG JTW determined the GOMOR would be permanently filed in her OMPF.  It is currently filed in the performance folder of her OMPF.

6.  On 20 September 2012, she was notified that the PRB reconsidered her promotions status and her name was removed from the FY12 CPT USAR Promotion Selection List.

7.  On 31 October 2013, the DASEB denied her request to remove the GOMOR from her OMPF or transfer it to the restricted folder of her OMPF.  The DASEB stated the evidence presented did not provide substantial evidence that the removal or transfer of the GOMOR would be in the best interest of the Army and, by unanimous vote, determined the overall merits of her case did not warrant the requested relief.

8.  Orders 13-343-0034, dated 9 December 2013, issued by HQ, USAR Command, Fort Bragg, NC, discharged her from the USAR effective 1 February 2014 by reason of being non-selected for promotion to CPT twice.

9.  Since receipt of the GOMOR the applicant received an OER covering the rated period from 10 January 2011 through 9 January 2012 wherein she received "satisfactory performance, promote" and "fully qualified" ratings.  She also received two OERs covering the rated periods from 10 January 2012 through 9 January 2014 wherein she received "outstanding performance must promote" and "best qualified" ratings.  On 1 January 2014, she was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award).

10.  She subsequently enlisted in the USAR in the rank of SSG. 

11.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A statement of support, dated 18 February 2014, wherein CPT SEY stated he served as the Brigade Judge Advocate (BJA), 72nd Field Artillery Brigade for about 6 years and during that time he worked regularly with the applicant to address legal actions.  She was the consummate professional in her duties as unit administrator and efficiently processed administrative separations allowing her commanders to enforce good order and discipline.  Her dedication to her Soldiers, commanders, and the Army was obvious in her daily work performance.  She is capable of overcoming her past and making great contributions to her unit and the Army.

	b.  A statement of support, dated 20 February 2014, wherein a retired 1SG stated he knew the applicant in 2000 when she was a specialist (SPC) and worked in the orderly room.  Her meticulous attention to detail and positive attitude, combined with outstanding performance of duty, set her apart from other enlisted Soldiers.  

	c.  A statement of support, dated 25 February 2014, wherein Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) JD, Commander, 1st Battalion, USAR Careers Division, Devens, MA, stated he knew the applicant from his time at the U.S. Army War College in 2011/2012.  She was an exceptional human being both personally and professionally, a solid leader, hard worker, and one of the most capable and trustworthy young officers he knows.  He strongly recommended her request for reinstatement as an officer in the USAR be granted and she be promoted to CPT. 

	d.  Ten statements of support, all undated, wherein her sister, friends, former unit members, and civilian co-workers all stated the applicant exemplified herself as a compassionate and determined leader, she always maintained a high level of professionalism, she was trustworthy, and was a woman of high character and moral values.

12.  The applicant also provides a United States v. Cohen, AFC, USAF, Number 04-0606, USCAAF decision document, dated 7 April 2006, wherein AFC Cohen was convicted by a general court-martial of committing two specifications of indecent acts and one specification of indecent assault in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  His sentence included a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 3 years.  AFC Cohen challenged the military judge's failure to suppress statements he made to the IG on the basis the IG failed to advise him of his rights pursuant to Article 31, UCMJ.  The court found that the IG should have given him a rights warning but concluded the error was harmless.

13.  AR 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 filing determination is made.

14.  A GOMOR 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 GOMOR is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF, the GOMOR and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with AR 600-37, chapter 7.

15.  AR 600-37 defines unfavorable information is defined as “any credible derogatory information that may reflect on a Soldier’s character, integrity, trustworthiness, or reliability.”  Paragraph 3-4 specifically addresses nonpunitive administrative LORs.  Recipients have the opportunity to rebut the unfavorable information.

16.  AR 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve and Army National Guard officers.  It states that an officer may be referred to a PRB upon receipt of a GOMOR that is placed in the OMPF.  

17.  Before the PRB convenes, the officer under review will be informed, by memorandum, of the reason for the action and provided a copy of any information that will be considered by the board.  The officer will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit comments on that information to the PRB.  A PRB will consider an officer’s official military personnel record, in addition to any submission to the board by an officer under consideration. 

18.  AR 135-155 specifies that promotion reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s non-selection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the GOMOR should be removed from her OMPF and she should be reinstated as a commissioned officer in the USAR because she was wrongly punished for fraternization when all the elements of fraternization under Article 134, UCMJ, were not committed.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant received a GOMOR in November 2011 for fraternization after an AR 15-6 investigation determined the applicant, a 1LT, was living with MSG BFK.  They had carried on the relationship while she was the HHC Commander and he was the acting 1SG, the relationship was known by others, and compromised the integrity of her supervisory authority and caused at least the perception of unfairness.  She was afforded the opportunity to submit matters in her own behalf prior to a final filing decision.  

3.  In her response to the GOMOR, she stated she took full responsibility for the violation of the Army Fraternization Policy, she admitted that during her time as the HHC Commander MSG BFK had been the acting 1SG, but she had not rated him or provided input for his NCOER.  Her response was received and considered.  Subsequently, the GOMOR was referred for filing in her OMPF.  The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of her OMPF.  

4.  She contended that all elements of Article 134, UCMJ were not met so fraternization did not occur, and her counsel stated that if misconduct (fraternization) is punished as a crime or offense, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law.  However, this contention is not applicable as the applicant was not charged with a crime.  The GOMOR was given as an administrative matter only and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  

5.  Further, unfavorable information is defined as “any credible derogatory information that may reflect on a Soldier’s character, integrity, trustworthiness, or reliability.  The applicant did not allege that she was not provided a copy of the unfavorable information or supporting documents.

6.  The CAAF case provided by the applicant addressed the requirement to provide Article 31b warnings to a military member.  Any issues regarding Article 31b rights could have been addressed in her response to the GOMOR.  In addition, she appears to be alleging that the Army violated her future husband’s Article 31b rights, not hers.  

7.  The evidence of record confirms the GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of her OMPF.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

8.  The applicant was non-selected for promotion to CPT twice.  Her removal from active status was a matter of law.  Since there is no error or injustice regarding her removal, there is no reason to reinstate her as a CPT, 1LT, or any other rank.  Additionally, the applicant does not qualify for an SSB.  An SSB is appropriate when there is a materiel error.  The applicant has not shown a material error.  
9.  After a comprehensive review of her records and the evidence she provided, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant any of the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   _X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007248



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007248



9


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1