IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 March 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010967
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 that a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 8 September 2011, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF.
2. He states the Inspector General (IG) could not substantiate any of the allegations, but he was told to sign the GOMOR. He adds that the GOMOR will cause him problems volunteering for active duty service.
3. He provides a copy of the GOMOR and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. After having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, on 13 January 1984, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant.
2. On 8 September 2011, while in the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC), he received a GOMOR for engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship of a sexual nature with a married woman and attempting to conceal the relationship by purchasing a personal cell phone for her so that she could communicate with him privately. The imposing authority further stated:
a. Since at least April 2011, the applicant had inappropriate contact with the married woman. His contact was inappropriate because of the sexual nature, which indicated a level of familiarity and intimacy that was outside the boundaries of a professional office relationship. The contact at issue included text messages, email, phone calls, and on at least one occasion the applicant was seen entering the married woman's residence while her husband was away. In addition, the applicant took affirmative steps to conceal his relationship with the married woman by purchasing a cellular telephone for her so that they could communicate in private.
b. He also said that as a field grade officer, the applicant was obligated to set a positive example, provide leadership, and maintain standards. His conduct raised serious questions about his judgment, self-discipline, and integrity. By engaging in the aforementioned conduct with a married woman, he brought discredit upon himself and the U.S. Army.
3. The applicant signed the memorandum indicating that he had read and understood the unfavorable information presented against him and elected not to make a statement.
4. On 8 September 2011, the imposing authority directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.
5. On 31 December 2011, the applicant was honorably retired in the rank of LTC and he was credited with 20 years and 6 days of active duty service.
6. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) states once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an object decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.
7. The above regulation also provides that unfavorable documents may be transferred upon proof that their intended purpose has been served or their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in September 2011 for engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship of a sexual nature with a married woman and attempting to conceal that relationship. He was given the opportunity to refute the information contained in the GOMOR and/or make a statement on his behalf, but he elected not to make a statement.
2. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any, such as the IG report, to substantiate his claim and/or show that the GOMOR was rendered in error or was unjust. Therefore, his argument 3 years later that the IG could not substantiate any of the allegations is not sufficient evidence to justify removal of the GOMOR or transfer to the restricted portion of his OMPF.
3. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20140010967
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010967
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001334
Counsel requests reconsideration, in part, of his earlier request for: * removal of all references to the applicant's Army Grade Determination Board (AGDRB) decision and reduction in rank/grade from colonel (COL)/O-6 to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * correction of the applicant's retired rank/grade to show COL/O-6 2. b. Paragraph 4a states, "Members of the United States Armed Forces, and other persons serving with, employed by or accompanying...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015172
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 January 2009, from his Official Military Personnel File (now known as his Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR)). The applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal to the DASEB on 8 May 2012 and the DASEB denied his appeal on 28 June 2012 stating the following: * the BOI is limited to making a determination whether to retain (with or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006037
For the reasons listed above, the investigation officer (IO) found the applicant was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Sxxxxx. The applicant addressed his response to MG MH and stated he already had an approved retirement action submitted as a result of MG MS's direction and would be placed on the retirement list as an LTC despite having served as and performed at the highest levels as a COL for over 4 years. Though the applicant and this officer's wife may have felt the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007255
Since the GOMOR, his record has been exemplary as evidenced by the Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) he received over the last 4 years; one of which was given to him by the same command he served under when he received the GOMOR. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012888
This means the applicant had no opportunity to review that information allegedly in the IO's informal investigation and his right to due process was violated because he had a right to review relevant evidence; e. the GOMOR and referred OER were based on the IO's alleged investigation but since no "true" investigation took place, there was no Report of Investigation to which the applicant could respond; f. the applicant did not violate Article 133 of the UCMJ. The CG indicated that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015992
The applicant states: * he questions the necessity of back-to-back investigations into the same allegations * the first investigation found proof that his former wife lied in her sworn statements * his former wife's later statements were viewed as credible despite the findings she previously lied * the second investigating officer (IO) based his findings on supposition and conjecture and not fact * his matters for consideration were never answered * the legal sufficiency review of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019847
The applicant requests removal of the following documents from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR): * a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 4 December 2009 * a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the rating period 1 July 2008 through 2 January 2010 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) 2. The applicant states: a. The GOMOR stated: a.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009379C070206
The board found there was no evidence to support a sexual relationship and voted to move the GOMOR to the applicants R-fiche. On 19 December 2002, after reviewing the case file, the GOMOR, the rebuttal matters submitted by the applicant and the filing recommendation of the applicant’s chain of command, the GOMOR issuing general officer directed the applicant’s GOMOR be filed in his OMPF. Further, the evidence of record confirms the GOMOR was issued and filed in the OMPF in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004219
The only alleged evidence of adultery was a phone call between the investigating officer (IO) and a woman who never provided a statement for this investigation. f. the applicant and Mrs. D.V. made allegations against the applicant regarding adultery with Mrs.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105845C070208
The applicant continues that the officer filing the GOMOR stated that it would be placed in his local file. In conclusion, the DASEB determined that: a. the applicant failed to indicate remorse for the misconduct in his appeal; b. the applicant failed to provide any letters of support for this appeal from the issuing chain of command or his current chain of command; c. the contentions that the applicant raised were previously considered by the Issuing Officer prior to his decision to issue...