IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  23 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012898 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

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

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


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests transfer of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 14 June 2006, and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 14 June 2006, from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and, as a result of these corrections, consideration of his records by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to Major (MAJ).

2.  The applicant states that he has met all the criteria to merit approval of his request.  Specifically, Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) allows for the transfer of the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR when the Soldier is at least a staff sergeant or above, the intended purpose has been served, at least one (1) year has elapsed since imposition of the reprimand, and at least one evaluation report has been received since it was imposed.

   a.  He states the intended purpose of the two documents has been served because he has accepted responsibility and the consequences for his behavior; he continues to feel guilt, shame, and remorse for his actions; and he regrets violating the Army Values and his personal convictions about right and wrong.
He adds that he was mandatorily retired from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 March 2014.

   b.  It has been eight (8) years since he was disciplined.  During this period he completed several overseas deployments, the resident Intermediate-Level Education course, and he received outstanding evaluation reports.  This period has included prolonged periods of time away from his family and voluntarily leaving a high-paying position after more than 20 years of service in the private sector.  He believes this demonstrates his strong commitment to duty.

   c.  The reasons he committed his acts of indiscipline were due to his frustration and anger.  He states he was recommended for the Bronze Star Medal about 58 days prior to receiving a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report [OER]) for the seven-month rating period from 1 November 2005 through 11 June 2006.  The rater had also written a letter to his mother praising his duty performance and efforts.  Following these actions, his performance was rated as significantly substandard.  He had a difficult time understanding how the rater's substandard assessment of his performance could be possible.

   d.  He did not receive counseling from his rater during the rating period and the OER was completed within one week of his redeployment.  He offers as evidence copies of his redeployment orders that were issued on 20 June 2006 with a release from active duty date of 17 July 2006.  He states this short timeframe did not allow him sufficient time to adequately address the situation.  He adds the OERs and award recommendations of other officers on the team were completed several months prior to their redeployment.

   e.  He describes the leadership and conditions within the 10-man embedded training team as divided, hostile, and toxic.   Having been promoted to captain (CPT)/pay grade O-3 less than three months prior to the end of his tour, he was the lowest ranking officer on the team.  He adds that he was generally excluded, bullied, and treated with a strong degree of animosity by all but two U.S. Air Force officers who were attached to the team.

   f.  He does not agree with his rater's initial assessment of his performance; however, he acknowledges that he was wrong in his actions and he handled the situation poorly.

   g.  He adds this period was extremely stressful in his personal life.  Three months before deploying he and his wife separated and he was given custody of his 12 year old son.  During the deployment, he placed his son in a military boarding school because there was a lack of a reliable family support network.
The school policy governing when children would be released from school for the Christmas holidays led to a conflict on the training team (i.e., the leave dates of a senior officer were in conflict with his leave dates).  Eventually, the other officer changed his leave dates.  This caused a significant amount of animosity between him and other senior officers.

   h.  His commitment to the military mission during the Global War on Terrorism never wavered.  During his service he completed three military deployments: two to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and one to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).  In addition, he successfully completed several leadership courses and he was recognized by his chain of command for his duty performance.

   i.  He adds that Civil Affairs (CA) officers in the grade of O-4 are significantly understrength in both the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army.

   j.  He requests consideration of his record of service and achievements since the incident.  He adds it would be a great honor and privilege to return to military service and have a chance to mentor less experienced CA officers and Soldiers.

3.  The applicant provides copies of 38 documents as identified in his self-authored statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, USAR, and Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States with the Nevada ARNG (NVARNG) and the Utah ARNG (UTARNG) during the period 14 June 1983 and 11 January 2000.

2.  On 12 January 2000, he was appointed as a reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant in the UTARNG.  He transferred to the NVARNG on 3 February 2000.

3.  The applicant was ordered to active duty in support of OEF on 20 May 2005.  He deployed to Afghanistan on 20 June 2005.  He was promoted to CPT (O-3) on 30 March 2006.

4.  A DA Form 2627, dated 14 June 2006, shows the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for, on 11 June 2006 –

* with intent to deceive, signing an official record (his OER (DA Form 67-9) for the period ending 12 June 2006), which was false in that it included rater and/or senior rater evaluations that were not made by his rater or senior rater, and was then known by him to be so false; this in violation of Article 107, UCMJ
* with intent to deceive, making a statement to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) that he was giving the NCO the correct OER (DA Form 67-9) that was prepared and signed by his rater and senior rater, which statement was totally false and was then known by him to be so false; this in violation of Article 107, UCMJ
* willfully and unlawfully altering a public record (his OER (DA Form 67-9)) for the period ending 12 June 2006), and such conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; this in violation of Article 133, UCMJ

   a.  The applicant requested a closed hearing; a person to speak in his behalf was not requested; and matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were not presented.

   b.  The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $500 per month for two months and a written reprimand.  The DA Form 2627 was to be filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

   c.  The applicant did not appeal the NJP.

5.  On 14 June 2006, Brigadier General J____ M. P____, Commander, Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Phoenix IV, Camp Phoenix, Kabul, Afghanistan, issued a GOMOR to the applicant for his failure to conduct himself in the manner expected of an officer in the U.S. Army.  The GOMOR shows, on 11 June 2006, the applicant presented a Change of Duty OER to the CJTF CJ1 staff representing it as the OER rendered by his rater and senior rater.  Then, on 12 June 2006, the CJ1 was presented the original Change of Duty OER by the applicant's rater.  Upon comparison of the two documents, it became evident that the negative leader attribute and action assessments given by the rater and the negative narrative comments made by both the rater and senior rater on the original OER had been changed to favorable assessments and comments.  In addition, the signatures of the rater and senior rater had been forged on the OER that the applicant provided to the CJ1.

   a.  The commander advised that he was directing the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

   b.  The applicant was instructed to reply within 5 days of receipt of the GOMOR by submitting any statement or documentation in rebuttal or mitigation.

   c.  On 14 June 2006, the applicant waived his 5 day waiting period and elected not to make or submit statements on his own behalf.

   d.  On 14 June 2006, the commander forwarded the GOMOR and allied documents for filing in the applicant's OMPF.

6.  A DA Form 67-9, Change of Duty OER, covering the period 1 May 2005 through 11 June 2006, shows the applicant was serving as Embedded Training Team S1 Mentor, Headquarters Support Battalion (HSB), 53rd Infantry Brigade, CJTF Phoenix.

   a.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism) shows block markings of "No" for the following –

* block a (Army Values), item 6 (Selfless-Service)
* block b (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) –

* b.1 (Attributes), item 1 (Mental)
* b.2 (Skills), item 1 (Conceptual)
* b.3 (Actions - Leadership), item 2 (Decision-Making)

   b.  The rater (Colonel (COL) D____ J. W____, HSB Team Chief) evaluated the applicant's performance and potential as "Unsatisfactory Performance."  He also provided comments pertaining to the applicant's duty performance and the reasons for his evaluation.

   c.  The senior rater (COL N____ L. R____, Deputy Brigade Commander) evaluated the applicant's promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Do Not Promote."  He also provided comments and the reasons for his evaluation.

   d.  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 "No."  The OER also shows the rater, senior rater, and applicant signed the OER on 14 June 2006.

7.  A review of the applicant's OMPF shows the DA Form 67-9 for the period ending 11 June 2006; the DA Form 2627, dated 14 June 2006; and the GOMOR with applicant's acknowledgement and the filing directive, dated 14 June 2006, are filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

8.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 17 July 2006 and transferred to Joint Forces Headquarters, NVARNG.

9.  On 9 April 2009, the Deputy Director, Personnel and Services, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), notified the applicant that his eligibility for retired pay had been established upon attaining age 60 (a 20-Year letter).

10.  HRC, Fort Knox, KY, Orders Number C-10-314065, dated 10 October 2013, released the applicant from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) based on non-selection for promotion and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Retired Reserve) effective 31 March 2014.
11.  On 25 May 2012, the applicant submitted an application to the Department of the Army Suitability Board (DASEB) requesting transfer of the DA Form 2627 and the GOMOR (both dated 14 June 2006) from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  On 27 September 2012, the DASEB determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify transfer of the documents to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

12.  A review of the applicant's OMPF failed to reveal evidence that he appealed the DA Form 67-9 (OER) for the period ending 11 June 2006.

13.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his request.

   a.  Installation Management Agency, Headquarters (HQ), U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, CO, Orders 171-0022, dated 20 June 2006, that shows the applicant was REFRAD on 17 July 2006 and assigned to HQ, State Area Command, NVARNG.

   b.  DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 9 April 2006, that shows he was recommended for the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service from 22 June 2005 to 22 June 2006; on 9 April 2006, the approving authority downgraded the award to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM); and the award was announced in HQ CJTC-Phoenix, Permanent Order Number 161-001, dated 
10 June 2006.

   c.  A note from COL D____ J. W____ (applicant's rater) to Mrs. S____ (applicant's mother), postmarked 4 April 2006, that shows he expressed his appreciation for the applicant's work and also advised her that the applicant would soon be promoted to CPT.

   d.  DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) that shows he passed the APFT on 27 December 2013.

   e.  Seven letters in support of his request to transfer the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR from the performance to the restricted folder of his OMPF, as follows:

    	(1)  from Mr. J____ W. B____, Logistics Operations Officer, dated 22 July 2013, who served with the applicant in 2006 as an embedded trainer.  He found him to be an excellent officer and mentor for his Afghan S1 counterpart.  He states that no one was denied leave due to the applicant's performance and he does not believe the applicant ever intentionally left a vehicle unlocked.  He adds the applicant implemented a system that tracked accountability for Afghan personnel and their pay, he facilitated establishing a relationship between the Afghan counterparts and a local Kabul hospital, and he sponsored a local national interpreter when the foreign national applied for a U.S. visa.  He concludes that the applicant has displayed incredible professionalism and humility, and a continuing commitment to serve the country.

    	(2)  from COL P____ G. D____, Senior Liaison Officer (and (then) senior rater), International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, Kabul, Afghanistan, dated 10 August 2013.  He states the applicant has been very transparent and honest about his past indiscretions and he believes the applicant has learned a great deal from the experience.  He notes the applicant has received high praise while serving in his current duty position.  He concludes by stating he has reviewed both the DA Form 2627 and the GOMOR, along with the applicant's service as both a contractor and Department of the Army Civilian deploying in support of OEF and OIF, and he has no hesitancy in recommending to the Board that he believes the intent of the punishment has been served.

    	(3)  from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) A____ D____, Operations Officer,
2nd Mobility Support Group, Fort Sill, OK, dated 6 September 2013.  He states that he was the applicant's rater for two years (from 3 October 2006 to 2 October 2008) and he performed as one of the most professional and proficient CA Team leaders he has supervised.  He notes the applicant is committed to improving his professional skills and team building.  He states the applicant has been transparent in the offense he committed and has expressed remorse and shame for his actions.  He adds that he believes the intent of the documents has been served.

    	(4)  from LTC R____ F. L____, Sr., Director, CJ-9, CJTF-101, HQ, Regional Command East, Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, dated 29 September 2013.  He states that he is the applicant's direct supervisor and he is honored to have him on his staff.  He emphasizes the applicant's demeanor, diligence, and intellectual capability as contributing to the preparation of the staff in being successful in its mission.  He adds that he is not exactly sure what occurred in the past, but he offers his strongest recommendation in support of the applicant's request.

    	(5)  from Sergeant Major G____ L. F____, U.S. Army (Retired), dated
1 December 2013.  He served twice with the applicant (most recently in Iraq during 2008 and 2009) and the applicant's performance was distinguished and error-free.  He states that he discussed the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR with the applicant and he has been very candid about the matter.  He believes that his leadership experience over the last 30 years leads him to believe that the intent of the GOMOR has been served.

   	(6)  from LTC D____ J. W____, Deputy Commander, 358th CA Brigade, Riverside, CA, dated 10 December 2013.  He states that he served with the applicant in the 425th CA Brigade while deployed in support of OIF from August 2008 to August 2009.  He found the applicant highly professional, exceptionally competent, and thoroughly reliable in the performance of his duties.  He states the applicant has been open and frank about his responsibility for the actions that have denied him promotion.  He notes the applicant's exceptional performance in the years following, while officers in his peer group advanced, serves as sufficient punishment and meets the Army's intent (of the documents).

   	(7)  from COL E____ L. D____, Senior Liaison Officer, Combined Joint Operations Area–Afghanistan, Center for Army Lessons Learned, Fort Leavenworth, KS, dated 21 December 2013.  He states that for the past two months he has been in daily contact with the applicant.  He describes him as an extremely intelligent and dedicated officer who has been very transparent and honest about his past indiscretions.   He believes the applicant has learned a valuable lesson, suffered professionally for his past indiscretion, and he should be promoted immediately.  (It is noted the second and third paragraphs of the letter are similar to those in the letter from COL P____ G. D____, dated
10 August 2013, with variations in the description of the applicant's duties in the second paragraph while the third paragraph of the two documents are identical.)

   f.  A letter of recommendation from Mr. G___ M____, Team Leader, Human Terrain Team–AF06, dated 3 March 2011.  He offers strong endorsement of the applicant's duty performance since his assignment to the team in July 2010.  He expresses confidence in the applicant's ability to perform the job in any team in the future.

   g.  Seven DA Forms 67-9 (OERs) spanning the period from 23 May 2005 through 8 October 2013 (sans the DA Form 67-9 for the period from 1 November 2005 through 11 June 2006) that document his successful performance of duty.

    	(1)  The raters evaluated the applicant's performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" (five of the OERs) and as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" (two of the OERs).

    	(2)  The senior raters evaluated the applicant's promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified" (five of the OERs) and as "Fully Qualified" (two of the OERs).


   h.  Two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Reports) that show he completed the –

* Military Police Captains Career Course on 12 January 2005
* Civil Affairs Qualification Course on 14 February 2008

   i.  Three DA Forms 4980-12 (MSM Certificates) that show he was awarded the MSM for meritorious service from – 

* 22 June 2005 to 22 June 2006 in support of OEF
* 10 October 2008 to 18 August 2009 in support OIF 
* 15 March 2013 to 10 February 2014 in support of OEF

   j.  Nine certificates issued to the applicant recognizing his –

* service as Liaison Officer for the Army Center for Lessons Learned from 1 August 2013 to 30 January 2014
* service in maintaining peace and security in Afghanistan
* completion of the Combined Arms Exercise, Fort Dix, NJ
* superior duty as Observer/Controller during Rotation 10-02, Operations Group, National Training Center
* completion of the Human Terrain System course on 18 June 2010
* completion of the Immersion Seminar on the language, culture, and history of Afghanistan on 19 March 2010
* completion of the Advanced Counterinsurgency Leaders course on 
27 January 2011
* performance during counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan
* service in support of the Soldiers on Forward Operating Base Apache in Zabul, Afghanistan

   k.  His resume (5 pages) that provides a summary of his civilian and military education, qualifications, experience, and record of performance.

   l.  An article from the website http://www.armytimes.com (Civil Affairs:  The Army's hottest job is hiring now, dated 1 June 2014) that states, in pertinent part, "The Army is looking to bolster its cadre of 'warrior diplomats' by adding hundreds of enlisted Soldiers and officers.  To entice applicants, the service is touting big bonuses, instant promotions, high job satisfaction, and assignments all over the world."

14.  Army Regulation 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 documents in the OMPF:

a. the DA Form 2627 -

* is filed in either the performance or restricted folder, as directed in item 5 of the DA Form 2627
* if the form shows punishment of a written letter of reprimand, then file the written letter of reprimand with the DA Form 2627
* allied documents to the DA Form 2627 are filed in the restricted folder

   b.  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.

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 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.

    	(1)  Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the OMPF.  Such appeals will be considered only from enlisted Soldiers in grades E–6 and above and officers.

		(a)  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.

		(b)  GOMOR's 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.

    	(2)  A petition for the transfer of NJP imposed under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, applies only to enlisted Soldiers in grades E–6 and above and officers.  Records of NJP 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.

    	(3)  An officer who directed the filing in the OMPF of an administrative letter of reprimand, admonition, or censure may request its revision, alteration, or removal, if later investigation determines it was untrue or unjust, in whole or in
part.  The basis for such determination must be provided to the DASEB in sufficient detail so as to justify the request.  An officer who directed the filing of such a letter in the OMPF may not initiate an appeal on the basis that the letter has served its intended purpose.  However, a letter of support may be submitted with the recipient's appeal.

16.  Army Regulation135-155 (ARNG and USAR – Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrants Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of ARNG and USAR commissioned officers to include processing SSBs.  SSBs will be convened to reconsider officers who are either improperly omitted from consideration due to administrative error, or who were non-selected for mandatory promotion as a result of material error.  SSBs are conducted as an additional duty of regularly scheduled mandatory Reserve of the Army selection boards for the same competitive category.  The ABCMR has the authority to refer an officer's record to an SSB. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the DA Form 2627, dated 14 June 2006, and the GOMOR, dated 14 June 2006, should be transferred from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his OMPF because the intended purpose of the documents has been served and, as a result of the corrective action, his records should be considered by an SSB for promotion to MAJ (O-4).

2.  The evidence of record shows an OER with the period ending 11 June 2006 is filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF and there is no evidence of record that he appealed the OER.

3.  Records show the applicant accepted NJP on 14 June 2006 and the punishment imposed included, in pertinent part, a written reprimand.  In both instances, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to present matters in defense, rebuttal, mitigation, and/or extenuation; however, he elected not to present any such evidence.  In addition, he did not appeal the NJP.

   a.  The evidence of record shows the DA Form 2626, dated 14 June 2006, along with the allied documents, and the GOMOR, dated 14 June 2006, along with allied documents are properly filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

   b.   On 27 September 2012, the DASEB determined there was insufficient evidence to justify transfer of the DA Form 2627 and the GOMOR from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

   c.  In his application to this Board, the applicant does not challenge the validity of the NJP or the GOMOR that are filed in his OMPF.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's rater wrote a note about the applicant's work performance sometime prior to 5 April 2006.  Then, on 9 April 2006, the award approval authority approved an award of the MSM for the period from 22 June 2005 to 22 June 2006.  Thus, the evidence of record shows the applicant's award recommendation was completed in a similar timeframe as that of other officers on the team.  

   a.  The applicant's acts of misconduct were discovered on 12 June 2006, which led to imposition of NJP and the GOMOR on 14 June 2006.

   b.  Thus, it may be concluded that the rater's comments in the note and also the award approval authority's decision were made without the benefit of any knowledge of the applicant's future acts of misconduct.

5.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's duty performance since the acts of misconduct under review through the date he was transferred to the Retired Reserve was noteworthy.  In addition, the letters provided in support of his application were carefully considered and they offer very favorable evidence in support of his request.

   a.  It is noted that the applicant did not provide letters of support from the rater or senior rater of the OER that led to the NJP and the GOMOR, or from the commander who directed filing the GOMOR in the OMPF.

   b.  The applicant's acts of misconduct show he willfully and unlawfully altered a public record (i.e., his OER) by changing the evaluation of his rating officials and forging their signatures.  In addition, he made a false statement to an NCO in an attempt to further his fraudulent effort.  In short, he sacrificed his honesty and integrity as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army.

   c.  The applicant states he has accepted responsibility and the consequences for his behavior; he continues to feel guilt, shame, and remorse for his actions; and he regrets violating the Army Values and his personal convictions about right and wrong.

6.  By regulation, in order to transfer a DA Form 2627 and/or a GOMOR from the performance folder to the restricted folder of the OMPF there must be proof that the intended purpose has been served or that the transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.

7.  The applicant's fraudulent acts, if they were successful, had the potential to cause a more qualified officer to be a non-select for promotion to MAJ.  In addition, they would have compromised the integrity of the U.S. Army's Officer Evaluation Reporting System.

8.  The applicant fails to acknowledge the true significance of his egregious misconduct.  As such, it is concluded that the intended purpose of the NJP and GOMOR has not been served and the transfer of those documents would not be in the best interest of the Army.

9.  Thus, after a careful review of the evidence of record, it is concluded that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to support the transfer of either the DA Form 2627 or the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.  Therefore, the DA Form 2627, dated 14 June 2006, along with the allied documents, and the GOMOR, dated 14 June 2006, along with the allied documents are deemed to be properly filed and should not be transferred to the restricted folder of the applicant's OMPF.

10.  Therefore, as a result of the aforementioned conclusions, there is no basis to grant 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)                                         AR20140012898



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012898



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1