IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013387 


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) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or that it be transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  He also requests that the "code" (interpreted to mean separation code) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to another unspecified code. 

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He understands he is not on active duty now but the GOMOR hinders his ability to do anything within the military or to join either the Army National Guard or the U.S. Army Reserve in the event of a conflict.  

	b.  He believes the record should be removed because he knows he made a mistake but he has grown from the mistake.  He proved so by focusing on schools and training that will help him grow professionally in the U.S. Army as an officer/warrant officer.

	c.  He was also selected for one of the hardest and best organizations within the U.S. Army because of his ability to serve within his job field as an officer.

	d.  He feels the Eighth Army Commanding General's legal team did not give him fair treatment or trial for this case nor were the Commanding General or his team fair for not looking at his improvement after the incident and allow him to grow as an officer in the U.S. Army.  He was not being considered for promotion and he had not been determined to be unqualified to meet promotion standards.  
	e.  He requests the Board consider his application because he served his Nation as a Soldier.  He was put out of the Army for no other reason than the political downsizing of Soldiers and to save money.  He understands the point of view and the big picture but he transitioned to the U.S. Army from the U.S. Navy to assist in the field of cyber-electronic warfare to protect Soldiers during any conflict, foreign or domestic.

	f.  He wants the Board to know, understand, and to consider that he took wearing the U.S. Army uniform very seriously.  If the U.S. Army or this Nation were to ever call upon him in his job field to do the duties of protecting the troops, he would proudly do so.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored memorandum addressed to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 25 March 2014, subject:  Request to Move Unfavorable Information to Restricted File 
* Officer Record Brief
* Immediate Unit Commander's Evaluation, dated 25 September 2013
* nine letters of recommendation

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer on 3 June 2010, following prior enlisted service in the U.S. Navy and the Regular Army.  

2.  He entered active duty on 3 June 2010.

3.  On 14 May 2011, while serving in the rank of warrant officer one, as a member of the 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, he received a GOMOR for violating Operation Security (OPSEC) procedures by possessing sexually explicit photographs of women and for possessing photographs of detainees in direct violation of U.S. Central Command General Order Number 1B, dated 13 March 2006.  

4.  The GOMOR states that on 26 April 2011, he plugged an iPod with inappropriate photographs into a Centrix computer system.  The pictures of detainees were Iraqi nationals detained in 2007 and 2008 and possessing those pictures violated General Order Number 1B.  

5.  The GOMOR imposing commander stated he was highly disappointed by the applicant's actions which fell well below what he would expect of someone with his years of experience.  As a warrant officer, he was expected to maintain the highest of standards and set the example for all Soldiers to follow.  His actions not only violated a general order but also violated security protocols by plugging a recordable device into a classified system.  He left the device unattended and anyone could have pulled classified information of the Centrix network to be used against coalition forces.  His conduct brought discredit upon him, the Warrant Officers Corps, and the U.S. Army.  The commander further indicated that he was imposing the reprimand as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that he intended to file the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF; however, he would not make a final filing determination until reviewing the applicant's response along with the recommendations of his chain of command.

6.  On 19 May 2011, the applicant submitted a response to the GOMOR requesting that it be filed locally.  He stated he was disappointed by his own actions and he apologized for his mistakes.  He acknowledged that as a warrant officer, he was expected to set the standard for all Soldiers to follow.  He also assured the imposing commander that he had learned a hard lesson and that he would never do something like that again.  

7.  On 28 May 2011, after reviewing the case file, the reprimand imposed, as well as the recommendations of the chain of command, the imposing commander directed the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.

8.  A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed the GOMOR in question is currently filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.  

9.  The applicant was discharged on 3 July 2014.  His DD Form 214 shows the:

* separation authority as Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfer and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b (Misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interest of national security)
* separation code of "JNC"
* narrative reason for separation as "unacceptable conduct"

10.  He provided:

	a.  A self-authored memorandum addressed to HRC, dated 25 March 2014, subject:  Request to Move Unfavorable Information to Restricted File, in which he requested to have the GOMOR transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

	b.  An Immediate Unit Commander's Evaluation, dated 25 September 2013, in which his commander recommended him for assignment to the Joint Special Operations Command.
	c.  Nine letters of recommendation of which three letters pertained to positive recommendations for his acceptance into the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Program and six letters that pertain to positive recommendations for his continued service in the U.S. Army.

11.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual OMPF's; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual OMPF's; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from the OMPF.  It states unfavorable information that should be filed in the OMPF includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.

	a.  The regulation provides that an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier.  The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made.

	b.  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 reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7.

	c.  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 objective decision by competent authority.

	d.  Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the OMPF.  Normally, such appeals will be considered only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers.  Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.
	e.  If an appeal is denied, a copy of the letter of notification regarding this outcome will be placed in the commendatory and disciplinary portion of the performance record.  The appeal will be placed in the restricted folder of the OMPF.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators) states that separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  This regulation provides that when the narrative reason for separation is "unacceptable conduct" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, then the separation code of "JNC" will be assigned.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that his GOMOR should be removed from his OMPF or transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF, and the separation code shown on his DD Form 214 should be changed, were carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was issued a GOMOR on 
14 May 2011 for violating OPSEC procedures by possessing in his personal iPod sexually explicit photographs of women and of Iraqi detainees and for plugging the iPod with the inappropriate photographs into a Centrix computer system and then leaving the iPod unattended which could have compromised the safety of coalition forces.  The evidence also shows the GOMOR was properly referred to him prior to the filing decision.

3.  Among the purposes of filing unfavorable information is the protection not just of the Soldier's interest but the Army's interest as well.  In this case, the applicant committed a serious violation of regulations and general orders that clearly could have resulted in an adverse impact on the safety and security of the command and its ability to accomplish the mission.  Therefore, his poor judgment should not go unrecorded in the performance folder of his OMPF simply because he feels the GOMOR will hinder his ability to reenter the service.  

4.  His desire to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF or transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF is understandable; however, the GOMOR was properly imposed as an administrative measure and filed in the OMPF after an objective decision by competent authority.  

5.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate through his arguments and evidence presented that the imposition of the GOMOR was unjust or that the removal or transfer of the GOMOR would be equitable or in the best interest of justice.
 
6.  In reference to the separation code shown on his DD Form 214, he was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b; therefore, the separation code of "JNC" is correct in accordance with the governing regulation.  

7.  Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant's 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)                                         AR20140013387



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013387



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1