IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  3 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021759 


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 Letter of Reprimand (LOR) from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* upon arrival at her duty station she was given her duty description by her direct supervisor, Ms. A________
* she reviewed the training manuals while she was on a break
* everyone else used their break to walk around and talk to other people
* Ms. A_______ called and she told her that she was working on the training schedules from the subordinate units and that master sergeant (MSG) B____ was in the drill hall setting up the In-Focus machine
* MSG B____ was a noncommissioned officer (NCO) working in the same office
* MSG B____ asked her to come into the drill hall
* he asked what she was doing and she told him that she had stacks of training schedules that needed to be reviewed and sent back to the battalions
* he told her that she did not have to do them
* she told him that it was her job to review them and get them sent back
* he asked if she knew how to set up the In-Focus machine and she said no
* she told him that she was leaving to complete the training schedules, he told her to leave them alone and that he was giving her a direct order
* she told Ms. A________ what he said and Ms. A______ told her that he could not give her a direct order
* the LOR is unjust because as the training NCO she was assigned to review all training schedules
* the LOR is hindering her from getting promoted
* she has tried on several occasions to have the LOR removed but she was unsuccessful

3.  The applicant provides the LOR and her rebuttal to the LOR. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, on 18 March 1982, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  She is currently serving on active duty in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.

2.  On 1 September 2006, she received an LOR for disobeying a direct order given to her by Major (MAJ) C______.  The LOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), paragraph 3-4 and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  

3.  On 10 September 2006, she acknowledged receipt of the LOR in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-6.  She elected to submit a written response.

4.  In her response, she stated:

	a.  MAJ C______ directed her to reveal the name of the person who told her not to complete the training schedules that were on her desk.  MSG B____ had ordered her not to complete the schedules, but she had conflicting guidance from Ms. A________ about completing the schedules.  

	b.  She had over 26 years of service in the U.S. Army including a deployment to Iraq.  She did not have any other disciplinary problems prior to being assigned to that command.

	c.  When MAJ C_____ and MSG B____ ordered her to reveal the name of the person who directed her not to evaluate the training schedules, she felt compelled to protect Ms. A________.  She did not purposely disobey or disrespect any superior officer or NCO.  She believed that she was doing the right thing by following Ms. A________’s direction to review the training schedules which was for the betterment of the unit. 

	d.  She was working under the direction of MAJ C______ and MSG B____ in the S-3 section.  She was under a considerable amount of stress and believed that she was being treated unfairly.  At the time, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

     e.  She requested the LOR be filed locally so that it would not permanently damage her military career.

5.  On 8 February 2007, the commanding general directed the LOR be filed in the performance section her OMPF.

6.  A review of the applicant's military records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System revealed:

     a.   The LOR and allied documents were filed in the performance portion of her OMPF.

     b.  She was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), Army Achievement Medal (AAM) (3rd Award), and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) (2nd Award) subsequent to her receipt of the LOR.

     c.  She has received four NCO Evaluation Reports subsequent to the LOR which show:

* for the period ending 30 December 2011 she was rated as "Among the Best" and "Successful" (block 1) with "Superior" (block 1) promotion potential
* for the period ending 25 June 2012 she was rated as "Among the Best" and "Successful" (block 1) with "Superior" (block 2) promotion potential
* for the period ending 24 June 2013, she was rated as "Among the Best" and "Successful"  (block 1) with "Superior" (block 2) promotion potential
* for the period ending 24 June 2014 she was rated as "Fully Capable" and "Successful" (block 2) with "Superior" (block 3) promotion potential

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by an appropriate authority. 


8.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual OMPFs; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual OMPFs; 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 OMPFs.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-4, applies to filing of nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand or censure in official personnel files.  It states that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, the Army Reserve Personnel Command, or the proper State Adjutant General (for Army National Guard Personnel) only upon the order of a general officer (to include one frocked to the rank of brigadier general) senior to the recipient by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual.  Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed on the performance portion.  The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer will 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.  Appeals submitted under this provision will normally be returned without action unless at least one year has elapsed since the imposition of the letter and at least one evaluation report, other than academic, has been received in the interim.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received an LOR on 1 September 2006 for disobeying a lawful order.  There is no evidence indicating the LOR she received contained any unsubstantiated information that would serve as a basis for removing it from her OMPF. 

2.  The evidence of record shows the LOR and allied documents are properly filed in the performance portion of her OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations.

3.  Four NCOERs rendered after the issuance of the LOR show she was rated as "Among the Best” or "Fully Capable" by her rating officials.  Subsequent to receiving the LOR she was awarded the ARCOM, AAM (3rd Award), and the AGCM (2nd Award).  Further, it has been 8 years since the rendering of the LOR.


4.  Based on the overall evidence of record, it appears that the LOR has served its intended purpose and it would be appropriate to transfer the LOR and all allied documents from the performance portion to the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 the LOR and all allied documents from the performance portion to the restricted portion of her OMPF.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains removing the LOR from her OMPF.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140021759



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021759



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1