BOARD DATE:	  5 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000468 


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 a transfer of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 18 November 2010, from the performance to the restricted folder of his official military personnel file (OMPF). 

2.  The applicant states he applied to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) twice and his request to transfer the GOMOR to his restricted file was denied both times.  He believes according to Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) he has met the conditions to request the transfer since it has now been 4 years since the GOMOR was placed in his file.  He also believes the GOMOR has met its purpose since he has been non-select twice for Colonel (COL).  He has had no other unfavorable actions and there are no other unfavorable actions in his file.  Since the GOMOR, he has held several senior leadership positions in Kosovo and Korea.  He graduated with two master degrees, one from the Army War College and the other from Central Michigan University.  The offense was for a hotel room charge that the hotel in error put on his government card and not on his personal card for his wife.  He was recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and trying to save his marriage after four combat tours so she agreed to attend a military ball.  He knows he has the ability to perform successfully at the senior leadership level in the rank of COL.  In addition, he has been selected as a semi-finalist for the Presidential Management Fellowship (PMF) Class of 2015 one of the 1,000 out of 8,000 that apply.  The GOMOR was for an error on the hotel and he paid the charges.  He believes it is unjust and unfair to punish him for action of a Wounded Warrior who wants and can still serve the Army and this nation as a COL in the U S Army.
3.  The applicant provides:

* Officer Evaluation Reports (OER), November 2009 to June 2013
* Multiple award certificates and/or orders
* OER Rebuttal memorandum 
* DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers)
* Letters of support to the DASEB
* Behavioral Health Statement
* PMF Class of 2015 Official List of Semi-Finalists
* Officer Record Brief
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* College Transcripts
* U.S. War College Diploma
* 2012 and 2014 DASEB applications and denials

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records show he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) on 12 May 1990.  He completed the Military Police Officer Basic Course.

2.  He served in a variety of assignments including periods of mobilizations and he was promoted to captain in September 1995.  He was honorably separated from the ARNG on 19 February 2003 and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). 

3.  He changed his branch from Military Police to Civil Affairs in August 2003.  He subsequently served in a variety of troop program units of the USAR, including multiple deployments, including Kuwait/Iraq, February to October 2004; Iraq, April 2008 to February 2009; and Kosovo, November 2011 to September 2012.

4.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 16 December 2008.  At the time of his reprimand, he was assigned as the Battalion Commander, 324th Military Police Battalion, Fresno, CA. 

5.  In May 2010, the Commanding General (CG), 11th Military Police Brigade, Los Alamitos, CA, appointed an investigating officer (IO) to conduct an investigation into allegations of the applicant's improper use of a government travel card, frequent failure to attend battle assemblies, and conduct unbecoming an officer. 

6.  The IO found the applicant did not comply with credit card holder requirements, used his government credit card for personal reasons, failed to make payments, and created a perception that he was performing duty and travelling for his own convenience.  The IO recommended the applicant receive a GOMOR and the development of administrative processes regarding the proper use of the government credit card. 

7.  On 22 October 2010, he was reprimanded by the CG, 11th Military Police Brigade for conduct unbecoming and improper use of government credit card.  The GOMOR stated:

	a.  His conduct was unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman regarding his improper use of government credit card use, in that he used such government credit card for purposes and at times not permitted under terms and conditions he agreed to comply with when he applied for the card.  Specifically, he used it for lodging during periods in which he was not on official travel orders.  Moreover, he failed to take appropriate measures while in the Warrior Transition Unit to submit his travel voucher which contributed to him failing to make timely payment of the credit card. 

	b.  He utilized the card on numerous occasions while attending battle assemblies or other inactive duty training including using the card to pay the hotel bill for another person.  This behavior violated his responsibilities as a holder of a government credit card, set a poor example for his Soldiers, and brought discredit upon himself and the unit. 

	c.  He was also reprimanded for frequently not attending battle assemblies, and linking together his performance of battle assemblies, which created a perception within his command that he was basing his travel and duty around his own convenience rather than the needs of the unit.  His conduct was inconsistent with sound leadership and had an adverse impact on the unit. 

	d.  He had violated a number of Army values to include duty, respect, and honor.  He should seriously consider whether or not he possessed the Army values to support the battalion’s mission as it prepares to go to war.  Regardless of his intentions, his behavior set a poor example and caused discontent on his staff. 

8.  On 22 October 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and submitted a statement wherein he stated: 

* he accepted full responsibility for his conduct regarding the improper use of the government credit card
* he stated he did not know or understand that he violated the terms and conditions of his government card until he was briefed by his brigade commander 
* he takes his credit card responsibilities seriously and he is sorry for his unintentional failure
* he also accepts responsibility for the perception of linking together his battle assemblies for his own travel convenience
* he requested that the CG file the GOMOR in his local file

9.  On 18 November 2010, after careful consideration of the applicant's case and his rebuttal, the imposing CG ordered the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.  The GOMOR was filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.

10.  On 17 March 2011, the applicant was issued a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter). 

11.  On 12 July 2012, following his petition to remove or transfer the GOMOR, the DASEB voted to deny the removal of the contested GOMOR or its transfer to the restricted folder.

12.  On 12 May 2014, following a second petition to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of his OMPF, the DASEB denied his request. 

13.  His performance and/or achievements subsequent to this GOMOR are as follows: 

* May 2011, earned a Masters of Science in Administration degree
* June 2011, awarded Army Commendation Medal
* September 2012, awarded NATO Medal and Army Commendation Medal
* July 2013, earned a Masters of Strategic Studies degree
* July 2013, completed the Army War College 
* August 2014, awarded Army Commendation Medal
* Multiple OERs with Center of Mass ratings
* Served in Kosovo

14.  Army Regulation 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 a filing determination is made.
15.  A memorandum of reprimand 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 section.  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.  Paragraph 7-2 provides that 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.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature, the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.

16.  Army Regulation 600-37 states only letters of reprimand admonition or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted fiche.  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.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance section of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (DASEB or this Board).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in October 2010 for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, violating his responsibilities as a holder of a government credit card, setting a poor example for his Soldiers, frequently failing to attend battle assemblies, and linking together his performance of battle assemblies, which created a perception within his command that he was basing his travel and duty around his own convenience rather than the needs of the unit.  He had violated a number of Army values to include duty, respect, and honor.  

2.  He was provided an opportunity to submit matters on his own behalf and did so.  The imposing CG considered the facts and circumstances of his case as well as his rebuttal and ordered the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.  The GOMOR was ultimately filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. He twice petitioned the DASEB to remove and/or transfer the GOMOR and in each case his request was denied.  The DASEB determined his conduct a serious departure from that expected of officers in similar positions. 

3.  It is true that a GOMOR is primarily used as a tool for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance, train, and rehabilitate.  However, it is also true that the quality of service of a Soldier in the Army is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit in the Army or prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

4.  The applicant was a field grade officer in the rank of LTC, performing duties of increased responsibility, and as the battalion commander, he was in a position of trust and authority.  Among the purposes of filing unfavorable information is protection, not just for the Soldier's interests but for the Army's as well.  Here, the applicant violated that trust.  There is a reluctance to transfer adverse information to the restricted section of an AMHRR when it places the applicant on par with others with no blemishes for promotions, assignments, and other favorable actions.  

5.  Once the GOMOR was filed in his OMPF it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.  The GOMOR is properly filed and the applicant has not proven this GOMOR to be either untrue or unjust or that it has served its purpose.  There is insufficient evidence to support its transfer from the performance to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  He is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20150000468



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000468



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1