BOARD DATE:	  29 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001148 


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 March 2006 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from his record. 

2.  The applicant states the GOMOR is not a true reflection of his military service or who he is as a person.  He would like to reenlist in the U.S. Army Reserve and has been told that he cannot do so as long as the GOMOR is in his file. 

3.  The applicant provides: 

* his personal description of the circumstances surrounding the reprimand
* an October 2014 request for the Adjutant General, Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) to remove the GOMOR
* the PAARNG Adjutant General’s response directing the applicant to apply to this Board
* October 2008 separation orders
* April 2004 Honorable Discharge Certificate from the PAARNG
* the applicant’s original April 2006 response to the GOMOR
* five letters of reference 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve from May 1998 to May 2000.  He enlisted in the PAARNG in August 2002.

3.  The PAARNG requested and the National Guard Bureau granted a moral waiver for an October 2002 civilian conviction for offenses of simple assault, striking a police officer, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief by tampering with property and public drunkenness.

4.  In January 2004 the applicant became an officer candidate and he was appointed a 2nd lieutenant on 3 April 2004.  

5.  He was on active duty for pilot training from 18 April 2004 to 5 May 2005 and was promoted to 1st lieutenant on 3 April 2006.  

6.   Based upon an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation [that is not contained in the available records] the Commanding General (CG), 28th Infantry Division, PAARNG, in a 24 March 2006 memorandum, reprimanded the applicant for:

	a.  attempting to solicit sexual favors from junior enlisted female Soldiers in his unit, thereby abusing his authority as an officer and a member of their chain of command;

	b.  through deception trying to manipulate an enlisted female Soldier to share a hotel room and initiating an inappropriate relationship with her by inviting her to a social function as his date; 

	c.  routinely visiting the residence of a female Warrant Officer Candidate who is married to a deployed noncommissioned officer (NCO) which gave the appearance of an adulterous relationship, behaving unprofessionally with her in a military environment, inappropriate physical contact with her in other public environments, and traveling to Niagara Falls with her all of which furthered the perception of an adulterous relationship; and

	d.  making numerous comments of a sexual nature that had offended several female enlisted Soldiers.    
7.  The CG also noted, “… Your aggressive pursuit of sexual favors and social contact…caused actual or perceived fraternization…Your egregious abuse of your position of authority and power combined with blatant use of offensive comments caused your shortcomings as an officer to be widely recognized… Most female Soldiers felt your actions were offensive and coercive. Other Soldiers perceived potential undue favor to some females over others in the unit…”  

8.  The CG indicated that he intended to file the reprimand in the performance portion of the applicant’s record but would postpone a final decision until he considered whatever additional matters the applicant chose to submit.

9.  The applicant responded that: 

* none of the accusations were true
* ongoing gossip was a problem in the unit to the point that during annual training a formation was held on the subject to try and stop it
* he sought advice from other officers when he learned he was the subject of such gossip
* he specifically denied the incident that alleged he tried to date and share a hotel room with a Private K____
* all of the gossip was the result of her and other junior enlisted females joking among themselves about which one could date him
* he had never had an inappropriate relationship with Warrant Officer Candidate S____; their only association consisted of running with her and other Soldiers at the armory and in other public places
* the 15-6 investigation was selectively biased; he knows that the investigating officer received statements that were favorable to him that were not included in the report
* there was no direct evidence against him except that provided by the “false testimony“ of discredited witnesses 

10.  The applicant’s response offered no enclosures, no supporting statements, no favorable witnesses were identified, no evidence was offered to discredit any witness, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate the falsehood of any negative statements.    

11.  The CG considered the applicant’s response and directed that the reprimand be filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s record.

12.  Effective 18 September 2008 the applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army.

13.  The letters of reference submitted by the applicant in support of his request all relate to his activities as a public school teacher and his suitability for such employment.  

14.  Documents contained in his interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) record show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 7 November 2014.

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official military personnel files (OMPFs); ensures that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual OMPFs; and ensures 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.  Unfavorable information that should be filed in the OMPF includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.

	a.  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.  Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 of this regulation.

	b.  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 that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant states the GOMOR is not a true reflection of his military service or of who he is as a person.  Despite his statement that he had been told he couldn't enlist in the U.S. Army Reserve as long as the GOMOR is in his file, he is currently an enlisted member of the Army Reserve. 

2.  The applicant claimed the allegations in the GOMOR are false and that there is significant evidence to support this contention; however, he has yet to provide any such evidence.

3.  Considering that the letters of reference make no mention of the incident or the behavior that led to the GOMOR, it is impossible to conclude that they have any evidentiary value in deciding validity of the applicant’s request to have the GOMOR removed from his record.

4.  There is no documentation to support the applicant's contentions and no rationale to support 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)                                         AR20150001148





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001148



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1