IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  11 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150003126 


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 the Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 2 August 2004, and the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating period October 2003 through August 2004 be expunged from his record entirely.

2.  The applicant states all the actions and reprimands involved with the LOR and NCOER took place while he was on recruiting duty in Quincy, IL.  His station commander, Sergeant First Class (SFC) Gxxxxx, was taking actions on behalf of applicants [potential recruits] associated with his recruiting efforts, which he was not aware of.  

	a.  The investigation was unable to provide any facts that indicated he had knowledge of what was taking place in his absence.  All that the investigation did was provide assumptions based on opinions from the battalion staff and unsubstantiated interviews with already distraught applicants, in an attempt to complete the arbitrary investigation.  

	b.  Furthermore, he was not afforded the protocols outlined in the document entitled "New Recruiter Program," which should have been implemented to allow for training to encompass areas within the recruiting station and interaction throughout the community, and was never taken into consideration during the investigation process.  

	c.  From the time he received the LOR, he has not received any sort of disciplinary actions; rather, he has excelled in all areas as his performance evaluations will reflect since the incident occurred.  He wishes to continue his military service and be highly competitive throughout the centralized promotion selection process.  He feels that the LOR has served its purpose and he would like it removed from the restricted portion of his OMPF and his OMPF entirely.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement, dated 9 February 2015
* 26 Memoranda, dated from 7 May 2004 to 9 February 2015
* U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) Pamphlet 305-2 (Recruiter Handbook)
* 10 DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated from 8 May 2004 to 18 May 2004
* DA Form 3881 (Rights and Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), dated 8 May 2004
* an email transmission, dated 13 May 2004
* USAREC Form 713-1 (Notification and Rebuttal or Adverse Action), dated 17 May 2004
* his NCOER for the rated period October 2003 through August 2004
* Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 5 November 2009
* a letter, dated 23 November 2009

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 September 1998.  He has served through a series of reenlistment and/or extensions.  He holds military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator) and is currently serving on active duty in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.  

3.  His record contains a certificate that shows he attended and completed the Army Recruiter Course at Fort Jackson, SC, from 22 July 2003 to 5 September 2003.

4.  He provided a Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 14 May 2004, which shows an investigation was conducted to determine if the applicant and Sergeant First Class (SFC) Gxxxxx (the station commander) engaged in deceitful and possibly criminal activities to erroneously enlist Jxxxxx Gxxxxx into the U.S. Army, using a falsified document in violation of USAREC Regulation 601-45 (Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures).  

	a.  The ROI and attached allied documents show:

		(1)  On or about 5 May 2004, SFC Gxxxxx and the applicant sent Jxxxxx Gxxxxx's enlistment packet to the St. Louis Recruiting Battalion Headquarters so the battalion could process a Drug/Alcohol Test (DAT) waiver for Jxxxxx Gxxxxx. The packet contained a letter reportedly from the St. Louis Jobs Corps Center (SL-JCC) signed by Mr. Jxxx Rxxx and dated 28 April 2004.  The letter from the SL-JCC was important because without a Job Corps Certification or College Transcripts showing 15 hours of work, Jxxxxx Gxxxxx as a GED holder, would be ineligible for a DAT waiver and therefore, unable to enlist.

		(2)  On 6 May 2004, SFC Cxxxxxxx noticed an irregularity in Jxxxxx Gxxxxx Job Corps letter while processing a DAT waiver.  The letter looked suspicious to SFC Cxxxxxxx because the SL-JCC was considered a school in his area.  SFC Cxxxxxxx brought the letter to Master Sergeant (MSG) Jxxxxx's attention.  

			(a)  MSG Jxxxxx called SFC Gxxxxx to determine where he got the Job Corp letter.  SFC Gxxxxx said he picked up the letter from the SL-JCC.  He stated he spoke to someone named Christine or Crystal, who forwarded the letter to the guard shack and he picked it up there.  

			(b)  SFC Cxxxxxxx and MSG Jxxxxx indicated they felt the letter was most likely fake and informed Major (MAJ) Exxxxxxx (the Executive Officer).
		
		(3)  On 7 May 2004, MAJ Exxxxxxx was appointed as the investigating officer (IO).  

		(4)  On 7 May 2004, The IO contacted Mr. Wxxxxx Sxxxx, the Director of the SL-JCC.  Mr. Wxxxxx Sxxxx stated that Jxxxxx Gxxxxx never attended the JCC.  

		(5)  On 7 May 2004, SFC Gxxxxx removed Jxxxxx Gxxxxx from the processing list because he was not comfortable enlisting him.

		(6)  On 8 May 2004, the IO interviewed SFC Gxxxxxx and the applicant in the afternoon and gave them a lawful order not to discuss this case with anyone but their trial defense attorney.

			(a)  The applicant made a sworn statement, wherein he stated to the best of his knowledge, the letter from the SL-JCC was not fraudulent.  He further stated that SFC Gxxxxx gave him the SL-JCC letter.  He thought the Station Commander (SFC Gxxxxx) could verify the data.  The IO gave the applicant the order not to talk to anyone about the investigation; however, he did talk to either Jxxxxx Gxxxxx or SFC Gxxxxx.  This is clear because he was the only person the IO has discussed with the issue of Jxxxxx Gxxxxx driving back and forth from the SL-JCC to where he was working on weekends 168 miles away.  

			(b)  SFC Gxxxxx chose to invoke his 5th Amendment right and not make a statement.  He wanted to see a lawyer.  The IO told him he could do so but also informed him that he was not to talk to anyone about the investigation with the exception of his trial defense lawyer.  The IO also informed SFC Gxxxxx that he wanted him to contact the IO contact after his appointment.  He ignored both orders and spoke to Jxxxxx Gxxxxx on the evening of 8 May 2004. 

		(7)  The IO made several attempts to contact Jxxxxx Gxxxxx telephonically between 7 May 2004 and 12 May 2004, leaving messages for him to call the IO back.

		(8)  On 12 May 2004, Ms. Pxxxx Wxxxxxxx, the career transition manager for the SL-JCC confirmed in her sworn statement that Jxxxxx Gxxxxx had never attended the SL-JCC.  She also looked at letters from two other applicants (Private (PVT) Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx and PVT Gxxx Fxx) and confirmed that their    SL-JCC letters were also fake.  She noted the letterhead and footer differences on the document and the formatting.  She confirmed that Mr. Jxxx Rxxx, whose signature was on Jxxxxx Gxxxxx's and PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx 's SL-JCC letter, had left the SL-JCC in December 2003 and started working at the Shreveport, Louisiana, JCC in January 2004.  She further stated that no person named 
Ms. Mxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx, who signed PVT Gxxx Fxx's letter, had worked at the SL-JCC in at least the last three years.  Finally, Ms. Pxxxx Wxxxxxxx also verified that there was no one at the SL-JCC named "Christine" or "Crystal" and they do not forward SL-JCC letters to the guard shack to be picked up by recruiters or anyone else.  

		(9)  The IO added the two other applicants, PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx and PVT Gxxx Fxx, to the investigation.  Both applicants had already shipped to basic training.

		(10)  On 13 May 2004, Jxxxxx Gxxxxx returned the IO's calls and the IO interviewed Jxxxxx Gxxxxx telephonically.  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx verified that SFC Gxxxxx talked to him about the ongoing investigation on the evening of 8 May 2004.  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx was trying to stick to "the party line" and stated he went to the SL-JCC.  He even brought up the point that he drove back and forth from the SL-JCC to his job in Mount Sterling on weekends, out of the blue without being asked while trying to head off another question.  The IO noted that this was a point that came up when he interviewed the applicant.  When the IO started asking more detailed questions, he and Jxxxxx Gxxxxx were disconnected.  The IO later discovered that Jxxxxx Gxxxxx hung up so he could try and gather his thoughts.  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx called the IO one more time and the IO called him twice.  All three times they were "disconnected."  The last time they spoke, the IO told him to ask his mother for advice before they spoke again.  After speaking with his mother, Jxxxxx Gxxxxx called the IO and told the IO that his mom told him to tell the truth so he did not get in more trouble.  

			(a)  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx stated he tested positive for pot in 1999 the first time he was trying to enlist.  After being taken as a DAT loss, he worked numerous manual labor jobs and some construction jobs.  He decided to try to enlist in the Army again.  He told the applicant and SFC Gxxxxx that he tested positive for cannabis in 1999 at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS).

			(b)  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx stated, one day while working with the applicant on his enlistment paperwork, SFC Gxxxxx called and told the applicant how they could get Jxxxxx Gxxxxx in the Army with a Job Corps letter SFC Gxxxxx got for Jxxxxx Gxxxxx.  When the applicant got off the phone with SFC Gxxxxx, he said, "man that sounds crooked but he is the Station Commander and knows what he is doing."  They continued to work Jxxxxx Gxxxxx's packet and scheduled him to go to St. Louis and enlist on Saturday, 8 May 2004. 

			(c)  The Wednesday before Jxxxxx Gxxxxx was supposed to enlist, SFC Gxxxxx called him and told him that he needed to remember the dates he attended Job Corps if anyone asked.  The following day SFC Gxxxxx called and told Jxxxxx Gxxxxx there was a problem and "they" were looking real hard at job corps certificates.  He would try doing something for Jxxxxx Gxxxxx later.

			(d)  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx went on to say that SFC Gxxxxx called him on Saturday night, 8 May 2004.  SFC Gxxxxx told Jxxxxx Gxxxxx, "Man I need you to stick with me on this Job Corps thing.  If you don't, I will not be able to get you in."  SFC Gxxxxx then went on to tell Jxxxxx Gxxxxx what to say to include when he went to job corps, how he traveled back and forth on weekends to work.  The applicant also called; he was returning Jxxxxx Gxxxxx's call to him.  The applicant told Jxxxxx Gxxxxx his records were frozen and an investigation was going on.  The applicant told Jxxxxx Gxxxxx that he could not tell him anything else.

			(e)  The IO asked Jxxxxx Gxxxxx what the applicant's involvement in this scam was.  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx said "none that I know of.  [The applicant] is straight up.  SFC Gxxxxx is the one who got the letter and told me about the whole deal how to get in."  The IO asked if the applicant knew about the bogus letter, and Jxxxxx Gxxxxx said "I think he thought it was bogus."

			(f)  The IO then asked Jxxxxx Gxxxxx, "have you ever been enrolled in the St. Louis Job Corps?"  He replied, "No, I have not."  The IO asked him who got the SL-JCC letter to qualify him for enlistment and he said SFC Gxxxxx.  IO then asked who typed all the information into the computer and he said the applicant.  

		(11)  On 14 May 2004, the IO interviewed PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx via teleconference at Ft. Jackson SC, in the presence of his Company Commander and First Sergeant (1SG).  The interview revealed that PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx knew he was being enlisted fraudulently using the SL-JCC letter.  He said Staff Sergeant (SSG) Nxxxxxx, a recruiter who is on terminal leave got the letter.  He was sure that the applicant and SFC Gxxxxx knew about the fake JCC letter.  He knew the applicant had to be aware because he entered all of the data in the computer.  PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx had no other knowledge of where the letter came from or how they got the letter. 

		(12)  On 14 May 2004, the IO interviewed PVT Gxxx Fxx via teleconference at Ft. Leonard Wood MO, in the presence of his drill sergeant.  PVT Gxxx Fxx was also not qualified to enlist without a job corps letter because he had a GED with a score of less than 50 on his Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).  The applicant was PVT Gxxx Fxx's recruiter.  The signature on the bottom of PVT Gxxx Fxx's letter belonged to a Ms. Mxxxx Wxxxxxxxx.  However, as previously stated, no person by that name worked at the SL-JCC in at least the last three years.  According to PVT Gxxx Fxx's Standard Form (SF) 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), he attended the SL-JCC for nearly a year.  During the interview, PVT Gxxx Fxx confessed he had never been in the job corps.  He said that SFC Gxxxxx got the letter from a lady at the job corps.  He also said that the applicant knew all about the scam.  SFC Gxxxxx and the applicant told him to go along with it or he would not get in the Army.
	b.  The findings of the investigation stated:

		(1)  It is clear that the applicant acted with a wanton disregard to USAREC Regulations, Guidance, and Army Values in order to qualify three candidates for enlistment who were not qualified to enlist. 

		(2)  There is no reasonable doubt that the applicant violated USAREC Regulation 601-45 Chapter 2 paragraph 2-3 (1).  He used false documents to enlist three applicants who otherwise would not have been qualified to enlist.  He was the recruiter of credit in all three cases.  He entered data into the applicant's SF 86s with the intent to support the false SL-JCC.  

		(3)  There is no reasonable doubt that the applicant violated a direct order from a commissioned officer when he contacted Jxxxxx Gxxxxx and talked about the investigation.  He also may have talked to SFC Gxxxxx, there is no other way SFC Gxxxxx could have talked to Jxxxxx Gxxxxx about the commuting distance from SL-JCC to his job. 

	c.  The IO recommended that the applicant receive a Summary court-martial, a relief for cause NCOER, that he be removed from the new recruiter program and recruiting duty, and that a bar to re-enlistment be placed in his file.

4.  He provided several documents, dated 2 August 2004, which show the Commanding General (CG) informed the applicant that he reviewed the ROI concerning the allegation of his misconduct and had substantiated the case as recruiting impropriety, and based on the preponderance of the evidence, established the applicant knowingly used false documents pertaining to an applicant's qualification for enlistment, in violation of USAREC Regulation 601-45, paragraph 2·3b(1).  Based upon his review of the ROI, the applicant's rebuttal, and the recommendations of the chain of command, the CG determined that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the applicant committed a recruiting impropriety while processing an applicant for enlistment. Accordingly, the CG directed he receive a relief for cause NCOER and that he be relieved from recruiting duty.  The CG also recommended the Army withdraw his Skill Qualification Identifier and that he be reassigned as unsuitable.  Additionally, the CG directed that the adverse actions resulting for the investigation be filed permanently in the applicants OMPF.  

5.  His record contains a LOR, dated 25 April 2005, showing his brigade commander, Colonel (COL) Dxxxxxxx I. Wxxxxxx stated, it had been established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant falsified and/or knowingly used a falsified document to enlist applicant Jxxxxx Gxxxxx.  He committed a serious integrity violation and was formally reprimanded for this misconduct.  
6.  His record contains a relief for cause NCOER for the rating period October 2003 through August 2004.

	a.  Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions) contains a box checked "No" in item a.6 (Integrity: Does what is right – legally and morally) and a bullet comment stating the applicant "made an error in judgment which caused him to compromise his integrity."

	b.  Part VI (Values/NCO Responsibilities), item b. (Competence) has a block rating marked "Needs Improvement (Some)) and the bullet comments:

* "soldier used false documents to qualify an applicant for enlistment"
* "made an error in sound judgment"

	c.  Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) shows in"

		(1)  Item a (Rater:  Overall potential for Promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) his rater checked the block "Fully Capable."

		(2) Item a (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) that his Senior Rater wrote that the applicant was a "future leader that should be rehabilitated and given an opportunity to prove himself."

		(3) Item c (Senior Rater.  Overall Performance) and Item d. (Senior Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) shows his Senior Rater rated him as "4-Fair" and "3-Superior."

7.  On 5 November 2009, the DASEB transferred his LOR to the restricted folder of his OMPF because it was felt that there was substantive evidence to show the LOR has served its intended purpose and it was in the best interest of the Army to transfer this document to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  

8.  He provided a letter from MAJ Jxxxxx L. Sx.Lxxxxxx, dated 9 January 2015, requesting the applicant's LOR be removed from his restricted file and expunged from his OMPF.  MAJ Jxxxxx L. Sx.Lxxxxxx stated:

	a.  A LOR was completed on the applicant for actions inconsistent with those expected of an NCO.  As indicated in the DASEB report, dated 23 November 2009, as a result of this board, based on supporting documents from the applicant and his previous commander, the applicant's LOR was removed from the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF and placed in his restricted file.

	b.  Consistent with his performance from 2004-2009, the applicant has continued to excel in his current organization.  In this time, he has consistently outperformed all other E-7s in the unit and was rewarded with the prestigious honor of be placed in the position as a Detachment Sergeant.  He successfully competed for this two year position against 15 other E-7s and E-8s.  The applicant is the senior NCO for a 28-person element that consists of E-7s, 
E-6s, and E-5s.

	c.  The applicant's NCOERs clearly demonstrate that his action in 2004 was a single lapse in an otherwise stellar career.  Since 2009, he has received seven evaluation reports, successfully executing every key developmental position within the 88M career map with excellence.  These evaluations are a testament to the kind of person the applicant is and will continue to be.  He will continue to be a valuable asset for this unit and the Joint Special Operations Command.

9.  Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System), chapter 6 (Evaluation Report Redress Program), in effect at the time focuses on the policies, procedures, preparation, and submission of an NCOER appeal.

	a.  Paragraph 6-6 states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an NCO is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  Appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error will normally be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence.  The rated NCO or another party who knows the circumstances of a rating may appeal any report that he or she believes is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of this regulation.  Substantiating evidence must support an appeal. An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.

	b.  Paragraph 6-10 states the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraph6-6 should not be applied to the report under consideration and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  Simply put, if the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some of his or her assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions.  For a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence must include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources.  Third parties are persons other than the rated NCO or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant’s performance during the rating period.  Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions affording them good opportunity to observe the appellant’s performance and interactions with rating officials.  Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual error, erroneous perception, or claims of bias.  To the extent practical, such statements should include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) 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.

11.  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.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records 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 applicant's request that his LOR and contested NCOER be entirely expunged from his OMPF was carefully considered.  His contentions are noted and have been carefully considered.  

2.  He contends he was unaware of actions his Station Commander, SFC Gxxxxx, was taking on behalf of his recruiting efforts.  He further contends that the investigation was unable to provide any facts indicating he had knowledge of what was taking place at the MEPS in his absence and that all the investigation did was provide assumptions based on opinions from the battalion staff and unsubstantiated interviews with already distraught applicant's in an attempt to complete the arbitrary investigation.  However, the investigation revealed that:

	a.  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx stated "one day while working with the applicant on his enlistment paperwork, SFC Gxxxxx called and told the applicant how they could get Jxxxxx Gxxxxx in the Army with a Job Corps letter SFC Gxxxxx got for Jxxxxx Gxxxxx.  When the applicant got off the phone with SFC Gxxxxx he said, "man that sounds crooked but he is the Station Commander and knows what he is doing…[and that, on 8 May 2004, the applicant called him and told him] his records were frozen and an investigation was going on."  Jxxxxx Gxxxxx also stated he thought the applicant know his SL-JCC letter was "bogus" and that he had typed in all his enlistment information that the letter was fraudulent. 

	b.  PVT Rxxxx Rxxxxxxx stated "he was being enlisted fraudulently using the SL-JCC letter…[and that the] applicant had to be aware because he entered all of the data in the computer."

	c.  PVT Gxxx Fxx confessed that he had never been in Job Corps.  He said SFC Gxxxxx got the letter from a lady at job corps.  He also said that the applicant knew all about the scam.

	d.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to show that the investigation was unwarranted, arbitrary, or unduly biased by his chain of command.  There is more evidence than not to show he knew the letters were fraudulent and that he violated a direct order not to mention the ongoing investigation to anyone other than his attorney.  
3.  The applicant's contention that he was not afforded the protocols outlined in the document entitled "New Recruiter Program," which should have been implemented to allow for training to encompass areas within the recruiting station and interaction throughout the community, have no bearing on the fact that he attempted to enlist three recruits using a fraudulent letter, or that he disobeyed the order of a commissioned officer.  Further, no amount of additional training would have negated the need for an investigation, an adverse NCOER, or the LOR.

4.  The applicant contends his LOR should be expunged from his OMPF because he has not received any sort of disciplinary actions and he wishes to continue his military service and be highly competitive throughout the centralized promotion selection process.  However, the DASEB already moved his LOR to the restricted portion of his OMPF for this very reason.  Nevertheless, this does not mean that he was issued the LOR in error, or that it was unjust, or inaccurate.  Therefore, there is no reason to remove the LOR from his record.

5.  The investigation found that the applicant acted with a wonton disregard to regulations, guidance, and Army Values in order to qualify three candidates for enlistment who were not qualified to enlist, by using false documents to enlist three applicants who otherwise would not have been qualified to enlist.  The investigation also found that he violated a direct order from a commissioned officer when he contacted Jxxxxx Gxxxxx and mentioned the investigation.  

6.  There is no evidence that the contested NCOER or the LOR contain any untrue, bias, or unjust statements or that these documents contain any substantive or administrative errors.   Furthermore, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to show that these documents should be expunged from his record.  As such, there is insufficient evidence to justify granting 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)                                         AR20150003126





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003126



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1