IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	    27 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150014471 


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:

The applicant defers her request and statement to counsel.  

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests:

* removal of a referred officer evaluation report (OER) (hereafter identified as the contested OER) which covers the rating period 18 January 2011 through 31 July 2011
* alternatively, if the Board does not support removal, counsel requests its transfer to the restricted folder of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF)

2.  Counsel states, in effect:

	a.  The applicant is a major (MAJ) in the Medical Service Corps who served as the Chief of the Human Resources (HR) Action Branch at the U.S. Army Medical Command (USAMEDCOM), Fort Sam Houston, TX from January 2010 to 31 July 2011.  During her tenure, she pursued selling jewelry as a side-venture.

* due to her friendly relationship with colleagues and subordinates, at some point, the offer to purchase jewelry was extended to her coworkers; some of these coworkers were subordinate to her
* Staff Sergeant (SSG) JEG was the noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCOIC) of the HR Action Branch and worked directly for the applicant
* the applicant and SSG JEG worked closely together and were friends
* at some point after the applicant started her business, SSG JEG showed an interest in selling the jewelry as well
* the applicant paid the start-up fee of $400 for SSG JEG because she (SSG JEG) could not afford to pay it
* this was initially meant to be a gift but this changed when SSG JEG did not fulfill her commitment to pursue the business; the applicant then requested to be reimbursed at least half of the start-up cost
* the applicant made requests for repayment on multiple occasions
* SSG JEG was an activated Reservist and she was released from active duty (REFRAD) based upon a decision made at Brigade-level; SSG JEG assumed the decision was instead the result of her relationship problems with the applicant
* SSG JEG filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) alleging a hostile work environment based on her false belief she was REFRAD in retaliation for not repaying funds from the jewelry business; an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to look into the allegation
* during the investigation, Colonel (COL) LLS interviewed the applicant's colleagues and subordinates; while the evidence supported the presence of an improper business relationship between the applicant and SSG JEG, there was no proof the applicant had created a hostile work environment
* instead of showing a hostile work environment, the evidence showed the applicant showed fairness, flexibility, and a desire for teamwork

	b.  Counsel continues:

* SSG JEG's character was brought into question during the investigation, and there were statements which described her unprofessionalism as an NCO; the IO recommended SSG JEG be counseled for her behavior and outbursts, as observed by colleagues
* as a result of the investigation, the applicant received a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) for violating the Joint Ethics Regulation (JER) and Army fraternization policy as a result of participating in a business relationship with a subordinate, using government computers to print business flyers, and using her government email account to further her business interests
* the applicant was deeply saddened by this action because she had intended no harm toward her subordinates; in fact, she was unaware her jewelry business was prohibited since she pursued her business during her personal time
* after receiving the GOMOR, the entire MEDCOM community was educated on the related Army policies
* the applicant appealed her GOMOR on 15 May 2013 to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)
* the DASEB granted partial relief by directing the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted folder of her OMPF; the board found the purpose of the GOMOR had been served and its transfer was in the best interests of the Army
* the DASEB noted the applicant's OER for that period had rated her as "Best Qualified"
* while this OER was a "glowing recommendation" of the applicant's performance and future potential, it was nonetheless a referred report
* her raters made small mention of her "momentary lapse in judgment," rather, they focused on her job performance and potential
* the contested OER has been in the applicant's OMPF for almost 4 years and counsel contends it has clearly served its purpose; the applicant has learned from her mistakes

	c.  Counsel addresses the applicant's performance after receiving the contested OER:

* following the period addressed in the contested OER, the applicant participated in an HR Management internship at the Academy of Health Sciences
* in a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) which rated her for the internship, her rater described the applicant as a "compassionate and intelligent officer" 
* her rater went on to state she had "much potential for future contributions to the U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD)... and should be selected for advanced military education, and assigned to positions of increasing responsibility that will continue to capitalize on her acquired skills and her innate ability to forge collaborative teams and partnerships"
* her first full OER following the contested OER was from 31 July 2011 through 13 June 2013; in this OER she was rated for her duty performance as the Assistant Chief of Staff for HR, Deputy G-1 of the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School (US AMEDDC&S)
* she received the highest rating from her rater, who described her performance as "spectacular" and identified her as one of the most technically competent officers in her field
* her potential was described as "unlimited" and she was recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)
* her senior rater (SR) for this OER rated her "best qualified" and ranked her in the top 5 percent of all officers he has rated in over 28 years; he too recommended she be promoted to LTC and further recommended her selection for the prestigious Arroyo Fellowship (each year the Army selects a group of MAJs and LTCs to work as visiting analysts at the Rand Arroyo Center as part of the Army Fellows program)
* the applicant deployed to Afghanistan and, while there she served as the Division Medical Operations Officer for the Regional Command - East (RC-E), Combined Joint Task Force - 101 (CJTF - 101); she received an outstanding OER for this period
* her rater, LTC LJM, wrote that her performance was "superb" and she was in the top 5 of all Medical Service Corps officers with whom he had served; her potential was unlimited and she was a "must-select" for LTC
* her SR, COL CRT, was the Chief of Staff for CJTF - 101; he stated she was one of the two best Medical Service Corps officers in the Division and among the top 5 percent of all medical officers he had observed
* COL CRT went on to say the applicant should be selected for promotion below-the-zone and be given assignments which would prepare her for battalion command; he gave her an "above-center-of-mass (ACOM)" rating
* her latest rating was under the new system, a Field Grade Plate OER, and resulted from a change of rater after 7 rated months
* her rater was COL DLH, Dean of the Academy of Health Sciences; he gave her the highest rating and said she was in the top 5 percent of the officers he rates
* her SR, Major General (MG) SLJ, rated her as "Most Qualified" (meaning the applicant's potential exceeded the majority of officers rated by the SR and is comparable to an ACOM rating under the former OER system); he described the applicant as an exceptional officer who ranks in the "top 5 percent of the 100 outstanding MAJs in the command"
* her SR also recommended her for immediate promotion, selection for battalion command, and attendance at senior service college
* her current supervisor, LTC RAV, wrote a letter to this Board on the applicant's behalf; he described her performance as superior and stated she has exceeded his highest expectations
* he indicated he was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the contested OER
* he noted  the applicant had limitless potential and the contested OER was not indicative of the type of officer she truly is
	
   d.  The applicant has already had her first look for LTC and was not selected. Her next opportunity for promotion consideration will occur in a few months.  The applicant believes she has learned from her mistakes and she has continued to serve the Army to the best of her abilities.  

3.  Counsel provides:

* contested OER
* memorandum, dated 20 July 2011, addressed to the Troop Commander, Headquarters, USAMEDCOM, subject:  Commander's Inquiry Findings and Recommendations, signed by COL LLS
* letter, dated 6 November 2013, from DASEB, addressed to the applicant, with the Record of Proceedings (ROP) attached
* DA Form 1059 for participation in an HR Management Internship during the period 20 September 2011 through 12 June 2012
* two DA Forms 67-9 for the period 31 July 2011 through 4 January 2014
* DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4 - O5; CW3 - CW5) OER) for the period 5 January 2014 through 4 August 2014
* memorandum of support, dated 22 July 2015, subject:  Letter of Recommendation, signed by LTC RAV

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's records show, after enlisting in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a cadet, she was appointed as a Medical Service Corps commissioned officer in the USAR and she executed an oath of office on 9 May 1998.  She was ordered to active duty on 29 September 1998.  She served in a variety of positions and has risen to the rank of MAJ.  She is currently on active duty serving at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD.

3.  On 6 June 2011, COL AET, the commander, Troop Command, Headquarters, USAMEDCOM appointed COL LLS as an inquiry officer to investigate allegations made against the applicant.  The inquiry officer was to determine if the applicant:

* engaged in an improper senior-subordinate relationship and/or fraternized with a subordinate on terms of military equality by conducting an ongoing business relationship with an enlisted member
* improperly used Government resources (communication assets and personnel assets) in violation of Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5500.7 (Standards of Conduct) and the JER, 
* engaged in possible maltreatment of a subordinate; and
* whether there were any episodes of violent or potentially violent conduct in the applicant's section

4.  On 20 July 2011, COL LLS provided a memorandum to the appointing authority which reported the results of her investigation.  

	a.  She listed the following findings:

		(1) The applicant did engage in an improper senior-subordinate relationship while aggressively pursuing her jewelry business during duty hours, and by soliciting subordinate employees, junior officers, and senior NCOs to purchase or sell jewelry.

* a number of individuals were approached by the applicant to purchase jewelry and invited to jewelry events after-hours
* the applicant profited from her sales and the sales of others engaged in this activity
* personnel working under the applicant's direct supervision were aware of or involved with selling or purchasing jewelry during the duty day
* off-duty employment without appropriate authorization was a violation of MEDCOM Regulation 600-3 (Off-Duty Employment Policy); the applicant had signed an off-duty employment document

		(2) The applicant admitted to engaging in an ongoing business relationship with SSG JEG.  

		(3) SSG JEG disputed that her participation was voluntary but comments from others called her credibility into question.  

		(4) There was evidence which supported that the applicant extended an invitation to attend a jewelry activity out of town to subordinates who were either under her direct supervision or were junior to her in rank.

		(5) The applicant's ongoing business relationships with subordinates both violated policy and adversely affected the work environment by creating real or perceived unfairness and impropriety regarding the hiring of Ms. MF (fellow jeweler) and the placement of SSG JEG in the position of acting NCOIC of the applicant's section.

		(6) The applicant, SSG JEG, and Ms. MF appear to have misused Government resources by reproducing numerous flyers promoting the jewelry business and sending emails.  In one instance, the applicant lost her Government laptop computer, which had been stored in the same case as her jewelry inventory.  The applicant was found to have delayed reporting this loss to her chain of command.

		(7) There did not appear to be any evidence to substantiate maltreatment of any subordinates.  The applicant's staff emphasized her fairness, flexibility, and her desire for teamwork.  Many also highlighted the applicant's commitment to assist in SSG JEG's career progression and success.

		(8) Based on several witness accounts, there was one notable episode of potentially violent conduct which originated in the applicant's section.  There was an altercation between SSG JEG and Ms. LW.  The altercation apparently began in the office and later moved outside the building.  CPT OG, commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, MEDCOM, eventually stepped in to break up the profanity-laced, heated discussion between the two women.  Several individuals commented on SSG JEG's unprofessionalism while in uniform.

		(9) SSG JEG's initial witness statement asserted the applicant had directly affected her ability to extend an additional year on active duty.  There was no evidence the applicant had displayed any improper actions in this regard nor did the evidence support any retaliation by the applicant towards SSG JEG.

	b.  COL LLS made the following recommendations:

		(1) The applicant should receive additional training on ethics and the Army's policy on inappropriate senior-subordinate relationships.

		(2) The applicant should receive administrative action in the form of a written reprimand from a general officer (GOMOR).
		(3) SSG JEG should be administered administrative action in the form of a written admonishment or counseling to address her unprofessional behavior as an NCO.

		(4) The Troop Commander should place increased emphasis on training the entire unit on standards of conduct and the Army's policy on inappropriate senior-subordinate relationships.

5.  On 12 August 2011, the applicant received a GOMOR from the Commanding General (CG), US AMEDDC&S.  

	a.  She was reprimanded for violating numerous provisions of the JER and the Army's fraternization policy as outlined in AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy).

* the applicant repeatedly attempted to sell jewelry in the workplace to enlisted Soldiers, NCOs, and junior officers
* she used Government computers and her military email account to further her business interests
* she successfully solicited a SSG to work under you for the same multi-level marketing company
* she repeatedly demanded the reimbursement of $213 from a SSG she senior rated; this was an amount which had been expended to help the SSG establish herself as a subordinate member of the applicant's multi-level organization
* the demand for reimbursement was made only after the SSG failed to sell jewelry, which [had they been sold] would have resulted in profits for the applicant

	b.  The GOMOR was stated as being administrative and was not punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

	c.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 17 August 2011.  On 22 August 2011, she requested the GOMOR be filed locally.

6.  On 26 August 2011, the CG, US AMEDDC&S directed the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant's OMPF.

7.  On 28 September 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the contested OER, covering the period 18 January 2011 through 31 July 2011.  Her rater was COL AET (Chief, Military HR Division, USAMEDCOM and who, as Troop Commander, had directed an inquiry be conducted into the applicant's misconduct) and her SR was COL RAH (Director, HR, USAMEDCOM).  The OER is shown as being a referred report and the result of a change of duty.  The applicant was listed as being the Chief, HR Actions Branch.

	a.  Her rater rated her as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."  The rater's comments were very favorable.  With regard to the events which resulted in the GOMOR, the rater made only one comment.  She wrote, in effect, an investigation had substantiated the applicant had engaged in an improper senior-subordinate business relationship that had resulted in administrative action.  

	b.  Regarding potential, the rater stated the applicant had unlimited potential and should be selected for Intermediate-Level Education followed by an assignment as a battalion executive officer.

	c.  Her SR rated her "Best Qualified."  The SR comments were very favorable.  As to the applicant's inappropriate senior-subordinate relationship, he essentially wrote, despite her momentary lapse in judgment, the applicant could serve at the next level and should be selected for LTC at the earliest opportunity. He gave the applicant a center of mass (COM) rating.

8.  On 11 October 2011, the applicant submitted comments for the referred OER, which included an acknowledgement of her misconduct.

	a.  She noted her efforts over the past 13 years to take care of the Soldiers and civilians under her leadership, and described the events which resulted in the GOMOR as not being reflective of her performance as an officer, her work ethic, or her unwavering commitment to the Army and Army values.  

	b.  She cited her staff's comments that her leadership-style emphasized fairness, flexibility, and a desire for teamwork.  

	c.  Her staff also noted she (the applicant) had demonstrated a commitment to assisting SSG JEG with her career progression.  As a result of this commitment, and in an effort to help ease SSG JEG's financial strain, the applicant had offered her the business opportunity.  The applicant stated she came to realize that, while her intentions were good, it was a mistake to offer this and will never make that mistake again.

9.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A DA Form 1059 which shows successful completion of an HR Management Internship during the period 20 September 2011 through 12 June 2012.  The evaluation contains very favorable comments with regard to the applicant's performance and potential.
	b.  Three OERs covering the rating period 31 July 2011 through 4 August 2014, all of which are very favorable.  While one report shows an SR rating of COM, the remaining two are ACOM (or ACOM equivalent under the new OER system).

	c.  A letter from the President, DASEB, dated 6 November 2013, announcing that partial relief was granted with regard to the applicant's request for the removal or transfer of the GOMOR.  Also included is the ROP, which details the board's decision.  While the DASEB did not find the evidence supported removing the GOMOR, there was sufficient basis upon which to direct its transfer to the restricted folder within the applicant's OMPF.

	d.  A memorandum of support, dated 22 July 2015, subject:  Letter of Recommendation, signed by LTC RAV, who is the applicant's current supervisor and battalion commander.  He wrote, in effect:

* he unequivocally supports and endorses the applicant
* she has served as his Chief of HR over the last 11 months and, in that capacity, supports over 1600 military, civilian, and contract personnel
* despite the many challenges posed by a multi-service environment, the applicant's performance has been superior and exceeded his highest expectations
* she exhibits strong leadership attributes which are needed in today's Army; she possesses a passion for people, is able to execute critical organizational skills, and has shown the ability to be a forward and strategic thinker
* additionally, the applicant displays tenacity, dependability, and a warrior ethos; she embodies Army values
* he is very aware of the circumstances surrounding her contested OER
* she has his highest recommendation for it to be removed
* although it was a glowing report, the fact it was referred (which was done because it was required by regulation) is in no way indicative of her qualities as an officer
* the rating was given 4 years ago and it has served its purpose; the applicant has learned from her mistake 
* she has received superior evaluations both before and after the contested OER; she will continue to excel
* the applicant will continue to be a team player, a catalyst for process improvement, a morale booster, and a leader in this and in future commands
* she is 100 percent committed to the Army and the Army's most precious assets, its people; Soldiers deserve her leadership

10.  Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, establishes the policies and procedures, and serves as the authority for preparation of the OER.  

	a.  Army evaluation reports are assessments of how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements, and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer.  Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of Army values and the leadership framework.  Officers are needed to maintain public trust, confidence, and the qualities of leadership and management needed to sustain an effective officer corps.  

	b.  In outlining rater and senior rater responsibilities, the regulation states the respective rater will assess the performance of the rated Soldier using all reasonable means, to include personal contact, records, and reports as well as information provided by the rated officer.  The report will represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating official at the time of preparation.

	c.  The regulation further provides that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been prepared by the properly-designated rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn, or replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at the time the OER was prepared.

	d.  It also provides that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the aforementioned presumptions, and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

	e.  Paragraph 3-23 (Unproven Derogatory Information) states no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) (emphasis added) concerning a Soldier.  Any verified (emphasis added) derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation.  

11.  AR 600-37 prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for placement in and, when appropriate, removal from official personnel files.

	a.  Paragraph 1-1 states, in relevant part, that the intent of AR 600-37 is to ensure unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete unfavorable information is not placed in personnel files or used for personnel decisions.  Additional objectives are to protect the rights of individual Soldiers and, at the same time, permit the Army to consider all available relevant information when choosing Soldiers for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility (emphasis added) and to provide a means to remedy injustices if they occur.

	b.  Paragraph 2-3 (DASEB) outlines the responsibilities of the DASEB.  It states, in pertinent part:

* the DASEB determines whether unfavorable information should be filed in the performance portion of the OMPF
* reviews and evaluates evidence presented in support of appeals for removing unfavorable information from an OMPF
* makes revisions, alterations, or removes unfavorable information when determined to be unjust or untrue
* transfers unfavorable information from the performance file to the restricted file of an OMPF

	c.  Paragraph 7-2a 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 that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.  This does not include documents that have their own regulatory appeal authority such as evaluation reports (emphasis added).

	d.  Paragraph 7-2b outlines procedures for the transfer of OMPF entries to the restricted file.  Only memoranda of reprimand may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted file (emphasis added).  

12.  AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management (AMHRR)), in effect at the time, prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR.  

	a.  The AMHRR is an umbrella term encompassing human resource (HR) records for Soldiers, retirees, veterans, and deceased personnel.  The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, OMPF, finance related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army.  The AMHRR is archived in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).

	b.  The OMPF is defined as permanent documentation containing facts related to a Soldier during the course of his or her entire Army career, from time of accession into the Army until final separation, retirement, or discharge.

		(1) The purpose of the OMPF is to preserve documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, assignments, performance, awards, disciplinary actions, separation, retirement, and any other personnel actions.

		(2) Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.

		(3) Paragraph 2-3 (composition of the OMPF) stipulates, in pertinent part, the performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  It is routinely used by career managers and selection boards. Documents placed in the performance portion are limited to those that provide evidence of a Soldier's demonstrated performance.  

		(4) The restricted folder of the OMPF is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  Documents are permanently maintained here to keep an unbroken historical record of the Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation period; record investigation reports; record appellate action; protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.

13.  AR 27-10 (Military Justice) addresses administrative actions which can be taken by commanders, to include administrative reprimands.  It distinguishes administrative actions from nonjudicial punishment in that the latter is imposed to correct misconduct in violation of the UCMJ.  By contrast, administrative measures are primarily tools for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance.

	a.  The two are separate and distinct kinds of authority and should not be confused.

	b.  Administrative reprimands must contain a statement that it was imposed as an administrative measure.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Through counsel, the applicant requests removal of a contested OER covering the period 18 January 2011 through 31 July 2011.  In the alternative, should the Board not grant the OER's removal, the applicant requests its transfer to the restricted folder within the applicant's OMPF. 

2.  An OER that has been included in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, contain no material errors or inaccuracies, and based upon observations, records and verified reports.  

	a.  To justify deletion of an OER, the applicant must produce clear and convincing evidence which overcomes the aforementioned assumptions and provides a strong and compelling basis for removing the report.  

	b.  In this case, the applicant offers substantial evidence showing an outstanding level of performance during rated periods before, after, and even during that of the contested OER.  She also provides strong validation she has accepted responsibility for her misconduct and has learned from her mistakes.  She does not, however, give any clear and convincing evidence that would show the remarks included in the contested OER, which addressed the investigation into her misconduct and the resultant briefly described administrative action, represented a material error or inaccuracy.  Nor has she provided any basis to conclude that referring the OER to her for comment was a mistake.  As such, it would appear the evidence does not support the conclusion that the contested OER's continued presence in her OMPF represents an injustice.  

3.  Based upon the preponderance of the evidence presented, the DASEB directed the transfer of the GOMOR to the applicant's restricted folder.  This transfer option, however, is only available for a GOMOR.  There is no regulatory provision for transferring an OER to the restricted folder.  

	a.  The purpose of a GOMOR is to serve as a tool for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance.  When the evidence shows the lesson intended by the GOMOR has been learned, and when it can be further demonstrated that taking action is in the best interests of the Army, the Board is empowered to direct its transfer.  

	b.  By contrast, an OER is intended to provide a record of performance and how well Army standards were met during a given period of service.  

4.  Based upon the foregoing, there does not appear to be a sufficient basis for granting the applicant's request for removal of the contested OER or for the transfer of the contested OER to the applicant's restricted folder within the OMPF.

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)                                         AR20150014471





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150014471



15


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1