Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050001752
Original file (20050001752.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001752


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John P. Infante               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey P. Parsons            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that all record of her being in an absent
without leave (AWOL) status or deserter status be expunged from her records
with restoration of all back pay and allowances.  She also requests to be
reinstated into the Army Guard Reserve (AGR) program or transferred to the
Retired Reserve.  She requests the general officer memorandum of reprimand
(GOMOR) be expunged from her records.  She also "would like a copy of the
order transferring me into the Control Group so I can outprocess the
correct way and receive my DD Fm 214."

2.  The applicant states she feels she was falsely accused of being AWOL
and a deserter.  She reported in to Fort Hood, TX telephonically on 24
February 2003.  The airport in Killeen, TX was closed due to an ice storm.
She reported to Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) on 25 February 2003.  She
reported in to Fort Hood when she found out there was a problem.

3.  The applicant indicated, on the DD Form 149, her present status as "Res
(Control Gp)."

4.  The applicant provides a fax coversheet with an attached NOTAM (notice
to airmen) log dated 24 February 2003 from Killeen Airport to the
applicant's spouse (a Colonel); three articles from Killeen, TX newspapers
(total of six pages) dated 25 and 26 February 2003; an AF Form 3899
(Aeromedical Evacuation Patient Record); a letter from the Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, BAMC dated 8 June 2003; a letter from BAMC dated
22 April 2003; a letter from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
BAMC dated 2 October 2003; and a timeline of events dated 18 June 2003.

5.  The applicant also provides a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 17
July 2003; a San Antonio Police Department report, date of occurrence 9
April 2003; a memorandum dated 9 April 2003; two Military Police Desk
Blotters dated        28 April and 6 May 2003; a DA Form 5248-R (Report of
Unfavorable Information for Security Determination); an undated memorandum,
Subject:  Request for Involuntary Extension on Active Duty (applicant); a
fax coversheet dated 15 May 2003; a memorandum from the applicant dated 22
April 2003; U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) orders dated
7 May 2003; Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood orders dated 15 May 2003;
a memorandum for record dated 19 June 2003; and a GOMOR dated 29 April
2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service, the applicant was appointed a warrant
officer in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) in December 1990.  She entered
active duty in an AGR status in 1997.  She was issued her notification of
eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (her 20-year letter) on 5 August
1998.  She was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) on 13 December
2002 in military occupational specialty 420A (Personnel Technician).

2.  Headquarters, U. S. Army 90th Regional Support Command Orders 02-01-298
dated 25 October 2002 assigned the applicant to "Fort Hood, TX" for the
purpose of deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  These
orders stated:

      You are deployed as shown below and are to return to your permanent
station upon completion of the duties in support of this operation. You
will submit a reviewed travel voucher for this travel to the finance office
within 5 working days after return to home station.

3.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Permanent Orders 322-7 dated
   18 November 2002 (format 403) stated:

      You are attached or released from attachments as shown.


      Action:  You are directed to proceed on Temporary Change of Station
(TCS) from Fort Hood, Texas to Camp Doha, Kuwait for further deployment and
return.


      Purpose:  Morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) detachment ISO CDR,
USCENTCOM.

      Effective date:  On or about 20 November 2002.

      Number of days:  Initial period of up to 365 days from Mobilization
date.

4.  Apparently on 6 February 2003, the applicant departed Kuwait for
medical treatment at the Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany.

5.  An undated AF Form 3899 shows the applicant was medically evacuated
from Landstuhl, Germany to Fort Sam Houston, TX/Lackland Air Force Base, TX
(both in the San Antonio, TX area).

6.  Apparently military flights were not available and the applicant took a
commercial flight to the States.  In a timeline provided by the applicant,
she stated she was to land at Killeen airport (near Fort Hood) and was to
be transported to BAMC at Fort Sam Houston.  Icy conditions at the Killeen
airport caused her flight to be diverted to Austin, TX.

7.  In the same timeline, the applicant stated she arrived in Austin after
10:00 p.m. on 24 February 2003.  Airport information told her there was no
transportation to Fort Hood due to icy road conditions.  She stated she was
sent back to Fort Hood on her original orders from Fort Hood so she called
the Fort Hood III Corps Staff Duty Officer and spoke to a captain (she did
not obtain his name).  She stated the captain told her there was no
transportation from Fort Hood to Fort Sam Houston and she was to go to
BAMC.  Her husband picked her up at the Austin airport and took her to
BAMC.  She reported to the BAMC Air Evacuation office on 25 February 2003.
"They" (she did not have a name) told her that, since she did not come on
the medical evacuation [flight] to Lackland Air Force Base, they were
limited as to what they could do for her and she had to make her own
doctors' appointments.

8.  The applicant provided three letters from medical personnel at BAMC.
Lieutenant Colonel H___, Women's Health Care Nurse Practitioner, stated the
applicant arrived at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at BAMC
the morning of 25 February 2003.

9.  Captain S___, U. S. Air Force, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
BAMC, stated the applicant initially presented with symptoms of dizziness,
lightheadedness, and near-syncopal episodes associated with minimal
exertion.  The symptoms were highly concerning and he felt the applicant
would present a physical danger to herself and other people around her if
she continued to work.  For that reason, he asked the patient to remain on
home bedrest until they completed the workup of her symptoms.  The results
of her workups resulted in her undergoing major abdominal surgery on 13 May
2003.  She was discharged from BAMC on 26 May 2003 and was given 42 days of
convalescent leave from the date of her hospital discharge.

10.  On or about 9 April 2003, military authorities apparently requested
assistance from the San Antonio Police Department in looking for the
applicant, who was supposed to be AWOL.  A police officer located her at
her home in San Antonio.  Since there was no AWOL warrant out on her, the
police had no authority to take her into custody or detain her.  The police
officer informed her the military authorities would be contacting her.

11.  On 9 April 2003, Headquarters, 328th Personnel Services Battalion
(PSB), General Richard G. Stilwell Army Reserve Center, San Antonio, TX
sent a memorandum to the applicant informing her the Alternate Casualty
Army Command in Kuwait requested their assistance in locating her.  She was
informed the memorandum was official notice that she was required to
contact her command and inform them of her whereabouts.

12.  A Military Police Desk Blotter, Provost Marshal Office, Fort Hood
dated       28 April 2003 indicated the applicant's unit, Detachment 1,
4003 GSU (Garrison Support Unit), Active Duty Reserve, Fort Hood, reported
her AWOL as of          26 February 2003.

13.  A Military Police Desk Blotter, Provost Marshal Office, Fort Hood
dated         6 May 2003 indicated the applicant's unit reported her as
dropped from the rolls as of 28 March 2003.

14.  AR-PERSCOM Orders R-04-372632 dated 7 May 2003 released the applicant
from attachment and assigned her to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort
Sill, OK effective 28 March 2003.  She was transferred to the control of
the Active Army.  On the effective date, she was deleted from the USAR
strength accountability.

15.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Orders 135-4 dated 15 May 2003
(the standard name line of which shows her unit as the 328th PSB,
Detachment 5, 5th Army, Fort Hood, TX) attached her to the 4003d Garrison
Support Unit (GSU), Fort Hood, TX effective on or about 26 February 2003.
The purpose was attachment for legal holdover.

16.  On 5 June 2003, the Commander of the 4003d GSU appointed an
investigating officer (IO) to conduct an informal investigation into the
allegation the applicant was AWOL.

17.  In a 19 June 2003 memorandum for record, the applicant's counsel
recorded his interview with the IO and reiterated many of the facts
outlined by the applicant in her timeline.  He also noted the IO asked why
the applicant did not contact the 328th PSB, her Reserve unit, and tell
them what was happening to her.  The applicant did not believe the 328th
PSB was the unit she was assigned to or required to check in with.  The
applicant had indicated that, in late October or early November [2002], the
20 reservists from her unit who had been activated took a bus from Fort Sam
Houston to Fort Hood.  Lieutenant R___ (apparently the unit commander) was
on that bus.  He made it clear the Soldiers were no longer a part of the
Reserve unit but now belonged to Fort Hood.  With orders clearly assigning
her to Kuwait and III Corps, there was no reason for the applicant to
assume the 328th PSB was tracking her.  The applicant did her best to
report to the unit to which she was assigned.

18.  The IO completed his investigation and completed the findings and
recommendations on 9 July 2003.  The IO found the applicant was guilty of
being AWOL based on:

      She was a seasoned veteran in the personnel area for a period of over
  30 years, the last 13 being as a warrant officer.  As a personnel
specialist, she was charged with knowing the rules of personnel
accountability and she demonstrated a complete disregard of those rules;

      She never reported to Fort Hood on or about 24 February 2003 as
required by her 18 November 2002 orders.  She diverted to San Antonio on
her own authority.  After her initial appointment at BAMC on 28 February
2003, she failed to report back to BAMC until 8 April 2003;

      Prior to her deployment, she had had several discussions with
Lieutenant Colonel G___.  She was well aware of the fact that her unit
would demobilize at Fort Hood upon her return.  It would appear reasonable
that she would have contacted Lieutenant Colonel G___ if she was unsure of
her place of duty;

      She only attempted to contact Fort Hood after she had been dropped
from the rolls and authorities began showing up at her home in San Antonio;


      She stated there was no transportation from Fort Hood to Fort Sam
Houston.  That was false, as a shuttle service was provided every weekday
between the two installations.  She also failed to contact her Reserve
unit;

      She stated her action/inaction was the result of the multiple
medications she was taking.  However, Colonel M___, the Clinic Director,
told the IO  the applicant was not prescribed any medication that was
excessive or out of the ordinary;

      Colonel M___ stated medical personnel are not responsible for
accountability of Soldiers, stating "Simply going to the hospital for
treatment does not suffice for personal (sic) accountability."  The
Aeromedical Evacuation Patient Record did not substitute for official
orders, with the authority of directing her to Fort Sam Houston, just as
convalescent leave is not approved by a Soldier's doctor;

      The same care could have been provided at Darnall Army Community
Hospital, Fort Hood, the location at which she was directed to report.
Instead, she chose to go to BAMC; and

      Her predicament was entirely her own fault.  She did essentially
nothing to right her actions.

19.  The IO recommended the applicant be charged with AWOL.

20.  On 17 July 2003, the applicant's unit, 4003d GSU, Fort Hood, requested
  the applicant's active duty be extended for 180 days pending Uniform Code
      of Military Justice action with an eye towards court-martial charges.
 (A              15 December 2003 entry in the Soldier Management System
(SMS) at the U. S.  Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis (USAHRC – STL,
formerly      AR-PERSCOM) indicates a caller was informed on that date
that, since the applicant was AGR, she was on active duty and did not need
to be extended.)

21.  On 21 July 2003, the Administrative Law Attorney, Fort Hood, TX, found
the findings of the IO to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence
and the recommendations were consistent with the findings.

22.  On an unknown date, the applicant was required to move into Government
barracks.  On 9 February 2004, military police went to her barracks in
response to a domestic disturbance call.  The applicant was on her bed
fully clothed, a male (Specialist W___) was outside the room, and the
applicant's husband was outside.  The applicant's husband told the military
police he had seen the applicant and Specialist W___ in bed together having
sex.

23.  On 29 April 2004, the applicant was issued a GOMOR for conduct
unbecoming an officer, false official statement, and fraternization.  The
GOMOR stated:

      On 24 February 2003, she was medically re-deployed from Kuwait to
Texas for medical evaluation.  From 24 February until 3 June 2003, she
failed to contact anyone in her chain of command at Fort Hood to ensure
proper accountability.  During that period, she did not perform any
military duties but rather remained at her home.  She only contacted
personnel at Fort Hood, who were properly authorized to allow her to remain
at home, on 3 June 2003 after a written order was sent to her notifying her
that approval of her convalescent leave was being held in abeyance pending
compliance with an order to contact her chain of command.  She asserted she
had called the Staff Duty Officer on 24/25 February 2003, who directed her
to proceed to San Antonio; however, she could neither provide the officer's
name nor was there any record in the Staff Duty Log of such contact.

      On 9 February 2004, the Fort Hood Military Police responded to her
barracks room based on a report of assault between her, her husband, and
Specialist W___.  Investigation of that incident revealed she and
Specialist W___ were in her barracks room together drinking alcohol.  She
denied drinking alcohol; however, Specialist W__ stated they were both
drinking.  Additionally, Specialist W___ acknowledged he was wearing his
slippers and his boots were under her bed while the two of them drank
alcoholic beverages together.

24.  The applicant responded to the GOMOR.  In regard to the AWOL charge,
she repeated her earlier explanation of the circumstances of her medical
evacuation from Kuwait to Germany to BAMC and her treatment and status
while at BAMC.  In regard to the barracks incident, she stated she had not
lived in a barracks in decades.  She was assigned to live in the same
barracks as enlisted Soldiers.  Her mistake was in not isolating herself
from the enlisted Soldiers and ensuring a professional distance was
maintained.  When Specialist W___ came to her door, he said he had been
looking for someone to give him transportation because his vehicle had
broken down.  She was in the middle of polishing her boots and told him she
would assist him when she was finished.  She allowed him to wait until she
was finished.  That was a poor decision on her part and allowed the events
to spiral out of control.

25.  On 3 June 2004, the Commanding General, Fort Hood, TX directed the
GOMOR be filed in the applicant's Official Military Personnel File.

26.  Between 13 October and 19 October 2005, the Board analyst contacted
USAHRC – STL (Warrant Officer Branch and AGR Branch); the Reserve
Components Support Services Division, USAHRC – Alexandria, VA; the 4003d
GSU, Fort Hood, TX; and the 650th Area Support Group, Fort Hood, TX.  None
of them had a record of the applicant's current status.

27.  Electronic records at USAHRC – STL show the applicant was released
from active duty on 28 February 2003 and voluntarily transferred (the
records do not indicate transferred where) on 1 March 2003 due to
completion of required active service.

28.  Records on SMS at USAHRC – STL indicate that, on 16 May 2004, the
system generated a welcome letter based on the applicant's Individual Ready
Reserve assignment.

29.  On 20 October 2005 and again on 22 February 2006, the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service informed the Board analyst the applicant's pay
record shows she was AWOL from 26 February through 12 March 2003 and that
she is still on active duty.

30.  Army Regulation 600-8-6 (Personnel Accounting and Strength Reporting)
prescribes the policies and mandatory operating tasks for the personnel
accounting and strength reporting functions of the Military Personnel
System.  Paragraph 1-19a states units account for Soldiers in SIDPERS (the
Standard Installation/Division Personnel System) by using a unit processing
code for reporting purposes.  Paragraph 1-19b states unit commanders report
all changes in personnel status occurring during the reporting period to
the battalion personnel section (BNS1), separate company commanders, or
other responsible officials each duty day.  Paragraph 1-19b states BNS1s
and separate company commanders will ensure all changes in personnel status
received from subordinate elements are submitted in SIDPERS.

31.  Army Regulation 600-8-6, paragraph 2-2a states any time the duty
status of a Soldier changes so as to meet the definition of another duty
status, a SIDPERS transaction is necessary.  Table 2-1 lists and defines
the duty status codes used in SIDPERS duty status transactions.

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-6, paragraph 2-7b states a DA Form 4187
(Personnel Action) will be prepared to support absences, unauthorized
absences in excess of 24 hours, and return to duty.  Paragraph 2-7d states
the duty status changes for attached Soldiers will be reported in SIDPERS
by the parent unit.  The unit of attachment will prepare DA Form 4187 and
forward it to the Soldier's parent unit to document a SIDPERS transaction.


33.  Army Regulation 600-8-6, Table 2-1 states "HOS" (Hospital) is a
SIDPERS duty status code.  It is used for Soldiers admitted to the hospital
but not reassigned, who are wounded, sick, or injured, nonbattle-incurred.
Table 2-6 states the unit reports the duty status changes to the BNS1.  The
BNS1 verifies the Soldier's duty status, prepares the DA Form 4187, obtains
the authenticating official's signature on the DA Form 4817, submits the
SIDPERS transaction, and distributes the DA Form 4187.  The DA Form 4187 is
distributed as follows:

      Copy 1 – personnel records section for filing in the member's
records;
      Copy 2 – the supporting finance office;
      Copy 3 – unit files;
      Copy 4 – the Soldier (or unit of attachment); or
      Copies 1 and 2 as an exception – the assigned unit (if Soldier is
attached without records)
34.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes), paragraph 5-3 states
that, if a Soldier is not hospitalized, the unit commander is the approval
authority for convalescent leave.  Table 5-2 states physicians determine
leave to be necessary in the care and treatment prescribed for recuperation
and convalescence.  Physicians recommend a period of convalescent leave to
the approval authority.  The approval authority (i.e., the commander)
considers the diagnosis, prognosis, and probable final disposition of the
Soldier and limits leave to the minimum amount of time essential to meet
immediate needs.  If warranted by medical condition, the hospital commander
grants a leave extension or considers other appropriate options.  The
medical treatment facility (MTF) advises Soldiers whether they are to
return to the hospital or place of duty after convalescent leave.

35.  Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration), paragraph 5-5 states
overseas MTF commanders may return Army military patients from overseas to
CONUS (Continental United States) for medical reasons when, after
coordination with the member's commander, they determine that such action
is in the best interests of the Army and the patient.  When it is
determined that a patient is to be returned to CONUS in an inpatient
status, a request for MTF designation will be sent through normal medical
regulating channels to the Global Patient Movement Requirements Center
(GPMRC).  Inpatients will be transferred as soon as possible after receipt
of an MTF designation from GPMRC.  The patient will be assigned or attached
to the Medical Holding Unit (MHU) of the designated MTF as provided in
paragraph 8-1.

36.  Army Regulation 40-400, paragraph 8-1 states each MTF not in a
contingency zone operation having inpatient capabilities will maintain an
MHU company/detachment.  Patients that do not meet the medical criteria of
this chapter are not attached or assigned to the MHU.  Paragraph 8-2 states
the patient administrator of an MTF where a patient is first admitted will
immediately notify the commander of the patient's unit.  Paragraph 8-3
states all active duty Army patients admitted directly or by transfer are
attached to the MHU.  Paragraph 8-4 states active duty Army soldiers may be
assigned to an MHU in an inpatient or outpatient status.  Paragraph 8-4c(7)
states patients will be assigned to the MHU when outpatients do not require
inpatient care and are unable to perform even limited duty at their
assigned unit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she was falsely accused of being AWOL and that
she had, in effect, contacted the officials she was required to contact to
inform them of her status.

2.  An IO found the applicant was guilty of being AWOL for several reasons:
 As a personnel specialist, she was charged with knowing the rules of
personnel accountability and demonstrated a complete disregard of those
rules; she    never reported to Fort Hood on or about 24 February 2003 as
required by her   18 November 2002 orders but instead diverted to San
Antonio on her own authority and then, after her initial appointment at
BAMC on 28 February 2003, failed to report back to BAMC until 8 April 2003;
she was well aware of the fact her unit would demobilize at Fort Hood upon
her return; she only attempted to contact Fort Hood after she had been
dropped from the rolls and authorities began showing up at her home in San
Antonio; she falsely stated there was no transportation from Fort Hood to
Fort Sam Houston; and she failed to contact her Reserve unit.

3.  The IO also reported that Colonel M___, the Clinic Director at BAMC,
stated  the applicant was not prescribed any medication that would have
affected her judgment; reported that Colonel M___ stated medical personnel
are not responsible for accountability of Soldiers; reported that the same
care could have been provided at Darnall Army Community Hospital, Fort
Hood, the location at which she was directed to report.  The IO reported
that the applicant instead chose to go to BAMC, and her predicament was
entirely her own fault.

4.  Contrary to the findings of the IO, a Soldier, even an experienced
personnel officer, is not responsible for officially reporting his or her
own status to unit officials.  Units, such as personnel services
battalions, are responsible for reporting the duty status of their
Soldiers.  The Army in effect lost this applicant.  Even today the USAHRC –
STL appears not to know that this applicant is still being paid because she
is still in an active duty status.

5.  The applicant had a medical condition that resulted in her evacuation
from Kuwait to Landstuhl, Germany.  An undated AF Form 3899 shows she was
then medically evacuated from Landstuhl, Germany to Fort Sam Houston, TX.

6.  Army Regulation 40-400 states overseas MTF commanders may return Army
military patients to CONUS when, after coordination with the member's
commander, they determine such action is in the best interests of the Army
and the patient.  A request for an MTF designation will be sent through
normal medical regulating channels to the GPMRC.  Inpatients will be
transferred as soon as possible after receipt of an MTF designation from
GPMRC.  The applicant did not choose to go to BAMC unless it was with the
full coordination with and agreement of MTF officials.

7.  Army Regulation 40-400 states patients will be assigned or attached to
the Medical Holding Unit (MHU) of the designated MTF and that each MTF not
in a contingency zone operation having inpatient capabilities will maintain
an MHU company/detachment.  It also states that the patient administrator
of an MTF where a patient is first admitted will immediately notify the
commander of the patient's unit and that all active duty Army patients
admitted directly or by transfer are attached to the MHU.

8.  Contrary to what Colonel M___ may have told the IO, medical personnel
(or at least MTF administrative personnel) certainly are responsible for
the personnel accountability of Soldiers.  It appears patient
administration at BAMC erred when it failed to notify the applicant's unit
she had arrived at BAMC.

9.  Contrary to the findings of the IO, the applicant's 18 November 2002
orders did not explicitly order her to return to her Reserve unit upon her
return from Kuwait in February 2003.  Since her initial mobilization period
was for 365 days, the orders implicitly ordered her to return to Kuwait
upon the completion of her medical treatment.  Since her mobilization
period was for at least 365 days, it certainly cannot be determined that
"she was well aware of the fact her unit would demobilize at Fort Hood upon
her return" in February 2003.

10.  The IO determined that the applicant was at fault because, after her
initial appointment at BAMC on 28 February 2003, she failed to report back
to BAMC until 8 April 2003, implying her convalescent leave was not
approved by the proper commander (i.e., her Fort Hood unit commander).

11.  However, by regulation the applicant should have been assigned or
attached to the MHU at BAMC.  She provided a statement from Captain S___
from BAMC, who stated he asked the applicant to remain on home bedrest
until they completed the workup of her symptoms.  Except for not having a
DA Form         31 (Request and Authority for Leave) physically in her
hands, it is not implausible to presume the applicant believed she had been
given convalescent leave approval by the proper (i.e., the BAMC MHU
commander) authority.

12.  The applicant requests that all record of her being in an AWOL status
be expunged from her records with restoration of all back pay and
allowances.  She was reported as being AWOL from 26 February through 12
March 2003 and DFAS's pay account shows her being AWOL for that period.
The preponderance of evidence shows her units (administrative and medical)
failed to properly report her duty status but that evidence fails to show
that she was AWOL.  It would be equitable to correct her records to show
she was not AWOL from 26 February through 12 March 2003, but rather was in
a hospital status during that period, and to reimburse her any and all due
pay and allowances as a result of this correction.

13.  The applicant requests to be reinstated into the AGR program or
transferred to the Retired Reserve.  Reinstatement into the AGR program at
this point in  time is not feasible.  She is eligible for transfer to the
Retired Reserve.   USAHRC – STL should ensure she is officially taken off
active duty, issued a DD Form 214, and transferred to the Retired Reserve
immediately.

14.  The applicant indicated in her application that she was in a USAR
Control Group.  Records on SMS at USAHRC – STL indicate that, on 16 May
2004, the system generated a welcome letter based on the applicant's
Individual Ready Reserve assignment.  Presumably the welcome letter was
addressed to her.  It appears she was still under Active Army control as of
June 2004, when the Commanding General, Fort Hood, TX directed the GOMOR be
filed in her Official Military Personnel File.

15.  Therefore, although it appears the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service is still paying the applicant active duty pay, it would be
appropriate to correct the applicant's records to show she was released
from active duty on 1 August 2004, a reasonable period of time after the
final GOMOR action.

16.  The applicant requests the GOMOR be expunged from her records.
Unfortunately, by the time the GOMOR was issued on 29 April 2004, the
applicant had been cited for misconduct other than the alleged AWOL.  She
was cited for fraternization, a charge that appears to have been borne out
by the Military Police investigation.  It cannot be determined if the
charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and false official statement were
related to the AWOL charge or the fraternization charge, or both.
Nevertheless, it would be equitable to delete all references to the AWOL
allegation from the GOMOR.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__jpi___  __jpp___  __eem___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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:
     a.  correcting her records to show she was not AWOL from 26 February
through 12 March 2003, but rather was in a hospital status during that
period, and to reimburse her any and all due pay and allowances as a result
of this correction;

     b.  taking her officially off active duty effective 1 August 2004,
issuing her a DD Form 214, and transferring her to the U. S. Army Reserve
Control Group (Retired Reserve) immediately; and

     c.  deleting all references to the AWOL allegation from the GOMOR.

2.  The Board further determined that 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 to
expunging the GOMOR from her records.




                                  __John P. Infante_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001752                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060323                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |123.04                                  |
|2.                      |134.04                                  |
|3.                      |135.03                                  |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074729C070403

    Original file (2002074729C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s military records for this period of service are not available. On 25 November 2000, the applicant filed a complaint with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison alleging she was erroneously charged with 30 days leave, requesting orders be corrected assigning her to the 16th LSO (acronym unknown) so she could go back to work (and stating she would never have requested early release from the AGR if she knew she would be unemployed), requesting her DD Form 214 be corrected regarding her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002859

    Original file (20110002859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). a. Paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted member may not be referred for physical disability processing when action has been started that may result in an administrative separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. It is a fact-finding board that investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007255

    Original file (20140007255.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Since the GOMOR, his record has been exemplary as evidenced by the Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) he received over the last 4 years; one of which was given to him by the same command he served under when he received the GOMOR. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021645

    Original file (20110021645.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 11 March 2011, and a relief-for-cause officer evaluation report (OER), dated 11 May 2011, from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant states: * she received a GOMOR that was permanently filed in her record in May 2011 * she also received a relief-for-cause OER which indicates negative Army values as a result * she underwent a board of inquiry to determine the status of her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006941

    Original file (20130006941.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action was initiated. The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation action was initiated due to her inability to physically adapt to military service as evidenced by her repeated temporary profiles for stress fractures and her desire to be released from active duty. As she was separated prior to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04402

    Original file (BC-2012-04402.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04402 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 32 days of advance leave she was charged while on leave in in Shreveport, LA be restored. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064804C070421

    Original file (2001064804C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Chief of the Promotions Branch at PERSCOM notified the applicant by memorandum, dated 9 January 2001, that the Secretary of the Army, acting on behalf of the President of the United States, had removed his name from the FY 1999 Captain Promotion List and that, as a result, he would not be promoted. “Second, my promotion was delayed because, ‘[the applicant’s rank and name omitted] was in a non-promotable status on 1 February 2000 because he was flagged by this [18th Aviation Brigade]...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012380C070206

    Original file (20050012380C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the memorandum dated 20 November 2001, the applicant informed the Commander, III Corps, that an AR 15-6 investigation had been initiated on 2 August 2001, and that an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to investigate the individuals involved for potential fraud. On 11 March 2002, a Command Climate investigation was conducted in the 15th Finance Battalion and the 13th Finance Group and the IO's overall assessment for the 15th Finance Battalion was that morale was very low based on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020894

    Original file (20090020894.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her record to reinstate her in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) so she may maintain eligibility for payment under the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) Program. The advisory official states there is no record showing the applicant reenlisted in the USAR on or after the date she completed her enlistment. There is no evidence she attempted to reenlist before or after her term of service expired on 9 November 2003 even though it was in her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001133

    Original file (20080001133.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She further states that she was never referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) during her active duty or USAR service. The regulation also states that, when a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that the soldier is fit. There is no evidence in the applicant's...