RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000756


      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. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard G. Sayre              |     |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 a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand
(GOMOR) be removed from his records.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his constitutional rights were
violated because he was sent out of country (Bosnia) pending a disciplinary
charge without having an opportunity to question witnesses or defend
himself.  He was not able to speak to witnesses when he was in country due
to a directive from the commander.  His accuser was a Bosnian Serb who
hated Americans due to the bombings.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving in Operation Enduring Freedom as an
Army National Guard officer.

2.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was commissioned
out of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program on 22 August 1975.  He
entered active duty on 16 September 1975.  He was released from active duty
on           15 September 1977 and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR).  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 18 August 1996.  He
was ordered to active duty on 30 July 1999 to perform duties as a Liaison
Officer to the World Bank for the Stabilization Force (SFOR) and the
Combined Joint Civil/Military Task Force, Operation Joint Forge, Bosnia.

3.  On 18 February 2000, an investigating officer (IO) completed an Army
Regulation 15-6 investigation.  The investigation initially centered on
allegations of sexual harassment from Ms. S___ against the applicant
(apparently on behalf of Ms. H___).  Interviews revealed more potential
wrongdoing by the applicant, i.e., assisting Bosnian civilians to
improperly use the post exchange (PX) system and selling PX merchandise to
unauthorized civilians; disobeying a direct verbal order from his superior
officer and commander; and lying under oath.  The suspicion of disobedience
to an order was removed from the investigation.

4.  The IO noted that, early in February 2000, the applicant initiated a
lunch with himself, LTC C___, Ms. H___, and Ms. S___ (Ms. H___'s
supervisor).  The applicant called Ms. H___ (whom LTC C___ was apparently
interested in) at home, but she agreed to meet the applicant and LTC C___
at the office and think about lunch then.  The applicant and LTC C___
arrived at the office about 1:00 p.m.  Ms. H___ was not there so the
applicant and LTC C___ went to lunch alone.

5.  The IO noted the two SFOR officers returned about 2:00 p.m., and the
applicant pressed Ms. H___ for another lunch.  She refused each offer,
going through most of the days of the week.  The two SFOR officers left.
Ms. S___ then asked Ms. H___ if she felt comfortable about the attention,
and Ms. H___ said she did not.  Ms. S___ approached Ms. Pa___, the Deputy
Director of the Sarajevo office of the World Bank, the following day and
told her about the incident.  Ms. Pa___ then called the applicant into her
office with Ms. S___ and discussed the incident.  The applicant did not
understand what he had done wrong (that a foreign, senior SFOR officer
could inadvertently pressure a 22-year old Bosnian female) but agreed to
avoid such behavior in the future.

6.  The IO noted that the applicant met with Ms. H___ on 10 February 2000
and showed her an email he was putting together for Ms. Pa___.  Ms. H___
read the email and told the applicant she was getting uncomfortable with
everything happening in the office.  A complaint from Ms. S___ was filed.
In a verbal statement, Ms. Pa___ told the IO that she and Ms. S___
confronted the applicant with Ms. S___'s version of the alleged sexual
harassment.  He tried to argue with them about what constituted sexual
harassment.  It was during this interview that the applicant's abuse of PX
privileges was brought up.  Ms. Pa___ told the IO the applicant was taking
her staff to the PX six or seven times per week, to include the local
Bosnian staff.

7.  The IO noted that Ms. B___ was a friend of Ms. H___ and at the time was
a receptionist at the World Bank.  She told the IO the applicant would
normally take people to the PX sometimes two to three times a day.  One
time the applicant bought some shampoo and left it with her to sell to
others in the World Bank.

8.  The IO noted that Ms. Pe___, a Senior Financial Sector Specialist at
the World Bank, told him the applicant had driven her as well as a number
of the local employees to the PX on a number of occasions.

9.  The IO noted that LTC C___ was in the same USAR unit as the applicant
and the applicant was his commanding officer.  LTC C___ informed the IO he
had gone to lunch with Ms. H___, found her to be a pleasant person, and
wanted to go to lunch again, mentioning it to the applicant on 5 February
2000.  LTC C___ stated that, when they returned to the office after lunch
the day in question, the applicant did almost all the talking during the
exchange with Ms. H___.  LTC C___ stated he does not remember talking
directly with Ms. H___ during the conversation.

10.  The IO noted that, according to the applicant, he (the applicant) was
a bystander in the discussion at the office.  The applicant told the IO he
never called Ms. H___ at home that Sunday to ask her out to lunch and that
he never called her at home.  Later in the interview, the applicant told
the IO he did call Ms. H___ at home that Sunday to warn her that her boss
was upset with her about not coming to the office on time.  He left a
message.  The applicant did not deny taking the civilians at the World Bank
to the PX.  He stated that, since his predecessors had done it, he assumed
it was OK.  He first told the IO he never bought anything for World Bank
personnel.  Later he stated that one time he bought too many sets of
underwear.  The PX was having a sale on underwear, he grabbed about 10 to
15 sets of underwear and bought them.  He assumed they were all the same
size but discovered they were not.  He figured he could not return them, so
he announced at the office he had underwear that was the wrong size and
asked if anyone wanted to purchase it from him.  He either sold them for
half price or gave them away.  He stated that was the only item he had
sold, but later he told the IO he had done the same with socks.  The IO
asked him if those were the only items he had sold, and the applicant said
"yes."  Then the applicant told the IO he had once bought about 10 tubes of
hand cream, but, since he had too many, he either sold them or gave them
away.

11.  The applicant discussed the disobedience of Colonel M___'s order "not
to interface with World Bank personnel or have the party."  The applicant
stated he followed that order to the letter since Colonel M___'s order was
not to talk with them.  The applicant was surprised to see World Bank
personnel at the party, even though he did nothing to tell them the party
was cancelled.  The applicant stated that if Colonel M___ or Ms. Pa___ had
not informed the World Bank personnel they could not come to the party,
that was not the applicant's fault that they had come.

12.  The IO found that the applicant's actions did not constitute sexual
harassment; however, his conduct was unbecoming a commissioned officer.
The applicant never intended to put Ms. H___ into a "hostile environment,"
but he did put her in an uncomfortable situation that was very similar to a
hostile environment whether intentional or not.  With his continued
dwelling on the subject, not only with Ms. H___ and Ms. Pa___ but also with
other members of the staff, he was acting in a manner that was not fitting
for a commissioned officer.  Finding lunch appointments for other officers
in a professional setting where the applicant was acting as a liaison
officer was not an acceptable practice.  The applicant did not take into
consideration the weight of his opinion with local civilians since he was a
foreign, senior SFOR officer in a former war-torn nation.  Since Ms. H___
was also Moslem by religion, the matter of his age and stature more easily
influenced her.

13.  The IO found the applicant admitted to taking local civilians to the
PX.  He later admitted that he bought and sold PX items to the local
civilians after initially denying he did so.  The IO found there was enough
evidence to show the applicant ignored the regulations that were in place
to allow SFOR nations to sell items (portion of investigation illegible).
The IO also found there was enough evidence that showed the applicant
bought and sold numerous items to unauthorized individuals at the World
Bank.

14.  The IO found there were two separate incidents where the applicant's
statement did not coincide with two to three other witnesses to the same
incident. Those were the date, time, and location of the phone call placed
to Ms. H___ setting up the Sunday appointment for lunch.  The applicant
stated he made the call to Ms. H__'s office on 2 or 3 February 2000.  Both
LTC C___ and Ms. H___ stated the applicant called Ms. H___ at home on
Sunday, 6 February 2000.  The applicant also stated he was just a bystander
in the conversation that initiated the sexual harassment charge.  Yet, LTC
C___ stated the applicant did most of the talking and both Ms. H___ and Ms.
S___ agreed with the observation that the applicant carried the
conversation.

15.  The appointing authority recommended that the applicant's rater
annotate the applicant's misconduct on his Officer Evaluation Report and
that the investigation be forwarded to his Reserve unit for further
disposition, to include a recommendation that the applicant's Reserve unit
disenroll him from the Army War College Correspondence Course and that they
remove him from the Battalion Command List.

16.  On 16 March 2000, the Commanding General, 21st Theater Support Command
(Provisional) issued a GOMOR to the applicant.  The applicant was
reprimanded for lying under oath, assisting unauthorized personnel to
improperly use the PX system, and for constantly inviting and pressuring a
female World Bank staff member to go to lunch with him.  The Commanding
General also noted the applicant's supervisor told the applicant to cancel
his farewell party and have no further contact with World Bank staffers.
Despite that order, the applicant attended the party and World Bank
staffers attended.  His actions further alienated World Bank staffers.  The
GOMOR was provided to the applicant for rebuttal.

17.  The applicant responded by stating that apparently no one read his
statement.  He stated the World Bank Director counseled him regarding
having his fellow Soldiers going out with her young staff members.  In the
GOMOR, he was accused of going out or forcing consenting adults to go out.
He stated that he witnessed a harmless discussion between two people who
had been out previous to the day of the alleged sexual harassment.  Since
he (the applicant) was not dating her and the other Soldier was, the
applicant found it incredulous that he was the one identified.  The
applicant stated that, in fact, the Soldier had chewed him out for being
late getting him to her office.  The Director of the World Bank had not
asked who it was that was guilty of the alleged incident.  The World Bank
Director said SFOR Soldiers have power over Bosnian women and that asking
them out is sexual harassment.  The applicant stated he disagreed with her
but did not argue about it since he was not involved.  However, the other
officer should have been held for the investigation rather than the
applicant.

18.  The applicant stated the commander told him not to communicate with
World Bank personnel nor go near the World Bank because of the alleged
incident of sexual harassment.  He did not go near the building nor talk to
any World Bank employees.  The Commander also said there would be no party
of World Bank personnel.  The applicant felt bad but knew what the
commander was trying to do.  Based on the commander's directive, the
applicant was to have no relations with the World Bank personnel.  Since he
could not talk to them, it stood to reason he (the commander) would call
the Director and tell her of the decision (not to have a party).  Neither
the commander nor a designate told them, so they showed up uninvited.  The
applicant had to tell the manager to set more tables and chairs.

19.  The applicant stated he reported the incident to the commander.  He
later found out no one called the World Bank.  The commander expected him
(the applicant) to call the World Bank personnel, which would have violated
the commander's order not to have anything to do with them.

20.  The applicant stated the PX issue was the most puzzling of all.  The
applicant stated he was a generous man due to being financially well off.
He bought many things for the Bosnians there.  If they insisted on giving
him some money for the things he gave them, he accepted only a token of the
cost.  He did not take people to the PX several times a week.  He went
there three to four times a month during which entry to the base was okay'd
based on the guards checking identification cards and PX officials checking
the same on their purchases.  He did not sell and/or buy things for
Bosnians.  He gave them items he bought [more of than he needed] and gave
it to them at a fraction of what he paid.

21.  On 30 March 2000, the applicant was released from active duty.

22.  On 17 April 2000, the Commanding General, 21st Theater Support
(Provisional) directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF).

23.  In a 27 December 2001 email to LTC C___, the applicant informed LTC
C__ about the GOMOR and asked LTC C__ for his memory of what happened.  The
applicant stated:

      "if my memory is correct


      1) you yelled at me for being late taking you downtown (i was working
out at the gym and got back late)


      2) I was there to help you out in talking to her


      if I missed the boat on this one I must sink but I felt I had done
nothing wrong re this issue.


      What is your take on this?"

24.  LTC C___'s response to the applicant's 27 December 2001 email is not
available.

25.  On 27 February 2004, the applicant appealed to the Department of the
Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for removal of the GOMOR.  After
careful consideration, the DASEB voted to deny the removal of the GOMOR.

26.  Army Regulation 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations or
boards of officers not specifically authorized by other regulations.  In
pertinent parts, it states an administrative fact-finding procedure under
this regulation may be designated an investigation or a board of officers.
It states procedures that involve a single IO using informal procedures are
designated investigations.  It states that, regardless of the purpose of
the investigation, even if it is to inquire into the conduct or performance
of a particular individual, formal procedures are not mandatory unless
required by other applicable regulations or directed by higher authority.
It further states that informal procedures are not intended to provide a
hearing for persons who may have an interest in the subject of the
investigation.  No respondents may be designated and no one is entitled to
the rights of a respondent.

27.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policy and procedures to authorize
placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual
official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is
unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely or inaccurate is not filed in an
individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interest of
both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable
information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official
personnel files.  In pertinent part, it states a letter to be included in a
Soldier’s OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment.  A
letter may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or
by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over
the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contended, in effect, his constitutional rights were
violated because he was sent out of Bosnia pending a disciplinary charge
without having an opportunity to question witnesses or defend himself, that
he was not able to speak to witnesses when he was in country due to a
directive from the commander, and that his accuser was a Bosnian Serb who
hated Americans due to the bombings.

2.  The applicant did not have the right to question the witnesses the IO
talked to. Informal procedures under Army Regulation 15-6 are not intended
to provide a hearing for persons who may have an interest in the subject of
the investigation and no one is entitled to the rights of a respondent.  It
appears the applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the IO's
findings as he provided a lengthy rebuttal to the GOMOR and responded to
some issues (particularly regarding the PX issue) that were discussed at
length in the IO's investigation but not in the GOMOR.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence of his contentions other than his
own self-authored statement.  In a 27 December 2001 email, the applicant
requested LTC C___ provide his memory of the events (leading to the
allegation of sexual harassment).  However, LTC C___'s response to that
email is not available and there is no other evidence to show LTC C___
contradicted his statement to the IO.  The applicant admitted he gave PX
items to Bosnian civilians or sold them to those civilians for less than
the item's cost and provides no evidence to show such actions were not
contrary to regulations or that he did not know those actions were contrary
to regulations.

4.  The applicant's explanation of why World Bank personnel showed up at
his party is not credible.  The applicant stated that, since he could not
talk to World Bank personnel, it stood to reason the commander would call
the Director of the World Bank and tell her of the decision not to have a
party.  This is a specious argument.  The applicant had subordinates (LTC
C___, at least).  It was not unreasonable for the commander to presume the
applicant would have the initiative to have a subordinate call World Bank
personnel if the applicant could not do so personally.


5.  The applicant provides insufficient evidence to show the GOMOR was
improperly or unjustly issued.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jbg___  __sap___  __rgs___  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.




                                  __James B. Gunlicks__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000756                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060316                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |134.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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