MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            23 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11048

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his right to wear the Special Forces Tab be reinstated.

APPLICANT STATES:  That a divorce in September 1997 left him with custody of his daughter.  Because of deployment of his unit in October 1997 from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to an exercise in Arizona, he left his daughter with his parents, who reside in Oklahoma.  On 10 November 1997, while still deployed, he called his parent’s home to check on his daughter.  He received information that his daughter was taken to the hospital by his parents, possibly for pneumonia.  He requested and was granted emergency leave, and immediately flew to his parents’ home in Oklahoma.

That upon arrival in Oklahoma he learned that his daughter was not admitted to the hospital, but was treated for an asthma attack and released to the care of his parents.  He notes that before flying to his parents’ home, he called his ex-wife in Mississippi to let her know of the situation, and that she arrived in Oklahoma at about the same time he did.  Relieved that his daughter was no longer in an emergency medical condition, he was now faced with the decision to fly back to Arizona or remain in Oklahoma with his daughter.  He decided to remain in Oklahoma.  Which left him with the problem of how he could return to his residence at Fort Campbell with his daughter.

That he asked his ex-wife if she would drive him to Fort Campbell, where he could pick up his privately owned vehicle (POV), return to Oklahoma and wait until the end of the week to ensure that his daughter did not have a relapse, and then return together back to Fort Campbell.  He later realized he should have called his chain of command in Arizona, informed them of the situation and asked for guidance and/or approval.  That his priorities were somewhat askew and he was not thinking rationally.

That his commander called the day prior to his return to Fort Campbell and talked to his (the applicant’s) mother, who stated the daughter was fine and did not have to be admitted to the hospital.  His commander immediately cut his mother off and became angry and instructed her to have the applicant contact him upon his return.  He returned to his parents’ house later and tried to contact his commander but was told he was not in, so he left a message that he was returning his call.

The applicant submits a lengthy and detailed memorandum to the Board explaining his actions and reasons why he feels the action taken against him by his chain of command was unjust and unlawful.  To support his application, he encloses several documents, including a supporting statement from his mother, 
the results of a commander’s inquiry, a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), and memoranda recommending revocation of the Special Forces Tab.  He acknowledges and accepts full responsibility for his mistakes and poor judgment shown in relationship to the emergency leave he was granted.

The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the Commanding General who issued the GOMOR unlawfully influenced the revocation of the Special Forces Tab, since it was not part of the original commander’s inquiry recommendations.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant, Infantry, on 10 June 1988, and ordered to active duty on 2 April 1989. He was promoted to his current rank of captain on 1 July 1993.
Orders issued by the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School on 15 July 1994 authorized the applicant to wear the Special Forces Tab.

On 26 November 1997 the applicant was formally counseled by his commander, a major, concerning his actions while on emergency leave during his unit’s deployment to Exercise Eastern Eagle.  He was also notified of a pending commander’s inquiry, and was suspended from his command.

A 2 December 1997 commander’s inquiry, conducted by the applicant’s battalion commander (a lieutenant colonel), noted that the applicant admitted he did not obey his commanding officer’s order to remove a post sticker from his ex-wife’s car, explaining he did not consider it an order; that he knowingly remained on emergency leave after clearly ascertaining that there was no emergency, instead traveling and visiting friends and relatives, dealing with various personal issues, and not notifying his chain of command of his location and change of plans.

The inquiry found that the applicant displayed extremely poor judgment in dealing with the entire issue of his ex-wife’s disposition; that he was grossly negligent in both action and judgment with regard to his emergency leave; that his explanations were self-serving, losing the trust and confidence of his 

superiors; and acting in a manner that strongly indicates a lack of maturity.  The 
recommendations included that the applicant be relieved of his command and receive a relief for cause evaluation report, that he be given a memorandum of reprimand for his actions, and that his security clearance be downgraded.

On 24 December 1997 the applicant received a memorandum of reprimand from the Commanding General, US Army Special Forces Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for his actions with regard to his emergency leave; specifically, deceiving his chain of command and failing to accept responsibility for his actions. He was given an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 12 January 1998 action was taken by the applicant’s battalion commander to revoke the applicant’s Special Forces Tab based on his misconduct and relief from command for cause.  Orders were published on 15 July 1998 by the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School revoking the award of his Special Forces Tab.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth the requirements for the award of the Special Forces Tab.  Paragraph 1-30 provides for the revocation of the Special Forces Tab by the awarding authority if the recipient has committed any act or engaged in any conduct inconsistent with  the integrity, professionalism, and conduct of a Special Forces soldier, as determined by the Commander, US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant provided no convincing evidence to show that the revocation of his Special Forces Tab is unjust and unlawful as he asserts.  The revocation of the award was proper and in accordance with regulations and policy.

2.  The applicant’s allegation of unlawful command influence is without merit.  The Commanding General, or any commander in the chain of command, has the right to direct or recommend revocation of an award.

3.  The applicant is not entitled to wear the Special Forces Tab based on his acts of misconduct and relief from command.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.