MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           5 October 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035086

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Jaime Perez		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) dated 17 June 1998 be transferred from his official military personnel file (OMPF) to the restricted fiche.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes the reprimand was based on an isolated incident and is not reflective of his performance and conduct before or after the incident.  He also states that he was not told that the GOMOR would be placed on his performance fiche.  In support of his application he submitted letters of support dated in 1999 from his company and battalion commanders requesting the removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF.

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

He has served continuously in the Regular Army from 30 October 1985; his current military occupational specialty is 35W, senior instructor writer; he achieved the rank of sergeant first class, and served in Southwest Asia.  He is currently on active duty.

On 6 October 1988 the applicant accepted an Article 15 for being drunk on duty.

On 17 June 1998 a GOMOR was issued to the applicant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  His blood alcohol content was .228%.  Additionally, he attempted to flee the military police.

On 4 August 1998 after reviewing the applicant’s statement in rebuttal to the GOMOR the general officer imposing the GOMOR directed that it be permanently filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

On 26 August 1998 the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) denied the applicant’s request to remove the 6 October 1988, Article 15 from his OMPF.

On 28 April 1999 the applicant was notified that his appeal of the Department of the Army bar to reenlistment was approved.  The appeal packet contained recommendations for approval from the applicant’s entire chain of command from company commander to general officer.  Also included were seven letters of support.

On 20 October 1999 the DASEB denied the applicant’s appeal for the transfer of the GOMOR to his restricted fiche.  In his appeal the applicant contended that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose, that it had been one year since the 

incident, that the GOMOR was the result of a single act of poor judgement and was not reflective of his over seventeen year career and that removal would be in the best interest of the Army. 

On 27 January 2000 the DASEB reviewed the applicant’s case and provided an advisory opinion to this Board.  The DASEB noted that the applicant had not submitted any new information to be considered and recommended that the Board deny the appeal.  The DASEB also directed the Board’s attention to its 20 October 1999 decision.  In that decision the DASEB noted that the applicant’s performance was just above average and that he wanted the DASEB and his chain of command to believe that this was an isolated alcohol event; however, it was not.  The DASEB opined that it was not convinced that the GOMOR had served its purpose.  The applicant had not adequately demonstrated that he had learned his lesson.  The DASEB did recognize the strong letters of support, and that the applicant’s performance over the past years had been commendable; however, he had provided no evidence to indicate successful rehabilitation.  Given the recency of the GOMOR, the senior rank of the applicant at the time of the incident in question, the DASEB was not convinced sufficient time had passed to determine whether the best interest of the Army would be served by transferring the GOMOR to his restricted fiche.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He responded, stating that while his overall performance was just above average he wanted to point out that he was selected for promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant 90 days after being boarded and was selected for promotion to SFC the first time his records were reviewed.  In addition, the average noncommissioned officer did not spend three years working at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseased involved in a research project with live Anthrax, nor does the average noncommissioned officer hold a degree in Natural Sciences with a concentration in Biology, a degree in Applied Electronics, and is working on a masters degree in Cellular/Molecular Biology; and he wanted to point out, his outstanding performance during Desert Shield/Desert Storm.  He stated that when he was referring to his record he was referring to the performance portion and not the restricted portion where the Article 15 was placed.  He made his fiche available to his chain of command and was aware that the DASEB would check the restricted portion of his fiche.  Under no circumstances did he attempt to misinform anyone.  He provided his opinion on the circumstances surrounding the Article 15 and the GOMOR.  He also wanted to point out that after the alcohol related incident he did attend and complete a mandatory treatment program and he has been 100% alcohol free since then.

AR 600-37, provides, in pertinent part, 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.  Only letters of reprimand, admonition or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted fiche.  Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer will be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.  Appeals submitted under this provision will normally be returned without action unless at least one year has elapsed since the imposition of the letter and at least one evaluation report, other than academic, has been received in the interim. 

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

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 

2.  The GOMOR was properly imposed and is properly filed on the performance fiche of the applicant’s OMPF. 

3.  In the applicant’s case, his pattern of behavior, of two alcohol related incidents ten years apart, has shown that it is too soon to determine if the intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served; therefore, the Board must deny his request.

4.  The general officer imposing the GOMOR prepared an indorsement that directed the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF.  The applicant submitted no evidence that the imposing officer had indicated that the GOMOR would be filed in the restricted portion of his OMPF.  The applicant’s contention that he was unaware that the GOMOR would be placed in the performance portion of his OMPF is found to be without merit.

5.  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

___sjp___  ___jp ___  ___eja__   DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035086	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001005	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.