PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041188

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-8, and reconsideration for all school selection boards that viewed the GOMOR. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the allegations made in the GOMOR are untrue and were never substantiated.  He goes on to state that while serving as a drill sergeant he was involved in a personal relationship with another drill sergeant (female E-7) and when he attempted to terminate the relationship she began making a series of charges and allegations against him to military and civilian authorities.  Every allegation was thorougly investigated by military and civilian law enforcement agencies, resulting in no charges being filed, and no allegations being substantiated.  He further states that he obtained an Ex-parte order against the female drill sergeant which she violated on numerous occasions.  He continues by stating that in June 1997 while attempting to clear the installation, he discovered that action was pending against him in the form of a GOMOR.  He requested through the office of the inspector general (IG) that he be allowed to meet with the Commanding General because he had been cleared of the allegations against him; however, his request was denied.  He also states that he was informed that both of the parties involved would receive a GOMOR and that they would be filed in the OMPF.  As a result, he has been nonselected for promotion to the pay grade of E-8 and was barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) because of the GOMOR.  He successfully appealed the GOMOR but contends that it was unjustly imposed and serves as the only derogatory thing in his otherwise exemplary record of service.  In support of his application he submits five letters of support from his current chain of command and one letter of support from his former chain of command. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 5 December 1984 for a period of 3 years and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 August 1993 in the military occupational specialty of a special forces communications sergeant.

5.  On 12 May 1995 he received a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) indicating that he had exceeded the course standards for the Drill Sergeant Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was subsequently assigned as a drill sergeant at Fort Leonard Wood in June 1995 and served as a drill sergeant until 2 July 1997 when he departed to attend the special forces operations and intelligence sergeant course.

6.  However, on 17 June 1997 the applicant received a GOMOR from the commanding general (CG) at Fort Leonard Wood in which the CG reprimanded him for his behavior and the embarrassment he had caused the command.  He informed the applicant that he intended to file the GOMOR in his OMPF but would not make a final determination until he received and considered any response the applicant desired to submit.

7.  On 23 June 1997 the applicant submitted a response to the GOMOR in which he attempted to dispute the allegations one-by-one as well as explaining his version of the events that led to the GOMOR.  The applicant’s company commander (for one month) recommended (with reservation) that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF and indicated while he believed that the female E-7 was the instigator of the trouble between the two, the applicant had been ordered by his previous commander to have no contact with her.  He also stated that while the applicant had performed in an exemplary manner, his personal life spilled over into his professional life and caused the chain of command to become involved.

8.  The battalion commander indicated that the applicant was formerly identified by his commander as the best drill sergeant in the company and that he frequently performed as the acting first sergeant.  He also indicated that the problems in the applicant’s personal life were due to a tumultuous relationship with an obsessed individual who instigated most, if not all, of the incidents; however, those problems did not affect his daily duty performance.  He recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the unit file and indicated that the former company and battalion commanders also strongly supported the recommendation. 

9.  The brigade commander recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF and on 10 July 1997, approximately a week after the applicant’s departure, the CG directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

10.  A review of the OMPF of the female E-7 revealed that she also received an identical GOMOR, that she also submitted a statement in her own behalf, that her entire chain of command recommended that it be filed in her OMPF, and that the CG also directed on 10 July 1997 that it be filed in her OMPF. 

11.  On 6 April 1998 the applicant was notified that the Calendar Year 1998 Master Sergeant Promotion Selection Board had determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on the presence of the GOMOR in his OMPF.  The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment under the QMP to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board and his appeal was approved on 31 March 1999.

12.  The applicant submitted an appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) on 8 April 1999 requesting that the GOMOR be removed from his OMPF based on intent served and because the allegations were not true and had never been substantiated.  The DASEB denied his request on 29 November 1999.

13.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF shows that the applicant has always received maximum evaluation reports that recommend promotion ahead of his peers and applaud his excellent performance and potential.  He has no other derogatory information in his OMPF other than the GOMOR.  His awards include the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Special Forces Tab, the parachutist badge, the Air Assault Badge, the Drill Sergeant Identification Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal (seventh award), the Army Achievement Medal (third award), the Army Good Conduct Medal (fourth award), the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the United Nations Medal, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award (third award), the Superior Unit Award, the Valorous Unit Award, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon with numeral "3", the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Egyptian Parachute Badge, the Bahrain Parachute Badge, and two overseas bars..

14.  The five letters of support from the applicant’s current chain of command serve to applaud the applicant’s excellent record of demonstrated performance and to criticize the decision to place the GOMOR in his OMPF.  The letter of support from his former command is from the brigade command sergeant major of the applicant’s unit at Fort Leonard Wood and is dated 7 August 1998.  It serves to applaud the applicant’s performance as an NCO and drill sergeant and recommends that the GOMOR be removed from his OMPF.

15.  Army Regulation 600-37 prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files.  It states, in pertinent part, that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient.  The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  However, before a letter may be filed in the OMPF, it must be referred to the recipient concerned for comment, it must include reference to the intended filing of the letter, and must be signed by an officer authorized to direct such filing.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the primary basis for the applicant’s application to this Board is that he was not guilty of the allegations for which he was accused and for which the GOMOR was imposed, he has failed to provided evidence to support his contentions and the Board will not attempt to assess guilt or innocence in this matter.

2.  The Board believes that the primary issue in this case is whether the GOMOR was properly imposed in accordance with the applicable regulations regarding the filing of unfavorable information.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the GOMOR was properly imposed as an administrative measure and filed in the OMPF in accordance with the filing instructions of the imposing officer and applicable regulations.

3.  The Army has an interest in maintaining certain records and the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show why the GOMOR should not remain a matter of record.

4.  However, given the fact that he has successfully appealed a bar to reenlistment under the QMP that was based solely on the presence of the GOMOR on the performance fiche of his OMPF; coupled with the applicant’s otherwise excellent record of service and the lack of any additional disciplinary or derogatory information, the Board finds that the GOMOR has served its purpose and should be transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.

5.  Inasmuch as the GOMOR was properly administered and filed and since the actions taken by the Board are based on intent served and his conduct subsequent to the GOMOR, the Board finds that he is not entitled to receive promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-8 by those boards that reviewed the GOMOR and failed to select him for promotion. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by transferring the GOMOR dated 17 June 1997 and all related documents (including DASEB denial) pertaining to the individual concerned to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___cmf __  __fe____  ___rjw___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Calvin M. Fowler_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041188	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1020	134.0400/GOMOR	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.