MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041427

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 10 December 1997 be moved from the performance fiche to the restricted fiche of her official military personnel file (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was unable to have a fair chance to rebut this action even though she elected to do so.  She further contends that the intended punishment has been served and that she has since matured as a noncommissioned officer.

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

She enlisted in the Army on 12 September 1989, completed her initial training and was awarded a primary military occupational specialty of 94B (Cook).  She served in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas and was still serving on active duty in the rank of staff sergeant (E-6) as a food operations sergeant at the time of her application.

On 10 December 1997 the applicant received a GOMOR for issuing checks without maintaining sufficient funds to cover them, for failure to pay just debts, and for failure to repair by missing physical training formation on three separate occasions.  The GOMOR was an administrative action and was not imposed as punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On 11 December 1997 the applicant was served a copy of the GOMOR and given seven calendar days to submit any rebuttal comments.  She immediately elected to submit a rebuttal but there is no evidence that she ever followed through.  On 30 December 1997 her company commander recommended filing the GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF.  The general court-martial convening authority approved the filing recommendation on 28 February 1998.

In the processing of this case, the staff obtained an advisory opinion from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) and forwarded a copy of it on 15 August 2000 to the applicant, along with a copy of the DASEB case summary, for her rebuttal comments.  As of this date, the Board has not received a response.

The DASEB found that the applicant had not submitted any clear or convincing evidence to support her contention that the GOMOR had served its purpose, or that she was not given a fair chance to rebut the action.  Furthermore, the applicant had not provided any supporting statements from the issuing authority of the GOMOR or any other personnel in her chain of command.  She offered her record as evidence to justify her request, however, the DASEB noted that most of her performance evaluations were average.  The DASEB especially noted that no evidence was provided showing that she had successfully completed any rehabilitative training or financial counseling, nor had she provided proof that she is now financially responsible and that she now reports for work on time.

Army Regulation 600-37 provides that administrative reprimands may be issued by an individual’s commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the soldier.  The reprimand must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include applicable portions of investigations, reports or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before filing determination is made.  Memorandums of reprimand may be filed in a soldier’s OMPF only upon the order of a general officer or general court-martial convening authority.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  The GOMOR was properly imposed in accordance with applicable regulations, and there is no evidence of any violation of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The applicant has not provided any proof that the GOMOR has served its purpose or that her current level of maturity warrants moving the GORMOR to the restricted portion of her OMPF.  The applicant was given ample opportunity to present rebuttal comments but apparently chose not to do so.

3.  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

__GDP___  __ALR__  __BFH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041427	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
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.	134.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.