BOARD DATE: 17 August 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100000890 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of an administrative memorandum of reprimand and all related documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states the memorandum of reprimand and documents relate to an incident of allegedly allowing other Soldiers to shoot at his target during M9/M16 weapons qualification training while undergoing pre-deployment training at Fort Dix. He asserts the memorandum of reprimand violates Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) because: * the investigating officer (IO) lacked adequate evidence to sustain the allegation * the letter from Lieutenant General (LTG) H____ is unfavorable information and a de facto general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) * the GOMOR does not comply with the Army regulation's specific reference requirements * he was not told of the purpose of the GOMOR or intent to file it in his OMPF * he was not provided an opportunity to comment and respond to the GOMOR * the GOMOR does not have an endorsement or addendum directing it to be filed in his OMPF 3. The applicant provides copies of statements and memoranda by Soldiers present during the incident; Fort Dix Range photographs; M9 and M16 range qualification records; letter of reprimand, dated 15 March 2004; and GOMOR from LTG H____. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests removal of all documents from the applicant's OMPF that pertain to the incident or that they be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF, immediate promotion of the applicant to major(MAJ)/O-4 or consideration of his records by a special selection board, and presentation of the case before the Board by the applicant and counsel. 2. Counsel states the applicant was issued a memorandum of reprimand for allegedly allowing other Soldiers to shoot at his target during M16/M9 qualifications while undergoing pre-deployment training at Fort Dix. Three years later, a GOMOR from LTG H____ was placed in the applicant's OMPF stating he was to be relieved of command. a. He states the applicant unsuccessfully petitioned the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to remove the unfavorable documents. b. Counsel provides his assessment of the applicant's service as a Soldier and states, "enclosed are copies of all of [the applicant's] officer evaluation reports (OER) and biographical sketch" (i.e., certificates/awards). c. Counsel states the IO's report lacked adequate evidence to sustain the allegation. It was factually incorrect and failed to mention the specific place and time of occurrence. The IO report states that 136 Soldiers answered sworn statements regarding the issues and that six alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant; however, counsel's review of the documents shows that only two Soldiers alleged misconduct by the applicant. (1) He cites the sworn statements of three Soldiers and states these Soldiers make no allegation of misconduct against the applicant. (2) He states that range personnel were not interviewed by the IO; however, the memoranda they provide state that there was no misconduct. In addition, the range commander stated that no cadre assisted the applicant and, due to the design of the range, it is "virtually impossible that someone else could have helped [the applicant] qualify on either range." He cites documents of two range personnel. He also identifies three unit personnel who were not interviewed by the IO who now provide statements. (3) He describes firing lanes the applicant was assigned to on the M16 and M9 ranges, states the Soldiers firing next to the applicant never alleged misconduct, and a photograph of the range "conclusively shows that it is impossible to fire at another person's M16 target." d. Counsel states the letter from LTG H____ is "unfavorable information" and a de facto GOMOR that violates Army Regulation 600-37. (1) The GOMOR reprimands the applicant for serious misconduct. The fact that it states the applicant is "relieved of command" does not exempt it from the requirements of Army Regulation 600-37 before it is filed in the OMPF. (2) He states the applicant was not given the opportunity to respond to the letter in writing. In addition, had the applicant been given that opportunity, he could have corrected several of the errors the letter contained. Thus, the GOMOR creates a misleading document. (3) He states the GOMOR contains no endorsement or addendum directing it to be filed in the applicant's OMPF. In addition, LTG H____ was not in command of First U.S. Army on the date of the initial incident, nor on the date of the conclusion of the investigation. (4) He adds the delay in issuing the GOMOR can foster the belief that there were two incidents of misconduct, one involving weapons qualification and another undefined incident of misconduct. (5) He states the GOMOR does not contain a statement that it is being imposed as an administrative measure, not as an Article 15, which is a violation of Army Regulation 600-37. (6) He adds that the former commander of First U.S. Army (LTG I____) failed to state in writing that he was going to impose a GOMOR. Therefore, the GOMOR issued by LTG H____ should not be filed in the applicant's OMPF. e. Counsel states that the governing Army regulation provides that a memorandum of reprimand may be appealed on the basis of proof that the intended purpose has been served and that transfer will be in the best interest of the Army. He asserts the letter has served its intended purpose and it is in the best interest of the Army to transfer it to the restricted portion of the OMPF. Therefore, he requests all of the documents be moved to the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF. 3. Counsel provides 20 enclosures (Tabs A-T) that are identified in his petition, dated 15 December 2009, and are incorporated into this Record of Proceedings. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant had prior honorable active duty enlisted service in the U.S. Navy from 1 October 1987 through 30 September 1991 and in the U.S. Navy Reserve from 1 October 1991 through 21 January 1993. 2. The applicant had prior honorable enlisted service in the Army National Guard of the United States and New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) from 22 January 1993 through 15 August 1998. 3. The applicant was appointed as a Reserve officer in the Army National Guard of the United States and NYARNG in the grade of second lieutenant/O-1 on 16 August 1998. 4. He was promoted to captain(CPT)/O-3 on 8 January 2003. 5. Headquarters, U.S. Army Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 10 March 2004, subject: Commander's Inquiry (CI) into CPT [Applicant] and First Lieutenant (1LT) L____, Battery B, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery, NYARNG, shows the Deputy Commander for Mobilization recommended memoranda of reprimand be issued to both officers based on evidence acquired as a result of two CI's. The document identifies six Soldiers who stated they witnessed other Soldiers fire for either the applicant or 1LT L____ on either the M16 or M9 range. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 6. Headquarters, U.S. Army Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 12 March 2004, subject: Administrative Reprimand, shows the commander (Colonel (COL) L____) notified the applicant he was imposing an administrative reprimand as an administrative measure and not as punishment pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer on or about February 2004 while in command of Battery B, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery, by actions when he allowed other Soldiers to shoot at his targets during weapons qualification so that he would qualify for deployment. He advised the applicant that he intended to file the reprimand in his OMPF. The applicant was afforded 48 hours to acknowledge receipt and submit any matters in rebuttal or mitigation. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 7. Company B, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery, Bronx, NY, memorandum, dated 12 March 2004, shows the applicant acknowledged notification of the administrative letter of reprimand. He stated he did not order or ask any Soldier to aid him in qualification, denied being untruthful when questioned about the incident, offered evidence of his weapon qualifications both prior to and after the occasions in question, and requested the letter of reprimand be expunged from his record. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 8. Headquarters, Fort Dix, memorandum, undated, subject: Administrative Reprimand [Applicant], shows the commander notified the applicant that he received his statement in response to the memorandum of reprimand and, after careful consideration of his case, directed the administrative reprimand and the related documents be filed in the applicant's OMPF for permanent filing. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 9. Headquarters, Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 26 March 2004, subject: Documents for Memorandum of Reprimand for [Applicant], shows the CPT serving as trial counsel forwarded the memorandum of reprimand and allied documents pertaining to the applicant to Headquarters, State Area Command, NYARNG, Latham, NY, for filing in the applicant's OMPF. He also confirmed that the Installation Commander (COL L____) determined that the reprimand should be filed in the applicant's OMPF. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 10. Headquarters, Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 15 March 2004, subject: Order for Relief for Cause, shows the Deputy Commander for Mobilization relieved the applicant from command of Battery B, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery, based on his misconduct in allowing other Soldiers to shoot at his target during weapons qualification in order to qualify for deployment and other leadership deficiencies. [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 11. Headquarters, First U.S. Army, memorandum, dated 23 May 2007, subject: Relief for Cause, shows the First U.S. Army Commanding General (LTG H____) independently considered the information pertaining to the applicant's misconduct and his rebuttal and noted, "as my predecessor in command clearly intended, you are relieved from your duty as Commander, Battery B, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery." [This document is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.] 12. On 28 October 2007, the applicant submitted a request for removal of unfavorable information (i.e., the GOMOR and all related documents) from his OMPF or, in the alternative, transfer of the files to the restricted portion of his OMPF. 13. Two Army Special Review Boards memoranda and a DASEB Decision Summary, dated 12 March 2008, outline the DASEB's comments, conclusions, and findings in response to the applicant's request to remove or transfer the GOMOR. a. The DASEB President informed the applicant that the board voted to deny the removal or transfer of the GOMOR. b. The DASEB did not find evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust. In addition, the DASEB did not find evidence that the intent of the GOMOR has been served and that it is in the best interests of the Army to remove or transfer the GOMOR. c. In the course of its review, the DASEB contacted the former Fort Dix commander, mobilization commander, and battalion commander who confirmed the events surrounding the incident, the disciplinary actions taken, and the issuance of a relief-for-cause OER. d. The DASEB determined the 23 May 2007 memorandum signed by the Commanding General, First U.S. Army, is an endorsement of the original [March 2004] filing action by the previous Commander, First U.S. Army [emphasis added]. e. The DASEB confirmed the administrative reprimand was filed in the applicant's OMPF; however, the relief-for-cause OER was not in his OMPF. f. The DASEB directed that the OMPF records custodian take specific administrative actions to ensure the adverse documents were properly filed in the applicant's OMPF. The board also directed administrative correction of: (1) the start date of the relief-for-cause OER be changed from 10 January 2003 to a start date of 10 January 2004; (2) the relief-for-cause OER for the period 10 January 2004 through 15 March 2004 be filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF; and (3) the change-of-duty OER with an ending date of 14 January 2005 be changed from a start date of 20 January 2004 to a start date of 16 March 2004. 14. A review of the applicant's OMPF shows the administrative actions directed by the DASEB were accomplished. 15. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was ordered to active duty on 17 January 2008 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He served in Afghanistan from 1 April 2008 to 25 December 2008. He was honorably released from active duty on 20 January 2009 to continue in another active duty status. At the time he had completed 1 year and 4 days of net active service during this period; 15 years, 3 months, and 22 days of total prior active service; and 4 years, 11 months, and 24 days of total prior inactive service. 16. Joint Forces Headquarters-New York memorandum, dated 1 June 2009, subject: Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter), notified the applicant that having completed the required years of service, he will be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60. 17. Headquarters, NYARNG, memorandum, dated 10 November 2009, subject: Transmittal of Non-selection Memorandum, notified the applicant he was considered but not selected for promotion and that the 2010 CPT-MAJ Army Promotion List Department of the Army Selection Board will reconsider his records. 18. In support of his request, the applicant and his counsel provide copies of 20 exhibits, as follows: a. Headquarters, Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 15 March 2004, subject: Order for Relief for Cause; Headquarters, First U.S. Army, memorandum, dated 23 May 2007, subject: Relief for Cause; DASEB Decision Summary, dated 3 March 2008; and Headquarters, U.S. Army Fort Dix, memorandum, dated 10 March 2004, subject: CI; were previously considered in paragraphs 5, 10, 11, and 13 above. b. Nine DA Forms 67-9 (OER's) covering the period 10 April 2002 through 31 October 2009 show all of the applicant's raters rated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and the senior raters evaluated his promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified," with the exception of one senior rater who evaluated him as "Fully Qualified." (1) The change-of-duty OER with an ending date of 14 January 2005 does not show the change in start date directed by the DASEB from a start date of 20 January 2004 to a start date of 16 March 2004. (2) The relief-for-cause OER that the DASEB reviewed and corrected covering the period from 10 January 2004 through 15 March 2004 was not provided by the applicant or his counsel. c. Three DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statements) executed by Staff Sergeant (SSG) B____, Specialist (SPC) A____, and SPC E____, all dated 9 March 2004, make no allegation of misconduct against the applicant according to counsel. These statements show: (1) In response to the questions "Are you aware of any Soldiers who could not qualify with their individual weapons? How did they qualify?", SSG B____ indicated, in pertinent part, the "commander" [applicant]. The other two statements indicate, in pertinent part, some other Soldiers stood in other lanes right next to those who could not qualify to shoot into their lanes to hit their targets. (2) In response to the questions "Are you aware of any Soldier who qualified on his/her weapon by having other shooters engaging their target to assist and ensure qualification? If so, state the incident and names of those who were involved. Do you know who gave the order to do so?", there is no mention of the applicant. d. Two DA Forms 2823 executed by Sergeant (SGT) P____ and SGT R____, both dated 9 March 2004, are the only two Soldiers who alleged misconduct against the applicant according to counsel. These statements show: (1) In response to the questions "Are you aware of any Soldiers who could not qualify with their individual weapons? How did they qualify?", SGT P____ responded, "BC" [Battery Commander] and SGT R____ indicated, in pertinent part, the "commander" [applicant] and "other Soldiers help[ed]." (2) In response to the questions "Are you aware of any Soldier who qualified on his/her weapon by having other shooters engaging their target to assist and ensure qualification? If so, state the incident and names of those who were involved. Do you know who gave the order to do so?", SGT R____ indicated the "commander 9mm, M16" and SGT P____ indicated "[applicant] 9 mil" and "after numerous tries everyone wanted to get home, so they 'helped' these officers along." e. A memorandum issued by CPT W____, dated 16 April 2004, states he served in the capacity of the Fort Dix Range Control Officer (Mobilization) and "to his knowledge and to the knowledge of all Fort Dix Range Cadre, [applicant] successfully qualified on both weapons [M9 9mm pistol and M16A2 5.56mm rifle]" on the respective ranges. He added that "due to the design of the range complex and high level of noncommissioned officer (NCO) supervision, it is virtually impossible that someone else could have helped [applicant] qualify on either range." f. A memorandum issued by Sergeant First Class B____, dated 14 June 2004, states that on or about 15 March 2004 he served as the unit assistor for Battery B, 258th Artillery; he was present during the applicant's M9 qualification and witnessed no one shooting his targets. g. Four photographs of the Fort Dix Range. h. Four DA Forms 2823 executed by SSG T____, SSG D____, First Sergeant (1SG) R____, signed 11 December 2007, and SGT C____, signed 15 December 2007. (1) These statements show the three junior NCO's were unit personnel who served as range observers near the applicant's lane during weapons qualification on 4 March 2004 and none of them witnessed him receiving assistance from anyone during his weapons qualification. They also state they were not interviewed by the IO. (2) The statement by 1SG R____ indicates, "regarding the commander allowing others to shoot at targets, I did not see this happen and never heard an order to do so." He adds, "had he had an opportunity to tell [an IO] this, he or she would have known this was the case." i. Weapons Qualification Score Summary Reports document the applicant's M16 and M9 weapons qualification scores on 9 February 2004, 4 March 2004, and 11 March 2004. j. Seven documents show the applicant was awarded the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Exercise Support Ribbon, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal. k. Two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Reports) and nine certificates show the applicant completed the Combined Arms Exercise Course, Military Police Officer Advanced Reserve Component Course, Program Manager Army National Guard Course, Instructor Certification for the Monadnock Defensive Tactics System, Advanced Instructor Certification for Expandable Police Batons, Instructor Certification for Control Device and PR-24 Side-Handle Police Batons, and the Department of Defense Government Purchase Card and Refresher Training Courses. 19. Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policies 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 incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files) provides in: (1) paragraph 3-2 that, except as indicated in paragraph 3-3, unfavorable information will not be filed in an official personnel file unless the recipient has been given the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and make a written statement or to decline, in writing, to make such a statement. This statement may include evidence that rebuts, explains, or mitigates the unfavorable information. The issuing authority should fully affirm and document unfavorable information to be considered for inclusion in official personnel files; and (2) paragraph 3-4 provides that a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF kept by U.S. Army Human Resources Command or the proper State Adjutant General (for Army National Guard personnel) only upon the order of a general officer (to include one frocked to the rank of brigadier general) senior to the recipient or by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual. Letters filed in the OMPF will be filed in the performance portion of the OMPF. The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter. b. Chapter 7 provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF. It states that appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information are to be directed to the DASEB. Paragraph 7-2 provides 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. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 20. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF. a. Only those documents listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are authorized for filing in the OMPF. Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections: performance, service, or restricted. b. Table 2-1 provides guidance for filing administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature. It states, in pertinent part, that the letter, referral correspondence, member's reply, and other allied documents (if they are specifically directed for file by the letter or referral correspondence) will be filed on the performance section of the OMPF. All other allied documents not listed will be filed in the restricted section of the OMPF. 21. Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the Army Board for Military Corrections (ABCMR). Paragraph 2-11 of this regulation states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel, and witnesses may appear whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant and his counsel contend that the administrative GOMOR, dated 23 May 2007, issued by the Commanding General, First U.S. Army, and all related documents, should be removed from his OMPF or transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF based on the fact that it violates Army Regulation  600-37 because: * the IO lacked adequate evidence to sustain the allegation * the letter from LTG H____ is unfavorable information and a de facto GOMOR * the GOMOR does not comply with the Army regulation's specific reference requirements * he was not told of the purpose of the GOMOR or intent to file it in his OMPF * he was not provided an opportunity to comment and respond to the GOMOR * the GOMOR does not have an endorsement or addendum directing it to be filed in his OMPF 2. The applicant and his counsel request personal presentation of this case before the Board. A review of the evidence provided by the applicant and his counsel shows that it is extensive, but well organized. Therefore, a formal hearing on this case is not required. 3. The applicant and his counsel's contentions were carefully considered. a. The evidence of record shows the Deputy Commander for Mobilization recommended that a memorandum of reprimand be issued to the applicant based on evidence acquired by the IO that included the statements of six Soldiers who stated they witnessed other Soldiers fire for either the applicant or 1LT L____ on either the M16 or M9 range. (1) Counsel contends that only two of the six Soldiers allege misconduct against the applicant and three of the Soldiers make no allegation of misconduct against the applicant. He makes no mention of the sixth Soldier, nor does he provide his/her statement. (2) The evidence of record shows three of the Soldiers specifically state the commander did not qualify with his individual weapon. In addition, they state that some other Soldiers stood in other lanes right next to those who could not qualify to shoot into their lanes to hit their targets; "other Soldiers help[ed]"; and "after numerous tries everyone wanted to get home, so they 'helped' these officers along." (3) Thus, the evidence of record refutes counsel's claim that the IO lacked evidence to sustain the recommendation. b. The statements by the Fort Dix Range Control Officer (Mobilization), unit assistor, and three junior NCO's at the range, along with the range photographs and score summary reports, were considered. These personnel state that it is virtually impossible that someone else could have helped the applicant qualify on either range and that they did not witness anyone shooting at the applicant's targets. It is noted that the statements by these individuals do not address the applicant's weapons qualification on 9 February 2004, only on 4 March 2004. Thus, the validity and sincerity of the statements of these individuals are not in question. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude that other Soldiers would not shoot at the applicant's targets while personnel responsible for monitoring the range were looking at or in their direction. Therefore, these documents offer insufficient evidence to overcome evidence to the contrary that was gathered by the IO and used as a basis for the memorandum of reprimand. c. The evidence of record shows the commander notified the applicant on 12 March 2004 that he was imposing an administrative reprimand against him as an administrative measure and not as punishment pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer on or about February 2004. (1) The applicant provided his response on 12 March 2004. The commander directed it be filed in the applicant's OMPF and the documents were forwarded to the State Area Command for filing in the applicant's OMPF. (2) On 23 May 2007, the Commander, First U.S. Army, independently considered the information pertaining to the applicant's misconduct and his rebuttal, and confirmed the applicant's relief for cause in March 2004 by his predecessor in command. (3) On 12 March 2008 after a thorough review of the applicant's case, the DASEB determined that the 23 May 2007 memorandum issued by the Commanding General, First U.S. Army, constitutes an endorsement of the original filing action by the previous Commander, First U.S. Army. (4) Thus, the evidence of record shows the applicant was properly notified of the purpose of the administrative reprimand, informed of the intent to file it in his OMPF, and provided an opportunity to respond to the administrative reprimand. In addition, the commander considered the applicant's response and directed the reprimand be filed in the applicant's OMPF. Further, the evidence of record shows that the Commanding General [emphasis added], First U.S. Army, endorsed the action with his signature. Therefore, the evidence of record shows the administrative reprimand complies with the Army regulation's administrative requirements and instructions for filing unfavorable information. (5) Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, it is concluded that the letter of reprimand is administratively correct and properly filed in the applicant's OMPF pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Moreover, the applicant and counsel provide insufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, which would warrant its alteration or removal from the applicant's OMPF. d. The nine OER's covering the period from 10 April 2002 through 31 October 2009 were considered. (1) It is noted that the applicant submitted the change-of-duty OER with an ending date of 14 January 2005; however, it does not show the change in start date directed by the DASEB from a start date of 20 January 2004 to a start date of 16 March 2004. In addition, the relief-for-cause OER that the DASEB reviewed and corrected for the period from 10 January 2004 through 15 March 2004 was not provided by the applicant or his counsel. (2) It appears the applicant either chooses to ignore that he was relieved of duties as commander on 15 March 2004 or else he intended to convey to the Board that he received a favorable evaluation during the period 10 January through 15 March 2004. Thus, it is concluded that the purpose of the administrative reprimand has not been served. Therefore, there is no basis to transfer the administrative reprimand to the restricted portion of his OMPF. e. The applicant's awards and decorations and his completion of service schools and training subsequent to the incident are noted. However, they do not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the administrative reprimand should be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF or removed from his OMPF. f. In view of all of the foregoing, there is no basis to support counsel's request that the applicant should be immediately promoted to MAJ/O-4 or that his records should be considered for promotion by a special selection board. 4. 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. Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ 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. _________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100000890