IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120001976 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 that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 17 June 2010 be transferred to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states that in June 2010 he was given a GOMOR for having an affair with a female major in his unit while deployed to Afghanistan during the 2008 – 2009 timeframe. He goes on to state that he turned himself in to his supervisor shortly after his arrival at 1st Cavalry Headquarters because the female major would not let him and his family alone after he tried to break it off. He continues by stating that despite being selected for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3), he has been placed in a Department of the Army administrative flag status while his file goes before a promotion review board. He also states that he fully expects to be non-selected because of the letter, but he believes that he has done what has been asked of him personally and professionally to warrant a second chance for promotion next year. He concludes by stating that several of the senior officers with whom he had worked since his lapse in judgment have written letters in his behalf. 3. The applicant provides five third-party letters of support and a copy of his Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) proceedings. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 June 1998. He completed his training as an air defense early warning systems operator and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 May 2004. 2. On 22 August 2006, he was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Air Defense Warrant Officer One (WO1) with a concurrent call to active duty. He was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first duty assignment and was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 22 August 2008. 3. On 17 June 2010, a GOMOR was issued to the applicant for having an adulterous affair with a married field grade officer between March and July 2009 while deployed to Afghanistan, while he was married to an enlisted Soldier. 4. The applicant submitted a four-page memorandum to the commanding general admitting to the misconduct and requesting that the GOMOR not be filed in his permanent records so that he could prove that he had something to contribute to the Army and that he had learned from his lapse in judgment. 5. After reviewing the applicant’s response, on 15 July 2010, the commanding general directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant’s OMPF. 6. On 3 October 2011, the applicant appealed to the DASEB requesting that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF based on intent served. He provided copies of his officer evaluation reports and four third-party statements in support of his application. The applicant advised the DASEB that he had been selected for promotion to the rank of CW3, but he was pending a promotion review board due to the GOMOR. 7. On 10 November 2011, the DASEB concluded that the applicant had failed to show the GOMOR had served its intent and voted unanimously to deny his appeal. 8. Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing of unfavorable information in the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive GOMOR or admonition will be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general officer or the officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that the GOMOR should be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF based on intent served has been noted and found to lack merit. 2. The GOMOR was properly imposed on 17 June 2010 in compliance with applicable regulations and it is properly filed in the applicant’s OMPF in accordance with the applicable regulations. 3. The available evidence clearly shows the applicant’s conduct was not the conduct expected of a chief warrant officer with the amount of service and experience he had. 4. The applicant’s conduct violated the trust placed in him as a leader, an officer, husband, and father. The passage of such a short amount of time since the imposition of the GOMOR does not overcome such misconduct. 5. The applicant does not dispute his guilt in the matter and contends that he simply wants the GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF so as to be eligible to be considered for promotion again, which appears to be self-serving and is not considered a valid reason for such an action under the circumstances. 6. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request to transfer his GOMOR from the performance section of his OMPF to the restricted section of his OMPF. 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) AR20120001976 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120001976 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1