BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014854 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ __x_____ _____x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014854 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014854 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 a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 10 January 2014, be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF) or that it be moved to the restricted folder of his OMPF. 2. The applicant states: a. He was given a GOMOR by a brigadier general (BG) of the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG). He was on active duty for operational support (ADOS) orders at U.S. Army North (ARNORTH) and was working full time when he received a letter from the Department of the Army (DA) stating he had been selected for promotion to major (MAJ)/O-4. At that time, his branch chief, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) H, and MAJ S stated that he had made MAJ and to pin on his new rank. He did not know that the TXARNG had to bless the pinning on of the MAJ rank even though DA sent him the information. b. He was wrong for not asking more questions prior to pinning on the rank but during that time he was deployed quite often to Mexico in support of training missions. When BG SAR, TXARNG, requested him to go to Austin, TX, for the hearing, he had started his civilian job as a sales representative in the oil field. He never received a drill letter to give to his civilian job in order to attend the hearing. Without the letter, he would have been fired. The oil field job was his only income and he could not afford to be laid off. He attended every other drill when the proper paperwork was given to him. c. Since the GOMOR, personnel working in BG SAR's office have told him that if he would have made it to the briefing, he would have just received a "slap on the wrist." Since he did not attend, BG SAR "maxed out" the punishment. In 13 years of service, he has always been the top officer in the battalion (BN). His intention was never to undermine any command. He made an honest mistake and would like the GOMOR removed from his OMPF or moved to the restricted folder of his OMPF so he may continue to serve with high distinction in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). 3. The applicant provides the GOMOR and two memoranda, dated 10 January and 8 February 2014. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior active and ARNG service, the applicant was appointed as a captain (CPT) in the TXARNG on 16 October 2010. He held area of concentration (AOC) 18A (Special Forces (SF)) and was assigned to the 5th SF BN, 19th SF Group, San Antonio, TX. 2. At the time of the GOMOR, he was serving as the Operations Officer, Special Operations Detachment - Africa (SOD-A), Austin, TX. 3. On 10 January 2014, the applicant was issued the GOMOR by BG SAR, Commanding General (CG), 71st Troop Command, Austin. BG SAR stated, in part: a. He was hereby reprimanded for improperly presenting himself in the superior rank of MAJ while on ADOS-Reserve Component (RC) orders without proper authority and conducting himself with a gross lack of reasoned and professional judgment. b. On or about July 2013, he presented a document purporting to be a DA promotion order to his ADOS-RC supervisor and began wearing the rank of MAJ soon thereafter. However, he failed to provide a promotion order to the SOD-A command, did not request a pay inquiry into why he was not receiving O-4 pay, and he wore CPT rank upon his return to SOD-A, thus indicating to his superiors that he did not believe he had or have the authority to wear MAJ rank. Furthermore, he failed to follow unit promotion procedures which demonstrated a gross lack of reasoned and professional judgment. c. His actions compromised the high standards of personal conduct and exemplary behavior expected of a commissioned officer. He had an absolute duty to set the standard in exercising good judgment, leading by example, and conducting himself as a responsible professional at all times. He failed to do so and instead he demonstrated extremely poor judgment and an enormously unacceptable lack of foresight as to the consequences of his actions. His conduct raised questions concerning his maturity, judgment, and self-discipline. d. The reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He intended to file the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF or local personnel unit file unless he submitted matters that convinced him that such filing was not warranted. If he did not submit matters within the time allowed, he would file the reprimand without his input. e. The GOMOR shows an AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 4 December 2013, was enclosed with the GOMOR. 4. On 10 January 2014, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit a written statement within the 7 day suspense. If he submitted a response, it is not available for review with this case. 5. In a memorandum, dated 8 February 2014, BG SAR stated, after carefully considering the circumstances of the misconduct and all matters submitted by the applicant in defense, extenuation, or mitigation, he directed the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. It is currently filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. 6. In June 2014, the applicant received an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), a referred annual OER covering 12 months of rated time for the period 1 April 2013 through 31 March 2014 for his duties as Operations Officer, SOD-A. His rater rated him as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" and his senior rater as "Do Not Promote." 7. He was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 1 October 2014 and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)). The National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (ARNG Report or Separation and Record of Service) he was issued for this period of service shows the reason for the separation was resignation. His NGB Form 22 shows he completed 3 years, 11 months, and 16 days of net service during this period of service and had a total of 12 years of service for retired pay. 8. On 12 May 2015, he was notified by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, that under the provisions of AR 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), paragraph 3-18, his records were referred to a DA Promotion Review Board for reconsideration of his promotion status. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Army decided to remove him from the [MAJ] promotion list. An officer who was removed from the promotion list continued to be eligible for consideration for promotion. However, if such officer was not recommended for promotion by the next regular promotion selection board, he/she shad be considered to have twice failed selection for promotion. 9. On 21 September 2015, he was released from the IRR and voluntarily assigned to the 1st BN, 417th Support Regiment, USAR, Camp Bullis, TX. 10. On 13 October 2015, the applicant submitted a request to the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF or transferred to the restricted folder. 11. On 10 December 2015, the DASEB denied his request and determined there was no substantial evidence provided that showed the GOMOR was untrue or unjust or that its transfer or removal was in the best interest of the Army. The DASEB determined the evidence did not warrant removal or transfer of the GOMOR. 12. On 1 November 2016, he was notified by Headquarters, 63rd Regional Support Command, that due to his recent non-selection for promotion, the memorandum was to provide further information concerning his options: a. Reserve officers not selected for promotion are considered again by a promotion selection board approximately 1 year later. If they are not selected on this second consideration, they must be separated not later than the 1st day of the 7th month following the President's approval of the board results unless they: (1) Were a CPT or MAJ and had a remaining service obligation. (2) Were eligible for and requested reassignment to the Retired Reserve (if they had completed 20 years of qualifying service for Reserve retired pay at age 60 and had a 20-year letter). (3) Had been credited with 18 or more but less than 20 years of satisfactory Federal service for retired pay purposes. b. He had been considered twice for promotion to the next higher grade by the USAR Components selection board and unfortunately, was not selected. His transition from an active status was mandatory in accordance with the policy stated above. c. The Reserve Status Statement and Election of Options was enclosed with the memorandum. He needed to mark his status and whether he was entitled to one of the options. If his election was not received by the suspense date, he would be administratively reassigned to the Retired Reserve, if eligible, or discharged in accordance with the law. REFERENCE: AR 600-37 provides that: a. An administrative memorandum of reprimand 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 memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list 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. b. A GOMOR may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer (GO)-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the GOMOR is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. 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. 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. Once filed in the OMPF, the GOMOR and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with AR 600-37, chapter 7. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in January 2014 for presenting false promotion orders to his supervisor and wearing the rank of MAJ when he was serving as a CPT. He was provided with an opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf. The GOMOR was ultimately filed in the performance folder of his OMPF as directed by the GO that issued the GOMOR. 2. The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, evaluation periods, and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority. Generally, unfavorable information is removed only if it is untrue or unjust. 3. The evidence of record shows the GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014854 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014854 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2