BOARD DATE: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008644 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: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008644 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: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008644 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 transfer of his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from the performance section to the restricted section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant desires to appear before the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) if given the opportunity. 3. The applicant states his counsel's request for trial by court martial was denied. He believes, in effect: a. Brigadier General (BG) R____ K____ requested jurisdiction so that he could make an example of the applicant. b. The GOMOR was unjust and violated his due process in that he was punished based on the mere suggestion of misconduct. The facts alleged by his accuser have been disproven or are unsubstantiated. They were self-serving assertions made by a disgruntled trainee who failed to meet Army standards and was undergoing Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action. c. He notes that Army Regulation 600-37 provides for transfer of a GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF when its intended purpose has been served and the recipient has received at least one subsequent evaluation report. He believes the GOMOR has served its intended purpose because it was not warranted. The punishment he received was more than personal; the command wanted to make an example of him. His counsel and fellow Soldiers claimed that no matter how good a defense you have you remain guilty at Fort Lee, VA. d. He was flagged for almost 6 months and lost his promotion status to staff sergeant. He is still in the same unit despite begging to be transferred. e. He has enclosed his entire original rebuttal package and letters of support from peers and his chain of command. 4. The applicant provides copies of: * DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), given by Specialist (SPC) P____, his accuser, dated 26 August 2015, and numerous other sworn statements * DA Form 7279 (Equal Opportunity (EO) Complaint Form) * Appointment Memorandum-Army Regulation 15-6, dated 27 August 2015 * Combined Arms Support Command, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) review * DA Form 288 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 17 September * Memorandum, subject: Request for Jurisdiction, dated 16 September 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Release of Jurisdiction, dated 6 October * GOMOR, dated 7 October 2015 * DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), 1 September 2015 * Army Regulation 15-6 Findings and Recommendations, dated 8 September 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Acknowledgement of Receipt of Reprimand, dated 14 October 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Commander's Recommendation on Filing Determination, dated 22 October 22 October 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Justification for Filing Recommendation, dated 22 October 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination (battalion commander), dated 2 November 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination (brigade commander), dated 18 November 2015 * Memorandum for Record, GOMOR Rebuttal Statement , dated 25 November 2015 with enclosures * Memorandum, subject: Acknowledgement of Filing Determination (Applicant), dated 15 December 2015 * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) * U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention) Justice Report for November 2015 * U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command General Misconduct Justice Report for March 2016 * Four character reference memoranda * Applicant's Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period ending 1 October 2015 * On-line article, subject: Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) summit attendees explore harsh realities of sexual misconduct CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, a Regular Army sergeant with about 8 years of continuous active service, was the supply sergeant for Company A, 244th Quartermaster Battalion, 23rd Quartermaster Brigade, Fort Lee, VA. 2. On 26 August 2016 SPC P____, a trainee and one of four "holdovers" in the barracks, made a complaint against the applicant for sexual harassment. According to the trainee’s sworn statement, when the applicant asked for a detail, he specifically asked for "all female holdovers." She stated, in effect: a. The four female holdovers went to the supply room, the applicant asked if anyone could type, and SPC P____ responded that she could type. The applicant stated he needed someone to type while he inventoried equipment. b. The other three holdovers went to work sorting linen and SPC P____ sat at a computer typing serial numbers as the applicant read them to her. When the other three finished with the linen, they started to leave but the applicant stated that she needed a "Battle Buddy." The applicant responded that they were just going across the hall to the dayroom and instructed them not to go anywhere else. c. The applicant started a casual conversation with SPC P____ about her marital status, where she was from, etc. Upon learning that she was from Brazil he remarked, "Ahhh… Brazilian, I always wanted to sleep with a Brazilian." After they finished their work and as she was leaving the applicant said, "I don't mean to be sexually harassing you or anything, but I been eyeing you." d. She sought advice from her sister-in-law, an active duty captain (CPT), who advised her to find the nearest NCO and request a meeting with the SHARP representative. In going to and from that session SPC P_____ and Private C____ encountered the applicant twice and he questioned SPC P____ about what was going on. 3. On 27 August 2015 First Lieutenant G____ was appointed as an IO to conduct an informal investigation under Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers). The IO was directed to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation of sexual harassment against the applicant and was specifically directed to address the following: a. Whether the applicant engaged in inappropriate personal and/or sexual conversation with SPC P____? He was to obtain the details and context of said conversation. b. Did the applicant direct SPC P____ and others to perform a detail? What were their names and what did they hear or observe? c. Was the applicant authorized to have these individuals perform said detail? Did he request all females? If so, was there a legitimate reason to request all females? d. Did the applicant ask these Soldiers if any of them could type and did he have SPC P____ type out the forms? e. Whether the applicant excused SPC P____'s Battle Buddy when she stated she needed one? f. Whether the applicant's actions made any of these Soldiers uncomfortable or create a hostile work environment? g. Did the applicant commit trainee abuse as defined by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Regulation 350-6 and/or a prohibited activity as outlined in Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1304.33? h. Whether the applicant sexually harasses any Soldier? Provide details. i. Had he made known sexual advances toward other female Soldiers? Provide details and examples. j. Was an EO complaint made against the applicant by SPC H____? What was the nature of the complaint and how was it resolved? k. Did the applicant's actions have an adverse effect on good order and discipline? 4. The IO was advised to consult governing regulations and to consult the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was required to: a. provide a detailed chronology of events; b. provide a separate list of all witnesses with a brief description of their roles in the incident; c. interview all witness in person if possible and take sworn statements; and d. insure that all witnesses were advised of the command's policy on Whistle Blower Protection. 5. The IO was directed to make written findings, make a separate conclusion on each allegation, state the basis for each conclusion and make written recommendations. 6. Finally, the IO was to advise any individual he believed to have committed a criminal offense of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. 7. The IO took sworn statements from the three other holdovers by asking them the same questions. Those questions and their responses are as follows: Question PVT M PVT C PV2 J Did SGT (Applicant) engage in inappropriate/sexual talk with SPC P I don't know I don't know I don't know Did SGT (Applicant) direct SPC P____ and others to perform a detail - provide names PVT J, PVT C, SPC S_ Yes Me, M___, C___, and P___ Did SGT (Applicant) provide any reason for requesting an all-female detail No No No Did SGT (Applicant) ask all Soldiers if any of them could type Yes, He said, "Can any of you type?" I didn't hear that Only P____ Did he make any of the Soldiers feel uncomfortable or create a hostile environment I don't know No I don't know Did SGT (Applicant) excuse SPC P__'s battle buddy when she said she needed one I don't know I didn't hear that, not for sure I was already out, I couldn't hear 8. In a 1 September 2015 sworn statement, the applicant related that, on 27 August he was summoned to the commander's office and presented with a developmental counseling statement and a Flag which suspended his eligibility for promotion to staff sergeant. He described the 26 August 2015 work detail and denied saying anything to SPC P____. He acknowledged that he encountered her after lunch and that she looked upset. He asked if someone had done or said something to her and she replied no. He continued, "I really didn't expect her to tell the truth due to our pay grade differences. Given that the specialist was in my area a few hours prior to that I just wanted to ensure she hadn't been offended or harassed to any kind of degree because of something I may have said to her." In response to specific questions he indicated: a. He requested all holdovers?only females were present; b. he did ask if anyone could type and read serial numbers; c. he did not excuse SPC P____'s battle buddy?she stood in the doorway; and d. he was never alone with SPC P____ he was always within eyesight of the detail. 9. In a telephone conversation CPT P____ [SPC P____'s sister in law or sister in law to be] indicated to the IO that SPC P____ had contacted her because she felt that she had been sexually harassed by one of her NCO's. The CPT advised SPC P____ to contact SHARP. SPC P____ called her again later because she was uncomfortable about having run into the NCO/applicant several more times. SPC P____ reported the NCO kept asking her what was going on and if he had done something to offend her. 10. The company commander's 2 September 2015 sworn statement indicated the applicant did have authority to call for the detail. The holdovers were all female. The applicant had not made any other sexual advances. The IO wasn't sure how the harassment complaint by SPC H___ was handled. There was no adverse impact on good order and discipline because only those involved knew about the incident. The company commander also stated the applicant had been involved with several details using trainees and no such incidents had occurred. The IO had interacted with the applicant and his wife and they presented as a loving couple. SPC P____, on the other hand, had been extended past her graduation time due to adverse actions and may have been seeking retaliation for being corrected during physical training by the applicant and others. 11. Sergeant First Class (SFC) B____'s 2 September 2015 statement indicated that an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint had not been made against the applicant by SPC H____. He relates that in June 2015, she "spoke with me about SGT [Applicant] saying some crazy things to her about being on profile and being useless to the Army…she was fine with me speaking to him. I spoke with SGT [Applicant] and got on him about the treatment of Soldiers." 12. The IO's Report, dated 8 September 2015, shows: a. The following pertinent facts: * the other three holdovers finished their work and went across the hall * none of the other three holdovers heard any of the conversation between SPC P____ and the applicant because they were across the hall in the multi-purpose room * after the meeting with the installation SARC, SFC G____ and SPC P____ encountered the applicant who asked if she was okay and remarked that a lot of people misinterpret what he says when what he intends is to make a joke. SPC P____ immediately called CPT P____, her soon to be sister-in-law, because she was again uncomfortable about encountering the applicant b. The following pertinent facts: * the applicant engaged in an inappropriate personal and/or sexual conversation with SPC P____ * the other holdovers did not hear any of the conversation they only saw SPC P_____ helping him with the inventory * all holdovers agree that the applicant allowed the others [less SPC P____ who was still at his workstation] to enter the multi-purpose room across the hall * the applicant stated that he had one of them remain in the doorway as the battle buddy; he did not remember her name * there was no official EO complaint against the applicant. SPC H____ complained that he had told her she was useless to the Army because she was on profile but it had not been officially reported because the applicant apologized when confronted by SFC B____ * there was no adverse impact on good order and discipline because no-one, except those involved, knew anything about it c. The IO noted the important provisions of the governing regulations. d. The IO recommended additional SHARP training and appropriate level training for trainee abuse and violation of the battle buddy system. 13. A 12 September 2015 SJA review of the IO's report found, "no legal objection to the findings that SGT [Applicant] violated the battle buddy policy in TRADOC Regulation 350-6, para 2-10(b) subject to the following discussion." The SJA went on to point out that: a. Since the policy prohibited cadre from being alone behind "closed doors" with a trainee, and in this case the other holdovers were across the hall, the applicant had not strictly violated the battle buddy policy. b. However, the policy was designed to reduce the likelihood and opportunity for sexual harassment and similar misconduct. c. Therefore, since the other holdovers were [across the hall] not in a position to overhear the conversation, the intent of the battle buddy policy had been violated. 14. The GOMOR, dated 7 October 2015, reprimanded the applicant for sexual harassment and trainee abuse. It also noted that the applicant had violated Army Regulation 600-20 and TRADOC Regulation 350-6. 15. Prior to the filing determination the applicant offered a package of information to the officer imposing the GOMOR. It was included with the application in support of his request to this Board. This information included an MFR, subject: GOMOR Rebuttal Statement, which states: (a.) I respectfully request that the above referenced GOMOR be rescinded or alternatively that it be filed in my local file as a letter of reprimand. It is unjust and violates my due process to administratively discipline me based upon a mere "suggestion" of misconduct. The overwhelming majority of facts alleged by my accuser have been disproven. Even in the best light, the remaining facts amount to an uncorroborated and self-serving statement by a disgruntled trainee who failed to meet Army standards and who, as my commander put it, "may be looking to impact a fellow Soldier's career." (b.) The vast majority of SPC P____'s claims were wholly disproven. SPC P____ alleges that I improperly schemed to get an all-female trainee detail and that I then singled her out for sexual harassment because she was Brazilian. All trainees were obtained properly. I never requested only females, and I never singled her out. SPC P____ singled herself out and volunteered to type: She even bragged that she "had college experience" when volunteering. (See Attachment 1: Table of Facts) (c.) The remaining allegations are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. SPC P____ claims that she called out "Hey I need a battle buddy" before anyone left, but no one heard her. She also alleges that I responded, "You'll be alright. Y'all don't go anywhere else." No one heard this either even though according to her statement they were all still present, or I was allegedly speaking directly to them. Finally, SPC P____ alleges that I made common small talk and then suddenly proclaimed, "I always wanted to sleep with a Brazilian." This is a lie. She appears to be Caucasian, and she told me that she was from Georgia. I had no idea SPC P____ was Brazilian until I read these allegations. There is no basis to believe this statement given the proven falsity of the rest. Nothing in my statement or response has been impeached by unbiased witnesses. (d.) Legally, the investigator's findings are insufficient to warrant a GOMOR. The investigator concluded that the evidence suggests that I made inappropriate comments towards the complainant during conversation. A suggestion is not proof. Due process requires at least a preponderance of evidence that I did the alleged act before punishment. (e.) The investigator's factual findings are both flawed and biased. (f.) LTC C____ charged the IO to determine whether I requested an all-female detail and if so whether I had a legitimate reason. The investigator asked all trainees did "SGT (Applicant) provide a reason for requesting an all-female Soldier detail?" This question is wrong for many reasons but most importantly because it assumes facts shown to be erroneous. This raises concerns as to the objectivity and skill of the entire investigation particularly given that the IO did not ask PFC C____ about the sidewalk encounters. He did not properly fill out the DA Form 3881; he had to return to fill out this form a second time. He was also unable to explain me my rights, (g.) The IO concluded that no one heard the complainant request a battle buddy because "they had already left." This is contrary to the complainant's own statement which provides that while the others were still in the room and "about to walk over to the day room or go back to their room, I called out hey I need a battle buddy." (h.) The investigator found that I dismissed the other three Soldiers and allowed SPC P____ to remain in the supply room alone with me. To the contrary, all trainees finished up within minutes of each other and waited at the door. Everyone left together. No one recalls being dismissed or leaving the complainant alone. Every trainee responded: "I don't know" or "No" when asked if I had excused her battle buddy. The absence of corroboration is key because just as my alleged breach of policy "raised a red flag" with SPC P____, it would have also raised a red flag with at least one other trainee. (i.) It is undisputed that SPC P____ was visibly upset when I saw her later that afternoon. I still have no idea why she was upset. However, she had many reasons to be upset given her holdover status and failure to meet military standards. My inquiry into her wellbeing was simply an expression of concern. PFC C____ was there for two of the alleged conversations and did not note any offensive or nervous actions by me. (j.) The IO relied on irrelevant and dissimilar evidence to support his findings. The IO cited a previous allegation of "bullying" to support the finding of "sexual harassment." There was never an EO or any other investigation (filed) against me for bullying. It is also completely unrelated. Thus, even if I had commented that being on profile made a private "completely useless" to the Army, this has nothing to do with whether I would sexually harass another Soldier. (k.) The investigator failed to consider and weigh all relevant evidence including both parties' motives and propensities towards honesty. It comes down to a he said/she said dispute. I have a good performance record. I regularly supervise trainees, and I have never had any adverse incidents. Statements from peers and supervisors echo this. (See his attached character references). At the time of this incident I was an E-5 promotable (P). SPC P____ was a holdover placed on extra duty due to her own 'adverse actions' and failure to meet Army standards. My commander noted that she may be acting in retaliation towards being corrected in physical readiness training by both myself and other NCO's. (l.) Please do not end my career based upon the spurious allegations and the IO's hasty investigation. Please consider the source of the allegations, the blatant lies and errors throughout her statement, and the utter lack of corroboration. Please consider the quality and skill of the IO's investigation. This is not right. I respectfully request that the above referenced GOMOR be withdrawn or in the alternative that it be filed in my local file. 16. The applicant provides: * A Table of Facts displaying extracts from PFC P____'s sworn statement which are identified as false, uncorroborated, or corroborated * The various sworn statements (described above) * Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation (described above) * Character reference memoranda as follows ? * SFC James A____ states the behavior the applicant has been accused of is out of character; he has always treated Soldiers with dignity and respect. * First Sergeant Z______ C___ states she has never received any complaints about the applicant; he always uphold standards. He comes off as strict but fair and he has never overstepped his boundaries. He has always treated Soldiers with dignity and respect. * Staff Sergeant (SSG) D___ L____, a platoon sergeant in Company A, states he has known the applicant since February 2015. The applicant puts his job and the Army first in his life. He believes the behavior the applicant is accused of is out of character. People of his character and work ethic are too valuable to be lost over an out of character incident. The applicant always treats Soldiers with dignity and respect. * The company executive officer (XO) states the applicant has on multiple occasions utilized holdovers for various tasks without any issues or concerns. The applicant is often strict with Soldiers but he has never done more than what’s necessary to facilitate learning. The applicant treats everyone with dignity and respect. 20. A memorandum dated 15 December 2015 from BG K____, who imposed the GOMOR, indicating that he considered all matters submitted in defense, mitigation, and extenuation and directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant’s OMPF. 21. The applicant also submitted: a. U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command SHARP Justice Report, dated November 2015. The applicant highlighted an item that shows a sergeant/ NCO serving as an instructor made several inappropriate sexual comments in the vicinity of a female trainee. An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation found the NCO committed sexual harassment and trainee abuse. That individual received a GOMOR that was filed in the local personnel file. The applicant noted, "I am not an instructor, nor is this reprimand filed locally." b. U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command General Misconduct Justice Report, dated March 2016, in which the applicant highlighted an item that states: a first sergeant made inappropriate sexually oriented comments in front of trainees and cadre. He received a GOMOR which was permanently filed in his OMPF. The applicant noted, "Same incident, multiple people to corroborate this story. My incident, multiple people with sworn statements not corroborated with accuser.” c. His NCOER for the period ending 1 October 2015 shows in: (1) Part IV (Army Values), Respect/EO/EEO, "No." (2) The bullet comments: * received General Officer Letter of Reprimand for SHARP related incident * displayed total dedication to his unit and the mission accomplishment with commendable results * never failed to extend assistance to other units; his professionalism and dedication prove to be a force multiplier (3) Part IV (Leadership) “participated in the battalion SHARP program, requires further training, received a GOMOR.” (4) Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) contains a bullet comment showing “overall performance for this rating period fell below expectations” 22. The applicant highlighted a portion of a U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command SHARP Summit article, dated 26 August 2015, showing the Commander, Major General Darrell K. W____, takes “the issue of sexual misconduct very personally” and expects members of his staff to do likewise. The applicant also points out that the officer who imposed the subject GOMOR is on this commander's staff. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-6 prescribes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive. a. Paragraph 1-9 states this regulation does not require that an investigation be conducted before adverse administrative action, such as relief for cause, can be taken against an individual. However, if an investigation is conducted using the procedures of this regulation, the information obtained, including findings and recommendations, may be used in any administrative action against an individual, whether or not that individual was designated a respondent, and whether formal or informal procedures were used, subject to the limitations below. (1) Except as provided below, when adverse administrative action is contemplated against an individual (other than a civilian employee), including an individual designated as a respondent, based upon information obtained as a result of an investigation or board conducted pursuant to this regulation, the appropriate military authority must observe the following minimum safeguards before taking final action against the individual: (a) Notify the person in writing of the proposed adverse action and provide a copy, if not previously provided, of that part of the findings and recommendations of the investigation or board and the supporting evidence on which the proposed adverse action is based. (b) Give the person a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing and to submit relevant rebuttal material. (c) Review and evaluate the person's response. (2) There is no requirement to refer the investigation to the individual if the adverse action contemplated is prescribed in regulations or other directives that provide procedural safeguards, such as notice to the individual and an opportunity to respond. For example, there is no requirement to refer an investigation conducted under this regulation to a Soldier prior to giving the Soldier an adverse evaluation report based upon the investigation because the regulations governing evaluation reports provide the necessary procedural safeguards. b. Paragraph 2-3 discusses the effect of errors and shows, generally, procedural errors or irregularities in an investigation or board do not invalidate the proceeding or any action based on it. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 provides that 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. a. 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 a filing determination is made. b. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance section. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7. c. 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. d. Army Regulation 600-37 states only letters of reprimand, admonition or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted portion of the AHMRR. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer will be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once filed a memorandum of reprimand is a permanent part of the performance section of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (such as the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) or this Board). 5. Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy), paragraph 7–4, defines sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination that involves unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It provides that any person in a supervisory or command position who uses or condones implicit or explicit sexual behavior is engaging in sexual harassment. 6. TRADOC Regulation 350-6 prescribes policies and procedures for the conduct of enlisted initial entry training (IET). Chapter 3 sets fort the policy and procedures established to provide each Soldier a chance to complete IET in a safe and secure environment. The battle buddy system establishes a policy for the pairing of IET Soldiers into teams to teach teamwork, develop a sense of responsibility and accountability for fellow Soldiers, improve safety during IET, and reduce the likelihood and opportunity for sexual harassment, misconduct, and suicidal gestures or attempts. (a) Unit cadre will instruct IET Soldiers on the purpose and rules of the battle buddy system. Soldiers will be told never to leave their battle buddy. If they are directed or ordered to leave their battle buddy they will report this to the company leadership 1SG/Commander or XO upon returning to the unit. (b) Soldiers will have battle buddies at all times, though cadre will pair ad hoc buddy teams of the same gender for sick call, worship services, additional unit-specific training, or remedial training. (c) The battle buddy system also applies to cadre members drill sergeants, AIT platoon sergeants, and cadre will never be in a closed-door counseling session with a single trainee. (d) SHARP training is required by Congressional mandate within the first 14 days of accession. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director of the ABCMR or the chair of an ABCMR panel may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests a transfer of the GOMOR from the performance section to the restricted section of his OMPF. 2. There is no available evidence indicating that BG K____ requested jurisdiction over the case so that he could make an example of the applicant or that the applicant's counsel requested trial by court martial. 3. The applicant claims that imposition of the GOMOR violated his right to due process, but there is no evidence of this. The GOMOR was issued following an investigation under Army Regulation 15-6 and was filed in the applicant's record after he was afforded an opportunity to respond. There is no evidence of violation of due process. 4. The applicant criticizes the IO, because the IO did not ask the identical questions he was directed to ask and this opens his work product to criticism and invites the applicant's quibbling. However, this does not demonstrate that his findings were wrong. 5. The applicant states the IO used a previous incident of bullying to help support the conclusion that SPC P____ had been harassed, and contends that there had never been an EO complaint against him. Yet, the evidence of record shows the applicant told SPC H____ that she was worthless because she was on a medical profile. The incident was dropped because the applicant immediately apologized. There may not have been an EO complaint or an investigation, but the applicant clearly bullied a trainee. 6. He contends that SPC P____'s accusations were all disproven or unsubstantiated. He states that his situation was the result of the self-serving assertions of a disgruntled trainee who was undergoing UCMJ action. The applicant's assertions are self-serving and unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that the complainant had anything to gain by her actions. There is no evidence that the complainant was being punished. The earliest available reference to SPC P____ as a disgruntled Soldier came from the company commander, who certainly had a vested interest in establishing that no wrong had been perpetrated under her leadership. The applicant simply repeated the company commander's remark as an unquestionable truth. 7. The applicant's submissions do not show the GOMOR is unjust or untrue or that it is in the best interests of the Army to remove it from the performance portion of his OMPF. 8. With respect to his request for a personal appearance before the Board, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. A panel of the Board or the Director of the ABCMR may authorize personal appearance before the Board. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant are sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008644 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008644 17 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2