IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 November 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200002915 APPLICANT REQUESTS: transfer of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 30 May 2018, to the restricted folder of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), 9 March 2020) * Counsel, Memorandum (Supplemental Statement in the Case of (Applicant)), 5 March 2020, with tabs – * Tab A – DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 3 June 2019 * Tab B – Applicant, Letter to Major General (MG) Commander, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, undated * Tab C – * MG Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Memorandum (AMHRR Transfer of Unfavorable Information), undated * MG Commander, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, Letter, 29 May 2019 * Tab D – GOMOR and Rebuttal Documents – * Commander, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, Memorandum (GOMOR), 30 May 2018 * Applicant, Memorandum (Response to GOMOR (Applicant)), 30 July 2018, with 12 enclosures * Tab E – Separation Documents REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. a. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. b. Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) contains the list of all documents approved by Department of the Army and required for filing in the AMHRR and/or interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System. A letter or memorandum, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF 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/memorandums filed in the OMPF will be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter/memorandum. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensured that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensured that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier 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) states 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 a filing determination is made. b. Paragraph 3-4 states non-punitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure in official personnel files, such as a memorandum of reprimand, may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR only upon the order of a general officer-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 reprimand is to be filed in the AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 (Appeals). c. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) states once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, 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 that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR. d. Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the AMHRR. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would 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. FACTS: 1. The applicant states MG the GOMOR issuing authority, requested transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder of her AMHRR and recognized that it had served its intended purpose and its transfer is in the best interest of the Army. MG to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) and additional evidence are included in the attached supplemental statement. 2. The applicant's counsel states: a. The GOMOR, 30 May 2018 has served its intended purpose and should be transferred to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. The applicant is no longer serving on active duty. b. On 30 May 2018, the applicant received a GOMOR which was permanently filed in her AMHRR. In her rebuttal, the applicant accepted responsibility for her actions and demonstrated that she had learned tremendously from the mistake she made. c. On 28 August 2018, an administrative separation action was initiated to separate the applicant. As a probationary officer, she was not entitled to a separation board. The applicant was separated with an honorable discharge. d. On 31 November 2019, the applicant requested MG's support to have the GOMOR removed from her AMHRR or transferred to her restricted folder. In a letter received on 28 February 2020, MG the GOMOR issuing authority, recommended transferring the GOMOR to the restricted folder of her AMHRR. MG previously recommended the applicant for continued service following her separation from the Army. He further stated transfer of the GOMOR is in the best interest of the Army. 3. On 29 January 2013, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)) as a cadet. On the same day, she completed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract). 4. On 8 May 2015, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army. On the same day, she executed her oath of office. 5. On or about 25 October 2017, the applicant deployed in a temporary duty status to Riga, Latvia, in support of Atlantic Resolve – European Reassurance Initiative for approximately 270 days. 6. On or about 29 March 2018, Captain (CPT) was appointed as the Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigating officer (IO) to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding an allegation of senior leader misconduct on the part of the applicant. He was further directed that his scope of investigation was specifically, but was not limited to, the following: a. Determine whether (Applicant) pressured Specialist (SPC) or SPC into making false official statements after a health and welfare inspection was conducted on the night of 19 January 2018. b. Discover whether (Applicant) violated the barracks policy she was subject to and whether she encouraged other service members to make false official statements in order to cover up any misconduct. c. Conclude whether (Applicant's) actions on or about 19 January 2018 violated the Army rules, regulations, or Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 7. On 16 April 2018, the IO finished gathering the following evidence and made his findings and recommendations to the appointing authority. a. The applicant's DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) of (Applicant), 17 January 2018, states, “On the evening of 14 January 2018, during the hours between 12 to [sic] 4 in the morning I was woken up on two occasions due to a crew chief, SPC getting injured. SPC who is [SPC] suite mate came to my room and told me he was hurt and thought he re-injured his bad wrist. I went and talk to [SPC] and felt his wrist which was swollen and asked what happened. He was leaning in his chair and fell back and caught himself, which essentially ended up being a hard fall on his bad wrist. I took him down with me to wake up CPT who I couldn't get to answer the door. At that time, I decided it was best to see SSG [Staff Sergeant] who did answer the door and gave [SPC] some ibuprofen and wrapped his wrist. Once that was done I returned to my room and went back to bed. Roughly 30 minutes went by and I was woken up again to SPC saying [SPC] condition was getting worse and he was in severe pain. I took [SPC] to Doctor room once again, and finally he answered the door in which he asked what happened and asked if drinking was involved. [SPC] said yes he had been drinking and then immediately went into the room, and after that moment I again returned to my room and went to sleep. The next day I went to check in on [SPC] to see how his current condition was and to ask him about the incident in which he gave the same story as previously stated. He did fall back in his chair and catch himself, and he did admit he had been drinking but alcohol was not necessarily the contributing factor to his injury. I took him to CPT room for him to explain himself and left it from there." b. The applicant's DA Form 2823, 17 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states she was aware of the order prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcohol in the barracks. She contends she was not consuming alcohol during the incident, but she entered her Soldiers' room. She was there to listen to them play guitar. She had an idea they were drinking alcohol out of coffee mugs, not open containers, but did not confirm they were indeed drinking alcohol. Chief Warrant Two (CW2) was also in the Soldiers' room. Neither she nor CW2 were present when SPC injury happened. She did not tell SPC or SPC to lie about her involvement. She cannot think of a reason SPC or SPC would claim she was drinking with them or that she coerced them to make false statements indicating she was not involved in the drinking. c. SPC DA Form 2823, 17 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states he was aware of the order prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcohol in the barracks by word of mouth. He consumed alcohol on the evening of 14 January 2018 and the morning of 15 January 2018. He was drinking with the applicant, CW2 and SPC The applicant was present when his injury happened. He was pressured by the applicant to make a false statement about the event. The applicant fabricated a story and told him to present it as the truth. d. SPC DA Form 2823, 17 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states he was aware of the order prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcohol in the barracks. He was aware SPC had and was consuming alcohol in his room. He also consumed alcohol with SPC as well as the applicant, CW2 He was pressured by the applicant to make a false statement about the event. e. CW2 DA Form 2823, 17 January 2018, states, "On morning of 15 Jan [15 January 2018], at around 0230, I was in my room and heard SPC and SPC in the hallway and I walked out to see what they were doing and ask for a cigarette. [SPCwas holding his wrist and told me he just fell on it and he was in pain. I walked with them to SGT and [Applicant's] room to wake them up and tell them about the injury. [Applicant] answered the door and walked with us to CPT room to wake him up and receive care. CPT did not answer so we went to SSG room on the second floor. SSG wrapped up [SPC] wrist and I believe gave him painkillers. We then walked down to the kitchen to wait if the pain subsided. [Applicant] returned to her room and as I walked down to my room, [SPC] said his wrist still didn't feel any belier and he wanted to see CPT They rewoke up [Applicant] to tell her and we went to CPT and was [sic] able to wake him up. I then returned to my room." f. Sergeant DA Form 2823, 16 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states he was aware of the order prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcohol in the barracks. He is SPC roommate and was not aware he had alcohol or was consuming alcohol in his room. He was asleep and was not consuming alcohol with SPC He was not aware of SPC injury until the next morning. SPC and SPC were being loud and he asked them to leave so he could continue sleeping. g. SPC DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), 26 January 2018, states SPC was suspected/accused of a violation of Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), UCMJ, and shows SPC and the IO's signatures. h. SPC DA Form 2823, 26 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states he saw the applicant drinking from a beer can in SPC room. He is unsure if the applicant was drinking in the kitchen because he was drinking and his memory at that point was a little hazy. Based on his memory, he is not confident enough to say exactly what the applicant was drinking or what time, but he remembered the applicant had a beer can. The applicant was present when he fell out of his chair and injured his arm. The applicant came to his room the morning after the incident and presented a story to them. The story only had him and SPC drinking in the room and made it seem like she and CW2 were not around. He remembered saying something to the effect of "this is what we're going with?" He knew the story was not true, but just agreed. He did not want to get anyone else in trouble. i. SPC DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), 26 January 2018, states SPC was suspected/accused of a violation of Article 92, UCMJ, and shows SPC and the IO's signatures. j. SPC DA Form 2823, 26 January 2018, written in question-and-answer format, states he saw the applicant drinking from the same containers they all were drinking from. The applicant did not have her own hydroflask, she was drinking from theirs. He physically saw the applicant drink from three different containers after asking what they were drinking. The applicant was present when SPC fell out of his chair and injured himself. He was just waking up when the applicant was telling SPC that "she wasn't there." He does not remember the applicant saying anything like that to him. k. SPC DA Form 2823, 20 February 2018, states, "On 14 Jan 18 [14 January 2018], myself and SPC went into Lielvarde to eat at a local restaurant (Kante). When we found out the restaurant was closed, we went to the Maxima to buy alcohol and food to cook at the barracks. We lit the barbecue outside the barracks and began to prepare dinner. When we finished eating I got my guitar from my room and went to the kitchen on the first floor of the barracks and played for a couple of hours. [Applicant] came into the kitchen for about the last hour we were there. We then began drinking with SPC [Applicant], and later CW2 in SPC room listening to music at around 0230. I was seated in a chair by the desk when I leaned too far back. At this point the chair fell backward and I stuck out my previously injured hand to arrest my fall. In doing so, l experienced an immense amount of pain so I made the decision to seek medical attention. I went to the 2nd floor of the barracks to SSG room, where my arm was put in a splint. About an hour later the pain still persisted, so myself and [Applicant] went to the aid station to get assistance from CPT We woke up CPT and he made the determination that I needed x-rays. The morning following the incident, at about 1030, [Applicant] came to my room to see how my wrist was feeling. [Applicant] started a discussion with SPC and myself to come up with a story to tell, as to not incriminate anyone for drinking in the barracks. Then myself and [Applicant] went to talk to CPT about the events that happened the night before. I was instructed to get rid of any remaining alcohol I had in my barracks room at the request of CPT and under the supervision of [Applicant]. So I went to my room and dumped out the two beers I had left. CPT then told us there would be more to follow regarding the repercussions of the incident. The following day, 16 Jan [16 January 2018], CPT SSG and myself went to Riga, LV [Latvia] hospital to have x- rays." In a question-and-answer format, he states they were drinking beer. He saw CW2 SPC and the applicant drinking from an open container. The conversation with the applicant, SPC and him started with the applicant asking, "what do you plan on telling the leadership?" He responded that he was going to tell the leadership what happened. The applicant responded with something along the lines of, "if they ask, tell them you came and got me after you hurt yourself." l. On 16 April 2018, the IO submitted his findings and recommendations to the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation appointing authority. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, he found the applicant violated Article 107 (False Official Statement), UCMJ, when she denied consuming alcohol in the barracks with junior enlisted Soldiers. She also violated Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer), UMCJ, when she encouraged junior enlisted Soldiers to make false official statements on her behalf. He further found the applicant violated Army Regulation 600-200 (Army Command Policy) by fraternizing with junior enlisted Soldiers. He recommended appropriate administrative action be taken with regard to the applicant. 8. On 30 May 2018, the applicant was reprimanded in writing by MG the Commander, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, for fraternization with two junior enlisted Soldiers and making a false official statement. The commanding general stated, "On 14 January 2018, you fraternized with two junior enlisted Soldiers assigned to your platoon in their barracks room on Lielvarde Air Base, Latvia. As a platoon leader, you drank alcohol with these Soldiers and then told the Soldiers to lie about your presence in their barracks room. You then lied to an investigating officer on 17 January 2018 during an administrative investigation when you denied drinking alcohol with these Soldiers or socializing with them. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and violates Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), False Official Statements; Article 133, UCMJ, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman; and the Army fraternization policy found in Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Army Command Policy, paragraph 4-14." 9. On 25 June 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. 10. On 30 July 2018, the applicant submitted her response to the GOMOR with 12 enclosures (enclosures 1-5 are addressed in paragraphs 6a, c, d, h, and j above; enclosures 6-12 will be addressed below) wherein she requested rescission of the GOMOR or locally filing the GOMOR. a. She stated she failed to enforce a general order which prohibited the possession or consumption of alcohol in the barracks, therefore shirking her responsibility as an officer. She maintained she did not consume alcohol at any point on 14-15 January 2018. She emphasized she did not coerce SPC to make a false statement or make a false statement of her own on 15 January 2018. b. She took full responsibility for her failure to uphold the standard required of an Army officer and she apologized for the inappropriate example that her conduct portrayed to her subordinates. c. On the night of 14-15 January 2018, she made the decision to turn a blind eye to what she knew to be drinking at a small barracks get-together. SPC , SPC and CW2 were playing the guitar in the kitchen common area. Instead of instructing them to go to sleep, she joined them. She noticed they were drinking out of metal insulated coffee mugs and she suspected that they were drinking alcohol, yet she did nothing. When Sergeant asked that they play music elsewhere, she made another serious mistake in joining her subordinates in SPC barracks room. She was in SPC room for 40 minutes at most. d. She readily admitted to her unacceptable conduct and understood that it may merit consequences. However, she would not admit to things she did not do. The IO's findings that she consumed alcohol, coerced subordinates to make false official statements, and made a false official statement are incorrect. e. Throughout this ordeal, she consistently revisited her failure in officership and maintained the truth in her testimony. She learned from the incident and will never place herself in a similar situation again. In the 6 months since the incident she continued to perform her military duties well. She sought opportunities to assume responsibility and display a model of professionalism. She strived to earn the trust of her Soldiers by caring for them. She placed her focus on the mission and the welfare of the troops. She prioritized her growth as a leader, her membership in a larger unit, and her Christian faith. f. She enclosed seven letters of support. (1) The letter from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Retired (enclosure 6), 4 July 2018, states he has been associated with the applicant her entire life and could attest to her outstanding character. She had always been a remarkable young lady, never having been in trouble of any type. Having been a lieutenant himself, he made his share of mistakes and was corrected, very sternly and forcefully at times, but always afforded the opportunity to grow professionally from those mistakes. (2) The letter from Major (MAJ) Retired (enclosure 7), 3 July 2018, states he knew the applicant for many years through her family. In addition to her dedication to service, all of his discussions with her indicate a strong desire to be a caring leader of Soldiers. He does not know the particulars of the incident, but she is an officer of the highest character and would not knowingly take any actions detrimental to the good of herself, her unit, or the Army. (3) The letter from LTC Retired (enclosure 8), 29 June 2018, states he has known the applicant since she was a child. He spent hours in her company and has come to know her several fine qualities. She has always displayed a high degree of integrity, responsibility, and ambition. There was never a time when he either heard or witnessed anything that would cause him to believe she was anything but a responsible young woman. (4) The letter from MAJ Retired (enclosure 9), 3 July 2018, states he has known the applicant since 2011. Even before she was a commissioned officer, she exemplified the Army values. Her honesty and integrity has always been above reproach. No matter the situation, she has always carried herself as a professional and consistently rises to the top of every situation. She has unlimited potential. (5) The letter from Colonel Retired (enclosure 10), 3 July 2018, states he has known the applicant and her family for a number of years. He knows she is a very honest, hard-working, dependable officer. She is the type of officer and leader who America needs to lead Soldiers. She is an outstanding officer and pilot who should be allowed to continue to show her abilities as a leader in future assignments. (6) The letter from CPT (enclosure 11), 3 July 2018, states he has known the applicant from the time she was shy child to watching her grow into a confident Army first lieutenant Blackhawk helicopter pilot. Her positive attitude, personality, and sense of humor are infectious. She maintains her core beliefs, being very loyal to family, friends, and the Army. She lives up to the Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. (7) The letter from Retired (enclosure 12), 16 July 2018, states he has known the applicant for several years. She shows the qualities and traits of leadership that are desirable in all officers and pilots. He would be proud to have her in his squadron. 11. On 22 August 2018, MG Commander, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. 12. On 23 August 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the filing determination. 13. On 28 August 2018, the applicant was notified she was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) because of misconduct or moral or professional dereliction. 14. On 4 September 2018, a flag was initiated against the applicant's records for involuntary separation. 15. On 7 September 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification to show cause. 16. On 3 October 2018, the applicant was again notified she was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 because of misconduct or moral or professional derelict. 17. On 16 October 2018, the applicant again acknowledged receipt of the notification to show cause and elected to submit a rebuttal. 18. On 6 November 2018, the applicant submitted a rebuttal in support of her request for retention with three enclosures and requested retention on active duty. a. She full-heartedly accepted the consequences of her actions that resulted in her elimination action. She regretted that other people, especially her Soldiers, were affected by her actions. She truly never intended or wanted to put anyone, including herself, in a position that would cost his or her career and livelihood. She has learned a great deal from this entire process. b. She realized the mistakes she made as a young lieutenant were extremely detrimental to her career and, more importantly, to her Soldiers who were involved. Since the incident, she continued to make her best efforts to assure she would never put anyone in a harmful situation because of her actions. c. She continued to perform her military duties well and proved she could make a valuable contribution to the Army. She received positive counseling from her commander and was reassured by her Soldiers that they appreciate her dedication to the company. Since the incident, she received an Army Achievement Medal for operating as the officer in charge during aerial gunnery training for their company. She also created a running group for the out-station where she was deployed for 9 months. Their running group consisted of several Soldiers and they participated in their host country's capital annual marathon, in which she was presented a Civil Affairs coin. d. She stated she intends to make the Army a career and she believes her performance since the incident and her steps to better herself established good cause to allow her to continue to progress in the Army. e. She enclosed three character references. (1) The statement from MAJ Retired (Character Reference for (Applicant)), 31 October 2018, states he knew the applicant for many years through her family. In addition to her dedication to service, all of his discussions with her indicate a strong desire to be a caring leader of Soldiers. He does not know the particulars of the incident, but she is an officer of the highest character and would not knowingly take any actions detrimental to the good of herself, her unit, or the Army. (2) The statement from (Applicant), 31 October 2018, states he has known the applicant from the time she was a shy child to watching her grow into a confident Army first lieutenant Blackhawk helicopter pilot. Her positive attitude, personality, and sense of humor are infectious. She maintains her core beliefs, being very loyal to family, friends, and the Army. She lives up to the Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. (3) The letter from LTC Retired, 31 October 2018, states he has known the applicant since she was a child. He spent hours in her company and has come to know her several fine qualities. She has always displayed a high degree of integrity, responsibility, and ambition. There was never a time when he either heard or witnessed anything that would cause him to believe she was anything but a responsible young woman. 19. On an unknown date, the brigade commander recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention in the Army. He recommended her discharge under honorable conditions (general). He stated her rebuttal matters fail to sufficiently acknowledge or take responsibility for her conduct related to the junior Soldiers. He expressed misgivings as to her judgment and ability to lead. 20. On 28 November 2018, the division commander recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention. He recommended her honorable discharge. 21. On 15 May 2019, the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the probationary officer elimination case regarding the applicant and determined she would be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army with an honorable discharge. 22. On 29 May 2019, wrote a letter to the Accessions Branch regarding the applicant. He expressed his support of a waiver to allow her to access into the U.S. Army Reserve. 23. On 3 June 2019, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b (Reasons for Elimination), for unacceptable conduct and issued an honorable discharge. 24. On an unknown date, the applicant wrote a letter to MG requesting removal of the GOMOR from her AMHRR. She stated it had been over 1 year since the initial filing of the GOMOR and almost 2 years since the incident itself. She further stated: a. She has lived with the ramification of the incident every day. She fully intended on making the Army a career. She spent 4 years in ROTC dedicating her time to ensure she would be selected for Army Aviation, and spent another 2 years in flight school at Fort Rucker, AL, learning and training to be an Army aviator. This one incident was able to wipe out all of that hard work and outweigh the good attributes she demonstrated while in the Army. b. Since that time, she has been struggling to regain her professional footing and finding a path to continued service. She and her husband have been struggling with the consequences of her actions personally as well. They are dealing with the loss of her career, health insurance, and their independence. Nothing could have opened her eyes wider to the consequences of her conduct than seeing how her actions affected others. Unfortunately, while things could have been worse, she had to witness and live with her actions and the effects on her family in addition to the loss of her career. c. She has recommitted herself to the values and professionalism that she was taught and asked MG to consider supporting her request to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of her AMHRR, which would give her the ability to right this wrong, move forward, and continue serving her country. 25. MG memorandum (AMHRR Transfer of Unfavorable Information), undated, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) states he believes the GOMOR served its intended purpose and the transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR would be in the best interest of the Army. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and regulatory guidance. The Board considered the applicant’s counsel’ statement and her military record of service. The Board found that the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicated that her leadership supported the transfer and the applicant is on longer on active duty. The Board determined it is in the best interest of the Army if the applicant’s GOMOR from her service as an officer be placed in her restricted AMHRR. Based on the fact and circumstances within the record, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 X X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring the GOMOR dated 30 May 2018 to her restricted AMHRR. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200002915 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1