MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 May 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065493

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	     advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of that portion of his earlier request concerning purging from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transfer to his restricted fiche of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) he received in 1997.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes the GOMOR has served its intended purpose.  He provides as additional supporting evidence seven Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) received after he was issued the GOMOR (which show he was rated, for the most part, as “success” with a few “excellence” ratings with four potential ratings of “fully capable” and three potential ratings of ”among the best”), a Meritorious Service Medal recommendation and certificate received in November 2000, a memorandum for record dated 21 September 1997 concerning his administrative separation board, an affidavit dated 16 April 1997 concerning his request for a polygraph test, and a character witness statement dated 22 February 1999.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 3 December 1998 (docket number AC97-11784/AR1998009135).

The applicant did appear before an administrative separation board under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct on 26 June 1997 and the board did determine that there was insufficient and unsubstantiated evidence to warrant separating the applicant from the service.  The separation proceedings, however, were initiated not for the offenses for which the applicant received the GOMOR but for three separate, later allegations of assault consummated by battery.  (After he was transferred out of drill sergeant duties, a female NCO reported she was uncomfortable because he gave her an unwanted back massage and another senor female NCO reported he twice improperly touched her arm.)  The board concluded the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of assault consummated by battery.

In April 2001, the applicant submitted a second appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for removal or transfer of the GOMOR.  The DASEB was not convinced the GOMOR had served its purpose and denied his appeal.

Army Regulation 600-37 serves as the authority for filing unfavorable information in the OMPF.  Paragraph 7.2.B.b(1) states that GOMORs 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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has provided no substantial convincing evidence that the intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served and that its removal or transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.

2.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __kan___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065493	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020514	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.