RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070002174 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Mr. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Linda D. Simmons Chairperson Mr. Joe R. Schroeder Member Mr. Chester A. Damian Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for the removal of a relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) and a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that he receive an appropriate retirement award. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is totally offended by the Board’s inference that he received special protection or immunity because he was an Inspector General (IG) sergeant major. He also states that the Board’s reasoning was "bull" with regard to the comment “While there were flaws in the process, it appears that the IG was attempting to show that the IG office or its personnel were not immune from punishment or that such conduct was acceptable.” With regard to the applicant’s comments concerning the female sergeant major needing bigger breasts before he would sleep with her, he contends that this comment was made in jest and was his way of ending her advances toward him. Regarding the payment of his credit card bills, the applicant stated that the female sergeant major only mailed his payments for him, and did not actually pay his bills. Lastly, the applicant refers to the Board’s comment about the two elements he had admitted to and that they were sufficient as a basis for the command to take action against him at that time, even without an investigation. He contends such allegations needed to be investigated because it involved his career. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050011121, on 20 June 2006. 2. The applicant’s seven page rebuttal addresses the discussion and conclusion paragraphs numbered two through six of the previous consideration. The applicant is offended by the Board's statement in paragraph two that his request was serving as a means of gaining special protection or immunity from punishment. He contends that the V Corps IG blatantly disregarded policy and procedures. The applicant rebuts paragraphs three and four, saying that his conversation about the sergeant major needing to get bigger breasts was only said in jest and then only as a means to stop her advances. With regard to paragraph five, the applicant says he stands corrected if he said that the sergeant major paid his credit cards bills. He contends that he meant the sergeant major mailed the payments for him. He added that the sergeant major had access to his apartment while he was in Iraq and that he had left $2,500.00 in blank money orders for the sergeant major to use to pay his credit card bills. Paragraph six stated that since the applicant had admitted to two elements, the command had a sufficient basis to take action against him even without an investigation. The applicant contends that the V Corps IG was biased and that nothing was checked or challenged. The applicant also stated that the only evidence against him was a statement from two white people, and no one wanted to look at the facts or issues. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant has not provided any new evidence that convincingly supports his contention that the V Corps IG blatantly disregarded policy and procedures or that he was unfairly biased against the applicant. 2. The applicant's assertion that his comments about the sergeant major needing to get bigger breasts was said in jest, does not sufficiently mitigate the Board's original decision. A comment such as this is inappropriate even in jest. 3. The applicant's clarification about leaving money orders and access to his apartment for the sergeant major to use in paying his bills does not sufficiently mitigate the Board's original decision. This behavior seems at best to be inappropriate for a married man and tends to make one think there was more than a casual relationship between them. 4. The applicant's contention that no one wanted to look at the facts of his case and that there was racial motivation, is not supported by any convincing evidence. 5. In view of the above, the applicant’s request should not be granted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __JRS __ ___LDS__ __CD 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050011121, dated 20 June 2006. __ _Linda D. Simmons_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070002174 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070605 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 134.0400 2. 111.0005 3. 4. 5. 6.