BOARD DATE: 22 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110024616 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 the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), imposed on 6 April 2009, from the performance section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that he be allowed to remain in the Army. 2. The applicant states his three appeals to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) were denied for weak or unsubstantiated reasons. He contends the GOMOR has served its intended purpose and it has effectively derailed an otherwise outstanding career. In addition, it has caused him emotional and financial stress. The abrupt end to his 17 year career is unjust because he was found not guilty in civil court proceedings (the case was dismissed and all related records expunged). Further, a Show Cause Board unanimously elected to retain him on active duty. 3. The applicant provides: * DASEB proceedings and allied documents * Board of Inquiry Findings and Recommendation Worksheet * Officer Evaluation Reports (DA Form 67-9), 2 July 2010 through 1 July 2010 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of processing, the applicant was serving on active duty as a Chief Warrant Officer Two. 2. Assignment instructions issued by the U.S. Human Resources Command, dated 30 June 2008, reassigned him to the U.S. Army Trainee Student Detachment, Fort Jackson, SC with duty at the University of Maryland College, Waldorf, MD, for the purpose of pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree in Information Systems Management, with a report date of not earlier than 22 August 2008. The duration of this reassignment was from 2 September 2008 to 15 August 2009. These instructions stated "Upon receipt of these Assignment Instructions, immediately contact your servicing Military Personnel Service Center (PSC) (Officer Reassignments) in order to receive your permanent change of station orders." 3. An Anne Arundel County Police Domestic Violence Report shows he was arrested on 15 November 2008 for second degree assault against his spouse. 4. On 19 November 2008, the Commander, 741st Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort George G. Meade, MD, appointed an investigating officer (IO) to conduct an informal investigation regarding the actions of the applicant for the previous six months. Specifically, to determine his: * Current unit of assignment * Official work status over the previous six months * Means used, and paperwork submitted to his branch to enter his Degree Completion Program (DCP), if officially in a program * Status of his latest Officer Evaluation Report (OER) * Status of the civilian criminal investigation regarding spousal abuse 5. The IO stated the applicant's originally DCP packet was not available for review and found he: * never outprocessed his unit * was enrolled in the DCP as evident by his receipt of an RFO * did not receive an OER * was scheduled to appear in court in March 2009 on the domestic violence charge in which his spouse planned to testify on his behalf 6. The IO found the applicant entered the DCP on 2 September 2008, without having received official orders, based on an RFO, dated 30 June 2008, which assigned him to the Student Detachment at Fort Jackson, SC with duty at the University of Maryland. The IO stated many of his subsequent issues could have been prevented if the applicant had received his orders through the established process from the battalion to the post. Further, the applicant was a senior Soldier, but he did not inquire or demand that anyone process his RFO prior to his attendance at school and he continued his association with the battalion by pulling duty and attending training. 7. The IO determined the applicant did not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and recommended he officially outprocess, receive an OER, and continue his degree completion with no further action taken. 8. In a memorandum, dated 17 February 2009, his battalion commander, stated, in summary: a. The applicant demonstrated poor judgment by assaulting his wife and failing to keep his chain of command informed of his acceptance and subsequent PCS to the DCP; b. Notwithstanding the IO's findings, there was intentional deceit on behalf of the applicant in reference to his reassignment to the DCP and the applicant had multiple opportunities to notify his chain of command of his attendance and he failed to do so; c. The DCP application procedure requires endorsements from the rater and senior rater and as the applicant's senior rater he never provided such endorsement. The applicant obtained endorsement [from his supervisor] at the Office of Target Reconnaissance and Survey (OTRS) within the National Security Agency; d. His assignment instructions clearly stated to contact his PSC for reassignment orders; however, he never received orders, nor did he outprocess the battalion or inprocess the Student Detachment at Fort Jackson, SC. He was later issued orders on 5 December 2008; and e. His spouse is unlikely to testify against him which could result in the case being dismissed. 9. The applicant's commander recommended he receive a Letter of Reprimand and that he be immediately released from the Student Detachment at Fort Jackson, SC. He stated the applicant's OER was completed through 24 June 2008 and a PCS award was not recommended. 10. On 6 April 2009, the applicant was reprimanded by the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, VA, for striking his spouse on the back of the head with his hand resulting in his arrest for second degree assault and failing to properly out process his unit, the 704th Military Intelligence Brigade, prior to completing his permanent change of station. The GOMOR stated that his lack of professionalism, responsibility, leadership, and self-discipline raised serious doubts regarding his continued service in the command and the U.S. Army. He acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 1 April 2009. 11. On 24 April 2009, he submitted his response to the GOMOR and requested the document be filed in the restricted portion of his OMPF. In regard to the domestic violence incident he admits his actions were inexcusable and nonexemplary of a Soldier. He completed counseling and on 7 April 2009 he was found not guilty of the charges and his record was expunged. 12. He further contends it was not his intent to manipulate the system or deceive his chain of command and his failure to obtain reassignment orders from the PSC was merely an honest oversight due to a lack of understanding of the program requirements. In summary, after returning from deployment, he received his Request for Orders (RFO) on 30 June 2008 notifying him of his DCP reassignment and he started his DCP at the University of Maryland, Adelphi, MD, in September 2008 without ever receiving orders or outprocessing his losing command. He continued to conduct training and staff duty with his organization while attending school. After considering the applicant's response, the general officer directed filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 13. He appeared before a Board of Inquiry to Show Cause for retention on 15 November 2010. The board unanimously recommended he be retained in the Army. 14. It appears the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three by the Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 Promotion Selection Board (RCSB). 15. A memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 31 August 2011, notified the applicant of his involuntary separation due to his non selection for promotion. He was informed that he would receive an honorable separation no later than 1 March 2012. The record does not show if the applicant elected appointment in the U.S. Army Reserve. 16. He applied to the DASEB on two separate occasions, 7 June 2010 and 18 August 2011, to have the GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF. He contended the GOMOR had served it intended purpose; however, the board denied both his requests. 17. He provided numerous letters of support, recommendation, and appreciation from senior officials and his spouse, which attest to his outstanding character, technical ability, professionalism and moral character. 18. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) 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. 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. 19. 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 Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence shows the applicant received a GOMOR on 6 April 2009 for assaulting his spouse and failing to properly outprocess his unit prior to starting his DCP. The General Officer issuing the reprimand stated the applicant's lack of professionalism, responsibility, leadership, and self-discipline raised serious doubts regarding his continued service in the command and the U.S. Army. 2. On 24 April 2009, the applicant submitted a response to the GOMOR which stated his actions relating to the domestic situation were inexcusable and nonexemplary of a Soldier but after completing an Anger Management course he now possessed coping skills which would allow him to handle similar situation in a nonviolent and appropriate manner. He noted he was found not guilty of the domestic violence charges by a civilian court and his record was expunged. He further contended his failure to properly outprocess was a misunderstanding based on his and his unit's unfamiliarity with the DCP and it was never his intent to manipulate or circumvent the system. His failure to contact his PSC to obtain orders was an honest mistake. 3. He contends the GOMOR has effectively ended his career resulting in him being twice nonselected for promotion resulting his involuntary separation; therefore, it should be removed from his OMPF because it has served its intended purpose. 4. The record confirms that he was found not guilty of the domestic violence charge and his record was expunged in civilian court. However, the evidence clearly shows the applicant admitted to striking his wife with an open hand to the back of head and he accepted responsibility for his actions in his response to the GOMOR and in numerous statements to civil and military authorities. 5. He further contends he misunderstood his assignment instructions, and he did not intentionally try to deceive his chain of command. The evidence shows his assignment instructions clearly directed him to contact his PSC for orders. It is implausible that a Warrant Officer with over 15 years of service and numerous PCS moves misunderstood his assignment instructions. Further, his failure to obtain the endorsement of his senior rater on his DCP coupled with the fact that he continued to fulfill training and extra duty requirements at his losing command is another indication that he intentionally tried to manipulate the process and deceive his chain of command. 6. The evidence of record shows the GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of his OMPF. There is no evidence of an error or an injustice. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _x____ __x______ ___x_____ 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 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110024616 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110024616 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1