IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009378 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009378 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009378 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, in effect, correction of his military records by showing that he served satisfactorily in the rank of captain (CPT), pay grade O-3. 2. The applicant states, in a 4 page memorandum, his formal appeal for reconsideration of the decision concerning his grade determination for retirement as a first lieutenant (1LT), pay grade O-2. He believes the decision does not accurately reflect the level of his service and responsibility in the U.S. Army. a. Since his promotion to CPT, he successfully served in ever challenging positions that clearly demonstrated his performance as a CPT. He acknowledges and fully accepts responsibility for his conduct resulting in a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR). His military service record after the incident proves it did not define him. b. He argues that the decision of whether he successfully served as a CPT should be based on his entire time as a CPT. It should not be based on a single incident that occurred just 6 months after he became a CPT because doing so would inaccurately describe his subsequent 5 years of successful, honorable and respectable service as a CPT. c. Since his initial entry into the U.S. Army in January 1984, while still in high school and only two weeks after his 17th birthday, he has not had a break in service. He entered the United States under political asylum and enlisted in the U.S. Army 3 years before he became a U.S. Citizen. He has never doubted that he made the right decision to be a Soldier in the U.S. Army, as evidence by his most recent receipt of the Meritorious Service Medal. d. He contends that the background details of his statement, which explain the reason for his GOMOR, are more complicated than a simple reading of his personnel file could convey. During the period November 2009 to January 2010, the tempo of the operation put him under increasing pressure while performing as the brigade combat team security officer, embedded with Iraqi forces, as well as the operations representative because the previous incumbent, a lieutenant colonel (LTC), had departed earlier to facilitate the unit retrograde operations. Working to complete both missions meant he had to operate at his highest limits to get the job done right. He provided actionable intelligence to help direct action operations and mentored his Iraqi Army counterparts on intelligence techniques. His close relationship with some members of the Iraqi Army enabled him to gather photographic evidence from an Iraqi facility that proved new Iranian rockets were being used in the area of operations. e. On the personal side, his wife of 16 years moved out to live with a boyfriend she found while he was deployed. Divorce is never a good thing. This was his first exposure to it and there was nothing he could do about it. He is not stating these events as an excuse for his actions, but it is important to know that these events had a direct impact on his thinking and emotional state. They played a very significant role in altering his state of mind at the time. f. Upon returning to the U.S. in February 2010, he started to prepare for his next duty station, a hardship tour in the Republic of Moldova. At the same time, he was finalizing his divorce. He was back overseas in less than 60 days. g. In Moldova, he served for 26 months as the Bilateral Affairs Officer (BAO), working directly with the Moldovan Ministry of Defense. The BAO position had historically been filled at the major, pay grade O-4 to colonel, pay grade O-6 level. He was the most junior officer to ever hold this posting. He worked directly with the Moldovans coordinating missions and activities for the State of North Carolina (the bilateral State partner), U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and the U.S. State Department. He briefed the U.S. Ambassador weekly and hosted U.S. delegations of the highest levels as a part of the job. His direct actions in planning and executing enabled the Moldovans to receive North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Operational Capability Concept (OCC) certification for their quick reaction battalion. This project was multi-year and involved the movement of hundreds of Moldovans and dozens of U.S. military personnel across several European countries. The result was that Moldova, for the first time, has a complete NATO ready force available to support U.S. and NATO missions anywhere. He was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal for his actions in the EUCOM. h. On the civilian side, he worked directly with various North Carolina universities to provide free medical and dental care to the citizens of Moldova. This medical mission was formulated by the Ambassador as a key component of the U.S. Country Campaign Plan. To this day, he sleeps better knowing that thousands of orphans have a better life due to his actions in coordinating their medical and dental care. His overall contributions to the Moldova - North Carolina State Partnership were recognized by his receiving The Old North State Award. i. From hosting U.S. volunteers at his house, to managing the civic assistance funding from EUCOM and coordinating to ensure that the mission goes as planned, he did what was needed and was directly responsible to the U.S. Ambassador to make sure the U.S. was well represented. His scheduled 12-month rotation back to North Carolina was extended for another year based on his performance and contributions to the mission. He is very proud to say that his actions were directly responsible for a significant increase in both military and civilian engagement in Moldova. His positive contributions were recognized by EUCOM, the U.S. State Department and bilateral partners in North Carolina. j. When he returned to the U.S., he was assigned as a deputy brigade security officer at Fort Eustis, VA. His duties involved all the related intelligence activities of a transportation brigade with units deployed across the globe. His duties were varied and real world relevant and included Army boat movements and giving command briefings. The unit lost its primary security officer. It was months before the replacement was operational. During this time, the security function completely fell on him. In 2012, the unit underwent a transformation into an Expeditionary unit and the commander wrote a memo asking to extend his tour with the unit. His work in the unit was significant and professional to the level that there was no question that he worked at the CPT level. He received the Army Commendation Medal for his service during this period. k. His current contribution in the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is documented in the very positive letter of support written by the Quality Assurance Office (QAO) Director, which was sent to the Grade Determination Board. His projects have a direct and lasting effect on the TRADOC QAO mission and will continue to benefit the Army educational and training community long after he is retired. This position was slotted at the major, pay grade O-4 level and he had no problem with performing well in all of his assigned duties and providing meaningful and significant contributions to the TRADOC QAO mission. l. He admits he was wrong in writing that statement in Iraq. He has regretted his actions every single day. He was given a GOMOR for his statement and it ended his Army career at the CPT level. He understands. However, at only 6 months into his time as a Captain, he did not let the GOMOR cloud his future actions and attitude. In fact, he worked extra hard to redeem himself and prove he was a good officer and an honorable Soldier. m. He cannot erase what he wrote in 2010. All he can say is that he is truly sorry and hopes that his actions since then show he was a good CPT. While he admits his mistake by writing that statement, he contends that the wording in the GOMOR is prejudicial. The GOMOR directly quotes him as writing "wounded in action" and "personally engaged by the enemy." He argues that he did not write that in any statement. He feels that all of the negative documentation found its way into his interactive Personnel Records Management System (iPERMS) record, but the one investigation that could exonerate him was lost. n. The GOMOR also incorrectly states that the incident happened on Joint Security Station (JSS) Deason, a secure operating base, implying a U.S. controlled facility. That is also wrong, as the incident occurred on an Iraqi compound, a non-secure facility with all U.S. high ranking officials having personal security details at all times. The incorrect wording and attribution of the GOMOR does provide a false image and a less than accurate picture of his actual statement. He takes full responsibility for what he did say, but would rather not be attributed as making quotes or statements that were not said or done by him. o. In sum, he is not asking that his past be overlooked, only that his one mistaken and regretted statement be weighed against the totality of his actions as a CPT. As he cannot produce a copy of his Company Commander's investigation and conclusions, he fully understands that he has a zero chance of reversing the GOMOR and he is not asking the Board to do so. He is only asking that the Board consider his memorandum and the letters of support from people who have nothing to gain by writing on his behalf. They chose to speak about his true service and contributions to the Army, in determining his retiring pay grade. p. He has accepted responsibility and fully understands why the GOMOR ended his career. But for that one act to be used to justify financially punishing his family for the rest of his life is not fair or just. Please do not overlook the overwhelming positive evidence of his honor and character, substantiating his proven record to accomplish the mission at the 0-3 pay grade, and higher, level. q. As a single father with two children, reducing him in retirement to the rank of O-2 pay grade will have both a devastating impact in his family's finances and does not reflect the service he did in fact provide at the CPT level. To have honorably completed 31 years in the Army, 5 years as a CPT, and have one mistake that is clearly an aberration taint all of his actions is not an accurate portrayal of him or the service he provided to the Army. He can only hope that the Board sees the merit in his cause. 3. The applicant provides the following documents: * Certificate of Naturalization, issued 23 October 1987 * DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) ending on 31 December 2009 * email communication a Force-10 member to the applicant, dated 10 February 2010 * DA Form 67-9, ending on 2 August 2010 * letter of support from a U.S. Air Force major to the Adjutant General, North Carolina, dated 10 June 2011 * DA Form 67-9, ending on 2 August 2011 * DA Form 67-9, ending on 28 May 2012 * EU Form 30-15C (Recommendation for Defense Award) dated 13 September 2012 * DD Form 2413 (Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) Certificate) dated 9 October 2012 * Memorandum for Commander, subject: Extension of Orders for the applicant, dated 10 December 2012 * DA Form 67-9, ending on 31 May 2013 * DD Form 4980-14 (Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) Certificate) dated 21 May 2014 * Memorandum for Record from the Director, TRADOC QAO, to the Grade Determination Board, dated 8 August 2014 * letter of support from a Captain, U.S. Navy Reserve, Retired, dated 2 October 2014 * Foreign award certificate issued to the applicant, not fully translated * letter of support from the Secretary of State for North Carolina, dated 31 October 2014 * letter of support from a (LTC, U.S. Army, retired and Department of the Army civilian, dated 3 November 2014 * DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) ending on 31 December 2014 * Army National Guard current Annual Statement, prepared on 2 February 2015 (5 pages) * letter of character reference from a LTC, U.S. Army, Retired, dated 4 May 2015 * DD Form 4980-12 (Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) Certificate) dated 12 May 2015 * State of North Carolina Certificate for The Old North State Award, dated 31 July 2015 * DD Form 1172-2 (Application for Identification Card/DEERS Enrollment), unsigned and undated CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 January 1984, the applicant initially entered the military service. He served in the Regular Army from 15 August 1984 to 14 August 1986. He subsequently transferred to a USAR Troop Program Unit and into the Army National Guard (ARNG), first as a unit member, and later as an Active Guard Reserve AGR member. 2. The applicant’s records show he received the following promotions and appointments: * 28 April 1998: staff sergeant, pay grade E-6 * 12 April 2005: second lieutenant (2LT), pay grade O-1 * 11 April 2007: 1LT, pay grade O-2 * 30 April 2009: CPT, pay gradeO-3 3. The applicant’s records do not contain a DA Form 67-9 covering the period January through February 2010. 4. On 22 January 2010, the Commanding General, 1st Armored Division, issued a GOMOR to the applicant, wherein he was reprimanded for misrepresenting the facts surrounding his request for award of the Combat Action Badge and Purple Heart. His conduct was described as unacceptable and disgraceful. He had disrespected the brave Soldiers who had been wounded in action or had engaged or been engaged by the enemy. 5. On 24 January 2010, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement to the GOMOR. He stated that he understood the basis for the GOMOR and requested that it not be filed in his records. He said he was truly sorry for the events that led to his receiving the GOMOR. He took full responsibility for his actions but understood he did not act with the full information available. He argued that his actions in this instance were completely out of character for him and were by no means indicative of a propensity toward these types of statements. He related how he had been a professional Soldier for over 25 years, with the first 20 years in the enlisted ranks. He vowed to never again let his inaccurate knowledge of the facts and events place him in a similar situation. He knew that the GOMOR would effectively end his career. 6. On 29 January 2010, the imposing general directed the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 7. On 24 January 2013, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the President, Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB) wherein he requested that the GOMOR dated 22 January 2010 be removed from his OMPF, or in the alternative, that it be moved to the restricted folder of his OMPF. a. He explained that he was reprimanded for deliberately misrepresenting facts to his chain of command by requesting a Combat Action Badge and a Purple Heart. b. He contended that his misrepresentation was not deliberate. He outlined the facts as he knew them to be. c. He states that a Commander’s Inquiry was conducted into this matter. He contended that the commander’s perspective of the events was based on his location in the viewing area at the parade, which did not provide any corroborating evidence. The commander was both a witness and a judge in the inquiry that ultimately led to the GOMOR. d. He related how the GOMOR negatively impacted him financially because he will have to retire prior to completing 10 years of active Federal service as a commissioned officer. e. He argued that the underlying decision as to where to file the GOMOR was suspect. He contended that the decision was based on alleged relationships within the North Carolina National Guard, which was not the proper basis for making this determination. f. He states that there was only one American, a captain, who saw the incident and corroborated his version of the facts. 8. On 2 May 2013, the DASEB considered the applicant’s request. This consideration included a detailed statement from the applicant that appeared to include every argumentative point made in this case. Furthermore, the DASEB reviewed the subject GOMOR and the applicant’s rebuttal thereto. The applicant’s entire military record was reviewed, except for the OER covering the period of the incident leading to the GOMOR which was not filed in his OMPF. The DASEB found the evidence was insufficient to justify removal or transfer of the GOMOR. 9. On 15 September 2014, the Army Grade Determination Board (AGDB) reviewed the applicant’s voluntary retirement and the grade determination request made by the National Guard Bureau (NGB). The AGDB found that if the applicant’s retirement is approved, he should be placed on the Retired List as a 1LT, O-2. His service in the rank of CPT, pay grade O-3 was determined to have been unsatisfactory. 10. Orders 288-4, NGB, dated 15 October 2014, announced the applicant’s release from active duty as a CPT effective 31 July 2015; and his placement on the Retired List as a 1LT, pay grade O-2, effective 1 August 2015. He completed 31 years, 6 months and 13 days for pay and had over 4 years of active duty enlisted service. 11. A review of the applicant’s enclosures with this case shows: a. He provided five DA Forms 67-9 covering the entire period from 1 June 2009 through 31 May 2013, except for January and February 2010. His performance was consistently rated as outstanding and his potential as best qualified. The 2 month period not rated included when he was issued the subject GOMOR. He also provided a DA Form 67-10-1 indicating that he was proficient and highly qualified for the period 1 January to 31 December 2014. b. He provided four letters and one memorandum in support of his request to retain his rank into retirement. These documents consistently attest to the applicant’s superb performance both as a former enlisted Soldier and as a commissioned officer. The authors included a retired lieutenant general, retired lieutenant colonel, and the Secretary of State for North Carolina. They recommended that he be permitted to retain his rank of CPT in retirement. c. He provided certificates indicating that he received a JSCM, MSM, ARCOM, a North Carolina State Award, and a foreign award. A review of these certificates shows that the quality of his service was recognized in many different ways and by a variety of persons and organizations. REFERENCES: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 107, provides a maximum punishment for making false official statements of 5 years of confinement and a punitive discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records by showing that he served satisfactorily in the rank of captain (CPT), pay grade O-3. 2. A careful and complete review of all available documents shows that the applicant admitted he should not have written the statement concerning his being eligible for the Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge based on the injuries he received on an Iraqi compound during a parade. He offered his apology for his error, but denied that he intended to provide misinformation about the events. 3. The evidence shows that the imposing general issued the applicant a GOMOR wherein the applicant was reprimanded for misrepresenting the facts surrounding his request for award of the Combat Action Badge and Purple Heart. The applicant contends that the wording in the GOMOR is prejudicial but has not provided any documentary evidence showing that what the general stated was in error or inappropriate. 4. Essentially, the applicant is requesting his overall excellent quality of service be balanced against his one error that resulted in his GOMOR and subsequent retirement at a lower pay grade. The evidence clearly shows that he has already received this consideration. His so called mistake was in reality a violation of the UCMJ that could have resulted in his being court-martialed and receiving 5 years of confinement and a punitive discharge. 5. The available evidence is insufficient to show that the determination by the AGDB was in error or inappropriate. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009378 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009378 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2