IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015356 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 a General Officer Memorandum or Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 11 October 2005, be removed from the restricted section of his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states he strongly believes the GOMOR has served its intended purpose and it is in the best interest of the Army to remove it from his OMPF. His current chain of command believes he possesses the leader attributes and potential for continued service and that he learned from the mistakes he made as a junior officer. The continued presence of the GOMOR in his file will be more difficult to overcome as he begins to complete for increasingly selective positions of responsibility in the years to come. 3. In the 10 years since his GOMOR, he has worked hard to exemplify the value and ideals of his profession. Some of his achievements include: * in May 2008, he was selected to command the only Quartermaster (QM) Company in the JFK Special Warfare Center and School * in 2012, he was selected for Key Development (KD) assignments in the 3rd Special Forces Group where he received a rare opportunity at three KD assignments: Group S-4 (logistics/supply), Group Support Battalion Support Operations Officer, and now the Group Support Battalion executive officer * in January of 2014 his current battalion commander selected him over six other candidates to command the continental U.S. based portion of their battalion (400 Soldiers) while he spent time traveling to and from their forward deployed task force * he recently completed the Joint and Combined Warfighting School for selected Joint Officers enroute to a joint assignment. He is currently assigned to a NATO organization in Turkey serving as the G4 Chief of Operations 4. His current chain of command observed enough potential in him to yield considerable time and effort engaging General (GEN) D (retired) (the imposing authority (IA)) to ask for her review of the GOMOR she imposed. 5. His mistake that he certainly caused has halted his progression to be competitive against his peers on many levels in regards to civil schooling, fellowships, and internships which the Army awards its top performers. The Army and its values and core principles are everything he believes in and stands for. He has no doubt he can compete and excel at the next level if granted this opportunity and become an even greater asset. 6. The applicant provides: * a GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005 * a memorandum, dated 24 October 2005, from the IA * two DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) * two DA Forms 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (OR -O5, CW3 -CW5) OER * a letter of endorsement, dated 17 October 2014, from Colonel (COL) W * a letter, dated 22 October 2014, from COL M to the IA * a memorandum, dated 30 October 2014, from the IA for the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) * transcripts from Webster University, St. Louis, MO * two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * Officer Record Brief (ORB) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 May 2001, he was appointed a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) with a concurrent call to active duty. He completed the QM Officer Basic Course and served in various positions within and outside the continental U.S., including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. On 2 December 2002 he was promoted to first lieutenant and on 1 November 2004, he was promoted to captain (CPT). 2. On 11 October 2005, he received a GOMOR from the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, VA for driving under the influence of alcohol. a. On 25 September 2005, he was observed swerving into oncoming traffic lanes. After a police traffic stop, the police officer detected an odor of alcohol emitting from his person. He was subsequently apprehended and transported to the Military Police Station and administered the Intoxilyzer 5000 breathalyzer test, which indicated a .11 percent blood alcohol content. b. The IA informed him that his conduct was inexcusable, demonstrated a complete disregard for Army values, and put other Soldiers and civilians at risk. He had failed to meet the standards of personal conduct that are expected of officers in the U.S. Army. The IA informed him the GOMOR was an administrative action and not punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. c. The IA advised him she was considering filing the GOMOR in his OMPF. He was advised that any matters he submitted in rebuttal, together with the recommendations from his chain of command, would be considered before the final filling decision. 3. On 11 October 2005, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit matters on his own behalf. He requested the GOMOR remain in his local file. He stated that, on the date of the incident, he had been drinking as a means of coping with some difficult family problems that had been brought to his attention the day prior. Later that day, he received a call from another officer who asked him to pick him up from the club on post because he had been drinking that night also. He stated that using the wrong judgment, he thought he was capable of driving and went to pick up the other officer. On his way back to his residence, he crossed into the wrong lane of traffic while placing a call on his cellular phone, which led to him being stopped by the military police. The applicant admitted that this was no excuse for his irresponsible behavior and stated that he took full responsibility for his actions. He expressed both remorse and regret regarding the situation and admitted that it was definitely a lack of judgment on his part entirely. 4. On 24 October 2005, after reviewing and considering the applicant's rebuttal matters, the IA directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. 5. On 1 June 2009, the Army Special Review Boards informed him the DASEB denied his request to remove the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, from his OMPF. 6. On 26 January 2010, Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20090014700 denied his application to remove the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, from his OMPF. 7. On 29 June 2010, ABCMR Docket Number AR20100014895 granted his request to move the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, to the restricted section of his OMPF based on the premise that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose. 8. On 1 June 2011, he was promoted to major (MAJ). 9. OERs for the periods 10 August 2011 - 9 August 2012, and 9 August 2012 - 10 July 2013 show his rater rated his performance as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote." His senior rater evaluated his rated his promotion potential as "Best Qualified." 10. OERs for the periods 11 July 2013 - 10 July 2014, and 11 July 2014 - 1 June 2015 show Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) comparison of the rater's profile and box check at the time the reports were processed as "EXCELS." The HQDA's comparison of the senior rater's profile and box check at the time the reports were processed was "Most Qualified." 11. He provided a letter of endorsement, dated 17 October 2014, from COL W, Commander, 3rd Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, NC to the IA. a. COL W endorsed the applicant's efforts to remove the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, from his OMPF. He believed the GOMOR the IA imposed 9 years ago had served its intended purpose. The applicant was serving under his command as the Group Support Battalion Executive Officer, receiving a rare opportunity at a third KD job after previously serving as the Group S-4 and Group Support Operations Officer. He believed the applicant must be groomed for key positions across the Army's sustainment institutions. b. COL W discussed the circumstances surrounding the GOMOR with the applicant and his battalion chain of command. The applicant's judgment is his strongest leader attribute and he believed this had much to do with the events surrounding the GOMOR imposed so many years ago. COL W stated "We owe our Soldiers the absolute best leaders the Army has to offer." He believed the applicant was one of these officers and thus the reason he asked that the IA sign the applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF. 12. He provided a letter, dated 22 October 2014, from COL M, Commander 406th Army Field Support Brigade to the IA. a. COL M stated he did not know the exact circumstances that had cast the applicant in an unfavorable light. He states unhesitatingly the applicant was the finest field grade officer he had worked with to date. In terms that matter, professionalism, dedication to mission, upholding standard and personal sacrifice, the applicant stands at the very top. This is known by all who know him. b. He consistently relied upon the applicant's leadership, functional expertise, and wise counsel. The applicant supported him, as well as any commissioned officer in his charge, and he had guarded him against peril, personally and professionally many times. c. The applicant's tireless work and sacrifice to our nation's Special Mission Units will always be remembered by the men and women he supported. No one served better and no one cared for Soldiers or their families better. 13. He provided a memorandum, dated 30 October 2014, from the IA to the DASEB. a. The IA strongly recommended the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, she filed in the applicant's OMPF be removed. b. The IA reviewed the applicant's performance since her filing of the GOMOR and it was clear to her the reprimand had served its intended purpose. Over the last 9 years the applicant had continued to soldier and lead on with distinction. He has been identified as a stand out among his peers and a top candidate for battalion command. c. The IA was convinced the applicant possessed the moral courage, judgment, and leader attributes Soldiers require, and she believed he would continue to lead in a values-based and disciplined manner. She believed he possesses the potential for increased responsibility, leading Soldiers, and serving in key positions across sustainment institutions. 14. On 20 December 2014, he was awarded a Master of Business Administration degree by Webster University, St Louis, MO. 15. On 12 March 2015, the Army Review Boards Agency informed him the DASEB denied his request to remove the GOMOR, dated 11 October 2005, from the restricted portion of his OMPF. 16. On 22 April 2015, he successfully completed the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer Course. 17. On 28 August 2015, he successfully completed the Joint and Combined Warfighting School. 18. 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 * ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files * ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files 19. Army Regulation 600-7 states that unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity. These traits must be identified early and shown in permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making decisions that may result in selecting Soldiers for positions of public trust and responsibility, or vesting such persons with authority over others. Other unfavorable character traits of a permanent nature should be similarly recorded. a. Once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, 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 OMPF. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. b. Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted section of the OMPF. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR from the restricted section of his OMPF was carefully considered. 2. The evidence indicates the information contained in the GOMOR is accurate and that the GOMOR was properly imposed in compliance with applicable regulations and was properly filed in the performance section his OMPF. 3. Once the GOMOR was filed in his OMPF, it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 4. One of the purposes of permanently filing a GOMOR is to alert personnel managers and selection board members of an individual's substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity; and for use in making such personnel decisions that may result in selecting Soldiers for positions of public trust and responsibility, or vesting such persons with authority over others. 5. The ABCMR decision on 29 June 2010 to move the GOMOR from the performance section to the restricted section of his OMPF was based on the premise that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose. The removal in its entirety would unjustly serve those officers who serve without ever having received a GOMOR. 6. The OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. 7. It is acknowledged the applicant has continued to honorably serve and without incident. Since the GOMOR was moved to the restricted section of his OMPF he was promoted to MAJ. Nevertheless, the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records. The fact that the GOMOR may affect future promotions or future assignments is a natural outcome of his behavior/performance. There is a reluctance to remove adverse information from an OMPF when it was not erroneously filed. 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) AR20150015356 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015356 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1