BOARD DATE: 24 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002227 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 BOARD DATE: 24 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002227 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. BOARD DATE: 24 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002227 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. removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 15 May 2013, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); b. reverse the decision to separate him involuntarily and reinstate him on active duty; and c. a personal appearance before the Board. 2. The applicant states: * the GOMOR was based solely on unfounded, unproven, and incorrect information at the time * his appeal memorandum and enclosures confirm the GOMOR was untrue, erroneous, and unjust * his early involuntary separation was based solely on the presence of the GOMOR in his records and untrue information that warrants reevaluation for reinstatement into the Army * he is not interested in the GOMOR being transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF, because there is no logical purpose for it being in his record * the GOMOR that is in his OMPF is the sole basis he cannot return to an active Army status, the Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard * he is also unable to apply for or obtain employment with any State or Federal agency * he desires to rejoin the active Army and continue to serve because he believes the country needs good leaders and Soldiers * Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 13-356 indicates an individual has the option to apply to the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) if an error exists regarding selection for early retirement or separation * he served almost 13 years in an active duty status; has been an outstanding Soldier, officer, and leader; and has not done anything wrong * he has always been in the top percentile of his year group of officers and is an asset to the Army or any organization * he has countless witnesses who were present at his civilian trial and traffic court hearing who can attest to his innocence and impeccable character as an officer and as a person * he communicated with a driving under the influence (DUI) expert and former Georgia police officer who can testify about the false cues reported on the field sobriety tests administered to him based on the dash camera video of the incident * the former Georgia police officer can also testify about the invalidity of the roadside breathalyzer tests * the arresting officer never read the implied consent law in the police dash camera video and improperly conducted the test * his innocence is based on an inaccurate police report or information regarding the false arrest and the "not guilty" trial results * he has exhausted all other administrative remedies before appealing to the ABCMR, short of initiating a Congressional inquiry, contacting the Secretary of Defense and/or the President of the United States, or contacting the media regarding this matter * he does not desire to involve or bother any higher organizations or authorities with this matter nor does he wish to make this incident a news story that paints the U.S. Army in a negative way unless he has no other alternative 3. The applicant summarized the events of the incident that led to the GOMOR and statements supporting his claim: * he explained he was returning home from a dinner date with a friend and had a couple of 12-ounce bottles of light beer throughout the night that were spaced out between several hours * he stated as long as someone is not over the blood alcohol content (BAC) it is not a crime to drive as long as you are not impaired * he was unfamiliar with checkpoint procedures since he had never been at a checkpoint prior to this incident * he was not intoxicated nor was he driving erratically or recklessly * he complied with the police officer's instructions and answered all of his questions in a polite and professional manner * the police officer had an unwarranted bias against him and regardless of what he said or did the police officer had decided what he wanted to do * he complied with the police officer's request to perform a field sobriety test * the arresting officer reported that his outfit was "disheveled" even though he was appropriately dressed * he was not slurring his words, staggering, being disrespectful, or being uncooperative with the officer * he provided studies performed by groups and people smarter than himself who determined there are major flaws and inaccuracies in how the tests are conducted, measured, and interpreted * the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) decision reported the results of the field sobriety tests are not pass or fail * he explained that cues are supposed to be objectively recorded from field sobriety tests and can be mentioned or explained in a trial by an arresting officer * it is inaccurate and untrue to claim he failed anything since he was ultimately found not guilty by a judge and jury in a State court * he took a portable breathalyzer test (PBT), but the officer did not explain the results to him * the PBT is not a reliable test for intoxication; it reflects positive even if a person consumed a table spoon of cough syrup or 20 bottles of alcohol * no one is constitutionally obligated to answer questions asked by a police officer during an arrest nor does anyone have to legally agree to perform a fallible and subjective field sobriety or breathalyzer test * police reports frequently get some facts wrong or misrepresent a minor fact * the police report in question does not exist anymore because of the expungement that was ordered and processed on his behalf * he does not understand why he had to take another breathalyzer test when he had taken one already * the arresting officer took him away in a police van and tried to get him to sign paperwork admitting guilt, but he did not sign the document * the arresting officer signed paperwork indicating he refused the breathalyzer; however, he was not given a chance to thoroughly read the paperwork * he was never afforded the chance to take the actual breathalyzer nor was the procedure explained to him * by law, the officer was supposed to read the Georgia Implied Consent Law to him which explains the breathalyzer, consequences for refusal, and other options * he reiterated that it is not a crime to refuse the breathalyzer even if it is read to you by an officer, but the penalty for refusing is that you can be tried in the Georgia Traffic Court if the arresting officer elects to do so and your license can be suspended for a year if found guilty * he was returned to the base about 12 hours after the incident by the Fort Gordon Military Police, he was picked up by his class leader, then taken to the impound lot to get his car * he received notification of the initiation of the GOMOR while in the Information Systems Management Course; however, his chain of command determined he should finish the course despite his administrative flag * he graduated and obtained his Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certification and retained his top secret clearance 4. The applicant discussed actions that occurred subsequent to the issuance of the GOMOR. He states: * he went to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Office following the incident, spoke with a counselor, and the counselor determined there were no alcohol or abuse issues * he took a urinalysis sample at the post hospital and sent it to his command for clarification of any misunderstanding regarding the incident * he completed the ASAP course in June 2013 and was voluntarily selected for over 60 battalion random weekly urinalysis and breathalyzer tests conducted at his unit since May 2013 * he never tested positive for any drug or alcohol substance abuse during his more than 12-year career * he completed a 30-hour State of Georgia Department of Driver Services driver education course on 3 May 2013 to refresh his understanding of Georgia driving laws * he appealed the GOMOR, but his request was denied because he had not gone to a civilian trial * he requested an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation or a Commander's Inquiry through his chain of command prior to initiation of the GOMOR for appropriate consideration of all facts and relevant information, but it was denied * his chain of command explained it was post precedent that the GOMOR be automatically imposed because he was being charged with a crime * there was no reason to doubt he was guilty of the offense unless he was found innocent at a civilian trial, but no other factors mattered except what a subjective police officer wrote on a report at the time * he appeared in preliminary traffic court in June 2013 and appealed the allegation that he refused a breathalyzer test; the arresting officer failed to request a determination hearing or suspension of his license * the arresting officer had the opportunity to request a traffic hearing at a later time if warranted, but he did not * he was never found guilty of refusing a breathalyzer test in the Georgia Traffic Court, which is the official State government entity for determining guilt, innocence, and penalties associated with the Implied Consent Law * there are differences between military law and regulations and civilian law and the three branches of government are meant to check and balance each other so that a person is not sentenced unjustly or unfairly * a person's "word," spoken or written, is not enough proof on its own to condemn a person or ruin their career and life without being proven and judged by a proper, impartial entity * if the arresting civilian officer thought he refused to take the breathalyzer test then he would have asked the judge to suspend his license; he would have had the proceedings documented and allowed the court to decide guilt or innocence * if the military thought he was guilty of refusing to take a breathalyzer test then a 15-6 investigation or at least a Commander's Inquiry should have been initiated to decide if the "accusation" was merited * his chain of command and the commanding general (CG) simply accepted the information on the initial police report as proof enough of his guilt * if he was found guilty of refusing the breathalyzer test, his license would have been suspended for 1 year and it would be clearly documented on his driving record * the evidence shows he has no suspensions or traffic offenses, including refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test or a driver's license suspension * he has provided a document explaining the Implied Consent law and what the penalties are for refusing to take a breathalyzer test * he hopes the Board members can clearly see that he was not guilty of DUI and not guilty of refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test * he discusses the statistics of people who are convicted of DUI and who are offered plea deals for a lesser charge * he was offered two plea deals and turned both down because he was not intoxicated or over the legal BAC * he was found not guilty of all charges, the entire arrest and prosecution's case is now expunged from his record, and a panel of seven jury members and a State Court judge unanimously found he had not committed a crime * he requested removal of the administrative flag initiated as a result of the GOMOR in early January 2015 and it was removed * he discussed the rules for removing a flag under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) * he was not entitled to any awards, decorations, orders, or special treatment prior to removal of the administrative flag * the DASEB indicated he had not received any awards nor attended any military schools since the imposition of the GOMOR; however, he graduated from the Information Systems Management Course 7E-53A, obtained his CISSP certification, and received the Army Commendation Medal (5th Award) subsequent to receipt of the GOMOR * he was personally selected to represent the Army and to prepare, setup, and conduct presentations to over 1,000 middle school students on "STEM" topics relevant to the Army and awarded a brigade coin for this event * he has always worked diligently, professionally, and exceptionally and his evaluations and awards reflect this information * the Richmond County Sherriff's Office, Georgia Crime Information Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other agencies are in the process of expunging the GOMOR and related information regarding his arrest and trial from their records * the State Court and Superior Court of the same jurisdiction both agreed there was no crime or offense committed 5. The applicant discussed the personal effects of the imposition of the GOMOR: * although a GOMOR is an "administrative action" and not meant to be a punishment, he is still suffering as if it is punishment, because it causes personal strife * his driving privileges on base were revoked for a year as part of the initiation of the GOMOR; he appealed the action, but the CG denied his request * the social, emotional, and psychological results of this GOMOR has caused great duress for him and a financial hardship * he has suffered socially, emotionally, psychologically, and financially as a result of the GOMOR * he has also lost close friends and colleagues due to the imposition of the GOMOR * he requested a tough assignment and worked as a Battalion S3 Battle Captain, as the Deputy S3, and he worked 12 to 14 hour days * he was diagnosed with stress-induced psoriasis, which was definitely brought on by the anxiety from the DASEB's denial of removal of the GOMOR and unfair separation from the military * this entire ordeal was unfair, embarrassing, depressing, and basically minimized a decade of flawless, faithful military service * his separation orders were not given to him until 5 days (3 working days) before his separation and the Fort Gordon transition officer denied his request to amend his separation order so that he could have ample time to clear the installation * he had to continue to come on base in uniform every day until he cleared even though he was not being paid or on active duty anymore * the transition process was poorly done 6. The applicant discussed his integrity and duty performance and referenced Georgia laws, and he states: * he provided letters of support from his supervisors, subordinates, peers, mother, sister, and step-father who can all attest to his true character, quality as a leader and person, and his innocence after watching the police video of his arrest * he requests the Board review all of the letters on his behalf, OERs, awards, certificates, and accomplishments listed in his OMPF * he discussed a report that was published by the Center for Public Integrity that showed Georgia had some of the laxest ethics rules in the country and Georgia lacks a strong ethics enforcement agency to enforce the laws on the books * it is not unreasonable to question whether the intent of the DUI roadblocks and extremely high number of arrests are for public safety or to possibly to meet quotas and generate extra revenue for the county/State (officer wages, tow truck contracts, prosecutors, attorney fees, public official salaries, etc.) * he is not insinuating there was or is any wild conspiracy prevalent in the State of Georgia, but he does believe the arresting officer in his circumstance acted and behaved in a manner not consistent with mere protecting and serving * the amendment to the Implied Consent Law published in 2006 gives law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Georgia the ability to obtain a warrant for a DUI blood test when a person is suspected of impaired driving and refuses to take a chemical test * in his final OER, his rater indicated he "Excels" for his overall performance with positive comments and the senior rater indicated he was "MOST QUALIFIED" with positive comments * his last OER and others show he is an excellent officer with no derogatory information listed * his performance and potential do not reflect that he is anywhere near the bottom 10 percent (%) of officers in his year group that deserved to be involuntarily separated * there is no other probable reason than the derogatory information listed on the GOMOR for his separation selection and the GOMOR itself is untrue, unjust, and warrants removal * he has almost 5 years of enlisted experience in military occupational specialty 74B/25B, almost 7 years' of experience as a Signal Officer, two combat deployments to Iraq, and one combat deployment to Afghanistan * he retained his top secret security clearance, was never recommended for removal from the FA53 Information Systems Management Course, and was allowed to graduate with a 96.21% grade point average after receipt of the GOMOR * he did not take a show-cause board nor were elimination proceedings recommended or initiated against him; no derogatory information other than the GOMOR exists in his record * his particular functional area, FA53 Information Systems Management, is in high demand as indicated by the recent story in the Army Times and by the 2nd Quarter, FY15 VTIP In/Out chart * the Army Reserve published a MILPER message requesting active duty transfers to help fill the many FA53 positions and he is an extremely intelligent technician with this specific skill set who would be of great benefit to the Army, Reserve, and National Guard * his Bachelor of Science degree is in Computer Science and he is now working on his Master's degree in Software Engineering 7. The applicant provides: * Explanation of Field Sobriety Tests * Email * Court Documents from Richmond County, State of Georgia * Letter from the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) * Six DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) (OER) * DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 - O-3; WO1 - CW2) OER * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * Officer Record Brief * Enlisted Record Brief * Promotion Orders Number 236-8 * Award Certificates * Training Certificates * Order and Judgement from the Superior Court of Richmond County, State of Georgia * DASEB, Record of Proceedings * Letters of Support CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant completed prior active enlisted Regular Army (RA) service from 24 July 2002 to 10 May 2007 and served in Iraq from 15 February 2004 to 15 February 2005. 3. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer and was ordered to active duty in the RA on 11 May 2007. During this period, he served in Iraq from 4 October 2008 to 12 October 2009 and in Afghanistan from 15 October 2010 to 15 October 2011. 4. He provided a Georgia Uniform Traffic Citation, Summons and Accusation, dated 27 April 2013 (court copy) showing he was arrested on this date. The arresting officer marked the boxes "DUI (Test Administered)," "Breath," and entered "Refused." The offense is listed as DUI/Alcohol/Less Safe in violation of Code Section 40-6-391(A)(1) of State Law. 5. The applicant provided five OERs for the periods ending 9 December 2008, 10 April 2009, 10 April 2010, 10 April 2011, and 15 March 2012 which show he was consistently evaluated as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote," by his raters and "Best Qualified" by his senior raters. 6. On 27 April 2013, the arresting officer completed an incident report stating, “At the date and time noted above, having reasonable grounds to believe the driver had been driving or in actual physical control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, lawfully arrested the driver for violating O.C.G.A. 40-6-391;…and I after informed the driver of his/her implied consent rights and the consequences of submitting or refusing to submit to such test the driver was asked to submit to State administered chemical testing as required by law…” The arresting officer marked the block indicating the applicant refused to submit to the designated State-administered chemical testing. The applicant did not sign the report. 7. On 15 May 2013, he received a GOMOR for refusing to take a lawfully requested test to measure the alcohol content of his breath on 27 April 2013 when there was a reasonable belief that he was DUI in Augusta, GA. The commanding general stated a trooper of the Georgia State Patrol detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant when he made contact with him while conducting an identification check. The trooper administered a series of field sobriety tests, which he failed. He was advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Notice and he refused to consent to a lawfully requested chemical test to determine his BAC. The CG stated the GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit a statement or documents in his own behalf. 8. On 28 May 2013, the applicant submitted statements in response to the GOMOR. He requested the GOMOR be filed locally or in the restricted portion of his OMPF. He stated he had served in the Army for 10 years and 10 months and completed 3 year-long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. He sought evaluation and counseling from ASAP and attended 30 hours of Drivers' Education training. He also stated: a. He accrued approximately $3,000 in civilian legal fees because of the charges against him and would possibly need to pay at least $6,000 more in legal fees and fines. b. He learned from his mistake and would never find himself in this situation again. He further stated he was always treated and evaluated in the highest regard by his senior leaders, peers, and subordinates as demonstrated in his character/recommendation, and his OERs. c. His chain of command recommended he remain in the Information Management Course even though they had become aware of the GOMOR and the charges against him. His chain of command believed he was an asset to the unit and the Army and worthy of continued military service. Even though he graduated from the Information Systems Management Course with high honors, he was unable to do the job in which he was trained. He was determined to perform exceptionally in his new position as a Battle Captain. He described himself as a moral, dedicated, and honest leader who loves the U.S. Army and desires to make this a career. 9. His chain of command recommended the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF. 10. On 29 July 2013, the CG carefully reviewed the applicant's GOMOR and his response under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). The CG directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. 11. A review of the applicant's military record shows the GOMOR and all allied documents are filed in the performance portion of his OMPF. 12. He also provided two OERs he received subsequent to the GOMOR. His OER for the period 16 March 2012 through 31 January 2014 shows he was rated as an Assistant Battalion S3. The rater evaluated him as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and the senior rater rated him as "Best Qualified" with recommendation for promotion to major and that he be allowed to go to the resident course at the Command and General Staff College (CGSC). His OER for the period 1 February 2014 through 31 January 2015 shows he was rated as an Assistant S3/Battle Captain. The rater indicated he "Excels" and his senior rater indicate he was "Most Qualified" and recommended him for promotion to major and the resident CGSC course. 13. He provided a court document that shows on 16 December 2014, the State Court of Richmond County, State of Georgia, found him "Not Guilty" of DUI. 14. His service record does not include any documentary evidence relating to his review by the separation selection board. 15. His DD Form 214 for this period of service shows, on 1 April 2015, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), by reason of early separation with an honorable discharge. 16. He provided a memorandum, dated 5 May 2015, addressed to the Deputy CG, U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Fort Sam Houston, TX in which he requested removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF. 17. On 7 May 2015, the DASEB considered the applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR or transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted portion of his OMPF and his request was denied. 18. He provided an Order and Judgment, dated 17 August 2015, from the Superior Court of Richmond County, State of Georgia expunging the criminal records pertaining to his prosecution for the offense of DUI in Georgia. 19. He provided his driving record from the Michigan Department of State Bureau of Branch Office Services for the period 3 May 2013 to 27 January 2017 that shows he had no prior additional violations of suspension/revocation or alcohol related convictions within this time frame requiring plate confiscation. 20. He provided an eyewitness statement from a friend who was with him on the night of the (DUI) incident who described in detail the events preceding and during the applicant's arrest. This eyewitness states even though the arresting officer behaved in a rude manner, the applicant complied with all of his instructions. The officer failed to provide any explanations regarding the field sobriety tests or roadside breathalyzer, and failed to read him his rights. The eyewitness described the poor conditions on the road the night of the incident, which made it difficult to conduct a fair test. Another police officer told her that the applicant passed all the sobriety tests but the breathalyzer detected a trace of alcohol in his system so he was going to jail. The eyewitness stated that she has known the applicant since 2013 and since that time the applicant has always been a mature, responsible, and careful person. Further, the eyewitness stated the applicant was not intoxicated, never exhibited any signs of intoxication, never drove recklessly, never endangered anyone, never refused to submit to a breathalyzer, and was never given the opportunity to take the breathalyzer. The eyewitness also states the police officer was more interested in attaining a high number of arrests than following proper procedures. 21. He also provided letters of support from former fellow Soldiers and family members who attested to his excellent work ethics and morals. The applicant was described as a great leader, loyal, dedicated to duty, professional, expert in his field, moral and ethical, hard-working, problem-solver, humble, and honest. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-37 prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files. a. Paragraph 3-4 applies to filing of nonpunitive administrative letters (or memoranda) of reprimand or censure in official personnel files. b. Paragraph 3-4(b) states that a letter (or memorandum), regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command only upon the order of a general officer senior to the recipient by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual. Letters (or memoranda) filed in the OMPF will be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter (or memorandum). c. Paragraph 7-2a states that once an official document is properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and 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 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. d. Paragraph 7-2b(1) states that unfavorable 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. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for refusing to take a lawfully requested breathalyzer test to measure the alcohol content of his breath on 27 April 2013 when there was a reasonable belief that he was DUI. 2. The evidence of record shows the GOMOR and allied documents were properly filed in the performance folder of his OMPF in accordance with the governing regulation. 3. By regulation, 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. 4. Although the applicant was ultimately found not guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated by a civilian jury trial, this does not change the fact that he was operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol, as he admitted. The fact that he refused to take a test to determine his BAC does not appear to be in question. This was the infraction that was the basis for the GOMOR, and that fact does not appear to have change in spite of the fact that he was ultimately found not guilty in a civilian court. 5. The applicant received an OER for the rated period 16 March 2012 through 31 January 2014; the alleged incident for which he received the GOMOR occurred during this period and is not mentioned in this report. His rater indicated he performed his duties as an Assistant Battalion S3 in an "Outstanding" manner. 6. Absent a basis for removing the GOMOR from the applicant's record, there would not be a basis for overturning his selection for early separation and returning him to active duty. 7. The Board considered the applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002227 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002227 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2