BOARD DATE: 30 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012690 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: 30 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012690 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: 30 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012690 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. On remand from a United States District Court, the Board will reconsider the applicant’s request that a 26 May 2009 general officer memorandum of reprimand from a (GOMOR) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or, in the alternative, transferred from his OMPF performance folder to his restricted folder. The GOMOR states that it was given to the applicant for fraudulently purchasing a bachelor’s and a master’s degree and submitting them for inclusion in his OMPF. 2. The applicant defers to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant’s 26 May 2009 GOMOR be removed from his OMPF, that his Qualitative Management Program (QMP) retirement of 2017 be revoked, and that he be reconsidered for promotion to E9, or, in the alternative, that the GOMOR be transferred from his OMPF performance file to his restricted file. 2. Counsel submits a 3-page executive summary of his 15-page petition which references the evidence documents listed in paragraph 3 below. The executive summary states: a. The applicant requests reconsideration of removal from his OMPF of his GOMOR received in 2009 for unintended involvement with a diploma mill scam. Key points of evidence are: (1) Lifetime learning and modern on-line education are heartily endorsed by the Army. (2) A fraudulent St. Regis University (SRU) bilked numerous innocent students like the applicant. (3) The applicant persisted in impressive service as a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO). (4) A state of the art lie detector test taken by the applicant corroborates his innocence. (5) Equitably, the harsh reprimand surely has served its purpose. b. Facts: The applicant received a GOMOR in May 2009 for supposedly obtaining university degrees online from SRU, then presented them to be filed in his OMPF. A Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) legal review of the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) report found no intentional wrongdoing; it recommended no action and his general officer wrote "concur." The CID report failed to respond to legal review concerns. Later, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seemingly reasoned that prior experience should have warned the applicant that something was amiss. c. There are seven reasons for redress and proofs that the applicant should be exonerated: (1) Life experience qualifies adults for a genuine degree; much modern education takes place online and off-campus. Considerable credit is awarded for knowledge gained through adult lifetime work. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, older students of 25 years of age or more comprise almost 40% of the undergraduate population. Their knowledge is often non-academic, based on real-world experience. Armed with a healthy ambition, these adults seek a better life via inexpensive, competitive degrees. In response, many respectable and fully-accredited universities award credit for their professional know-how. In a tough economy, this makes sense to both the institution and the student. (2) The applicant was getting an advanced education, just as the Army wanted. The military aggressively encourages online learning. The U.S. Congress supports Soldiers' academic efforts with huge appropriations. (3) SRU was an extremely sophisticated hoax, cheating individuals out of an estimated $1 billion dollars. The CID reported that the SRU schemes and associated documents would have sufficiently deceived the vast majority of government officials under prior vetting procedures. SRU fooled many, even doctors and lawyers at the Department of Justice who obtained SRU degrees. The CID produced a final report on SRU under the title "Operation Gold Seal." CID revealed that over 8,000 individuals purchased the fraudulent degrees from SRU, including 340 Federal employees and contractors. The SRU scam was massive, involving use of legitimate university seals, fake notarized documents, manipulation of the names and reputations of real organizations, and bribery of foreign government officials and private accrediting bodies, all to falsely support SRU degrees as legitimate. The CID file labels the SRU’s website "sophisticated" which linked SRU to a variety of authentic organizations, which would attest to the legitimacy of the school and the degrees and provide the false appearance of being genuine. (4) The applicant is a man of fine character who would not scam the Army. (5) A state-of-the-art Axciton polygraph test proves that he had no knowledge that his SRU degrees were counterfeit. The applicant believed the degrees from SRU were legitimate and he did not know they were bogus when he applied for the degrees. (6) A Hispanic with English as a second language, the applicant trusted what he read about SRU. (7) The GOMOR surely has served its purpose. d. Five important considerations: (1) It is virtually impossible to tell if online courses might be phony. (2) SRU fooled many well-intentioned people. Consider 16 listed universities: Which are fake? Columbia Southern University (military-friendly online degrees) American Military University (more than 90 online degrees from cybersecurity to transportation and logistics) Kaplan University (degrees online) Ameritech University + Columbia College (online) Pan America University (online) + Brownard College (online education accepting credit for military experience) James Monroe University + All Saints University + Central Michigan University (online) Trident University (100% online) California University of Pennsylvania (flexibility online instruction) New Manhattan University + West Coast University + Hampton Bay + University of Maryland University College (innovative online educational programs) Waldorf College (online) Those marked with a (+) are unaccredited schools and were all part of the SRU scam. (3) SRU’s faculty appeared legitimate from their educational biographies. (4) A "perfect" scheme -- to this day, some refuse to believe SRU was a con game. (5) The Army encourages its members to seek advanced education. d. Important questions: (1) What did the applicant know about SRU? (2) What is his history of taking advanced degree courses? f. The applicant provided answers to the following questions: Question: When did you first hear about SRU? Answer: In the late 1990s. I thought they were legitimate -- and their counselors and points of contact seemed knowledgeable and upfront. Question: How did it work? Answer: I contacted them online. I had to send previous college transcripts, together with previous college credits. I had about 70 to 75 credits. I also sent Army correspondence courses, the military schools I attended, Army training transcripts, other civilian certificates and training documents, and some additional certificates. I submitted a few essays to St. Regis and took a few online tests with them. Question: Where were they located, if you know? Answer: Some of the documents showed their campus was in Georgia. Again, the name, website, and staff made it all sound legitimate. Question: Do you have any of the e-mail messages back and forth to SRU? Answer: I do not have them except for copies of some of the documents and certificates I first sent to SRU. After I found out SRU was a scam, I became very frustrated. I closed up the email, and I do not have that account anymore. I don't know of any way to retrieve that material. It has been almost seven years since then. Question: One of your attachments is a blog-type discussion about SRU; where did you get that? Answer: After the CID contacted me, I first realized I had been taken for a ride. I was angry. So I went online and searched all about SRU. People were beginning to recognize that SRU was a conspiracy. Some people said it was a confidence game. Plenty of people were still supporting SRU as absolutely legitimate. Question: Why did you get a degree in biology when you did not do well in prior biology courses? Answer: My counselor strongly suggested it at the time. My thought was liberal arts, but he was really convincing that taking a biology course three times in the past qualified me. Question: Has education played an important role in your life? Answer: Yes. I have about 90 college credits. My mother instilled in me to have education in my life. My education was not the best back in Puerto Rico, but I never quit. I attended several college campuses in Puerto Rico (Universidad Interamericana campuses at Fajardo, Bayamon, and Metro; and Universidad del Turabo in Caguas, Puerto Rico). I didn't stop my efforts when moved to the continental United States. I attended community colleges in New York City (Bronx Community College and Kingsborough Community College). I took all kind of courses, from music to biology, and basic college courses such as English. It's all in my transcripts. When I was first in the Army, I could not enroll in education classes prior to being an E-4. I was in combat arms so training and deployments kept me out of the classroom. Question: There seems to be something in your file suggesting you wanted to get an advanced degree from a law school through SRU? Answer: That is incorrect. I wanted to take some courses in criminal justice, and already had about 40 or more credits from a paralegal course I took at the Universidad del Turabo in Puerto Rico. Question: What did you do when you realized SRU was a scam? Answer: Once I realized that SRU was a scam, I took the initiative on my own to remove the diplomas from my records. The ABCMR approved the removal, and the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) removed the education level from my Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). g. Conclusion (1) Online degrees are a legitimate part of modem higher education. (2) SRU fooled everyone, even the Department of Justice lawyers who got degrees. (3) A state-of-the-art lie detector polygraph test proved that there was no deception on the part of the applicant. (4) Even Army "experts" did not realize SRU was a scam when they put the SRU degrees in the applicant’s records. Nobody warned the applicant or refused to accept his degrees. The HRC conceded that people may have been "dumb" rather than intentional wrongdoers. (5) He has proven good character and is backed by his chain of command. He lives the Army values. (6) Despite this hiccup, he was promoted to master sergeant (MSG). (7) The SJA review of the CID report, with concur marked by the general officer, found no fault in the applicant. (8) The applicant’s Hispanic heritage suggests that he was more vulnerable to this hoax than one for whom English is their "first" language. (9) This reprimand has served its purpose and should be eliminated from the applicant’s record. h. In the 15-page petition, paragraphs 12 through 30, the counsel contends, in effect, that because the applicant’s commander accepted the CID final report on 16 December 2008, and because the commanding general lifted the flag on the applicant’s records on 11 February 2009 which allowed the applicant to be promoted to MSG on 17 February 2009, and because the applicant received fully successful NCOERs during this period 30 September 2008 through 12 July 2009 with no mention of the issue of the fraudulent SRU degrees, that the commanding general (CG) was bound by his favorable decisions and therefore barred from issuing a GOMOR on 26 May 2009, making it unjust and improper. 3. Counsel provides the following evidence as tabs “A” through “W.” Items marked with an asterisk (*) were previously considered by the ABCMR in case AR20100021648 on 8 March 2011. a. TAB A – online article, “Life Experience for College Credit,” Gale Encyclopedia of Education, undated. Key points – granting college credit for life experience and learning outside the classroom is controversial; the American Council on Education (ACE) has worked with the military to identify military education and training eligible for civilian education credits; a number of other entities have procedures and assessment standards for awarding credit for non-college learning; the institutions granting credit should grant only for the learning that accompanies the life experience, not for the experience. b. TAB B: – online article, “CLEP College Credit for Life Experience,” by Chris Diehl, 5 March 2009. Key points – CLEP (College-Level Examination Program) provides tests that when passed grant college credit based on knowledge learned through professional experience, independent study, etc. - online article, “Get Credit for What You Know; More Institutions Let Adults Use Life Experience Toward College Degree,” by Elyse Ashburn, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 22 July 2011. c. TAB C – online article, “Turning Life Experience Into College Credit,” by Rachel Aviv, The New York Times, 30 October 2008. Advertisements to earn college credit for life experience aren’t necessarily the mark of a diploma mill. Many accredited continuing education programs award credit for prior learning and knowledge acquired. Students submit portfolios with documentation of their experiences and essays synthesizing what they have learned. The application process may take several months and require multiple meetings with academic advisors, and convincing writing skills are essential. Students take a mandatory six-credit course to develop their applications and essays. At James Madison University in Virginia, more than a third of the students receive degrees through this program. d. TAB D – online article, “A BA in Burger Flipping: Is College Credit in Exchange for Life Experience a Fair Trade?,” contributor J. Maureen Henderson, Forbes, 27 February 2013. The life experience for college credit deal has long been associated with scammy online offers and predatory for-profit institutions, but competency-based education has also been offered by credible colleges. Learning must be documented by some reliable assessment technique. e. TAB E – (*) memorandum, U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, 16 December 2008, subject: CID Report of Investigation – Final (C) – 0013-2008-CIDC253-41373 – 8F5 / 8L7 / 8L1C / 5M3C / 5 X1. Previously considered in applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR201000021648 on 8 March 2011. f. TAB F: – advertisement from Stetson Law School for an online course for a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Advocacy degree. - news article, “Rice Debuts Free Online Advancement Placement Course on the edX Website,” by Nick Anderson, The Washington Post, 21 October 2014. Rice University launched a website to bring biology college level courses to Advanced Placement high school students. The course consists of four online segments followed by an exam. g. TAB G – news article, “U-Va. Embraces the Online Lecture Model,” by Nick Anderson, news source and date not given. Poor quality reproduction – mostly unreadable. Appears to be about taking online courses. h. TAB H: – article, “Partial Online Degree Programs and Premed Programs, Harvard Extension,” no source or date given. Pursue a Harvard part-time degree through a combination of online and on-campus courses in undergraduate and graduate programs. - article, “Open Yale Course; Listening to Music with Craig Wright,” no source or date given. Yale open courses are free but provide no credit, degree, or certificate. i. TAB I: – article, “College Credit for Military Service,” U. S. Army Human Resources Command Website, 28 January 2014. ACE evaluates the Army’s training courses and military occupational specialties and publishes recommendations for the type and amount of college credit in the ACE “Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services.” - article, “Credit for Service,” by Paul Fain, 19 September 2013. Seven Midwest states banded together the help student veterans earn college credit for the training and experience they receive in the U. S. Military. They use the ACE recommendations. - online article, “College Credit for Military Service and Experience,” by Military Benefits, 28 January 2014. Active-duty and Veterans can receive college credit for military service based on ACE recommendations. Typically, very few credits apply toward core requirements, or upper level course work. j. TAB J – online article, “Translating Military Training Into College Credits,” by Adrienne Lu, USA Today, 27 September 2013. Service members can get college credit for their military training and experience. More than 2,300 schools rely on ACE recommendations for credit. Some schools have set up their own courses or evaluations to determine credit for military training and experience. k. TAB K – online article, “Seven State Coalition Pushes for More Information About Military Credit rec…,” insidehigheed.com website, 28 January 2014. Seven state coalition asks ACE and the Pentagon to open their books on military credit recommendations for military training and experience. l. TAB L – article, “5,000 Certifications Offered Through ‘COOL’ Website,” by Mark D. Faram, Military Times, no date given. Website shows how more than 5,000 civilian certifications and licenses are related to Navy training and experience. m. TAB M: – article, “Traditional Schools Embrace Online Learning,” by George Atlman, Military times, date not given. “Best for Vets” publication indicates that a number of colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in general studies in 50 different concentrations through online courses. - article, “Credits for Training May Not Get You Closer to a Degree,” by George Altman, Best for Vets, date not given. If a school accepts a year or two worth of academic credit based on military experience does not generally mean the Soldier or Veteran will get their degree quicker. “The advice I give to Soldier is: If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Anything worth having, …you have to work for.” If a school offers to substantially trim time to get a degree based on unrelated military experience, beware. - online article, “College Credit for Military Experience,” OhioHigherEd website, no date provided. Ohio colleges accept ACE credit recommendations and College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) test results. - online article, “Transfer Credit for Military Training and Experience,” University of Texas (UT) at Austin website, 28 January 2014. The University of Texas at Austin accepts ACE credit recommendations but have only limited or no UT degree applicability. - online article, “Complete Your Degree Online,” American Public University (APU), no date given. APU students were able to receive credit due to their previous college experience, military service, and other prior learning for associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees. - online article, “Online Education: Be Flexible but Disciplined,” by Mario Matus, Army Times, date not given. Advice on how to successfully take online college courses. - online article, “Welcome to University of Wisconsin (WU) -Platteville Online,” University of Wisconsin-Platteville website, date no given. WU-Platteville offers online courses for bachelor’s and master’s degrees. n. TAB N: – advertisement, California University of Pennsylvania, Air Force Time, 12 May 2014, offering online undergraduate and graduate courses for military students. - advertisement, Waldorf College, Airforce Times, 24 February 2014, offering the reader to earn a degree online. - advertisement, Columbia Southern University, Air Force Times, 17 February 2014, offering online programs for associate, bachelor, master and doctorate degree programs. - advertisement, University of Maryland University College, Air Force Times, no date shown, offering online educational programs for bachelor’s and master’s degrees in cybersecurity. - advertisement, Trident University, no source or date given, offering a Bachelor of Science in Leadership and a Master of Science in Leadership. - advertisement, Central Michigan University’s Global Campus, no source or date given, offering online courses for military personnel. - advertisement, Columbia College, Army Times, 12 May 2014, offering online education for military students. - advertisement, Broward College, Navy Times, 16 December 2013, offering online education for military members. o. TAB O – online article, “Saint Regis University (SRU),” Wikipedia, 21 February 2013. Article states that SRU was a diploma mill operation that was one of about 120 connected institutions operated by an American fraud ring from about 1999 until 2005, when it was shut down by U. S. government authorities. Article provides background information on SRU. It reports that several members of the New York City Fire Department had used degrees from SRU to qualify for promotion for which they received disciplinary actions. p. TAB P: – applicant documents consisting of military course completion certificates, college transcripts, ACE credit recommendations, military award certificates, military evaluations, and an applicant list of accomplishments. - synopsis of the applicant’s accomplishments in the military from 1 October 2007 to 12 July 2013. - letter of appreciation from a lieutenant general for the applicants assistance an driving support. - NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOER) from 1 October 2007 to 12 September 2014 all rated “Among the Best,” successful performance level 1, and overall potential form promotion superior level 1. - award orders and certificates for Good Conduct Medal (4th and 5th Awards from 14 July 2007 through 13 July 2013), Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Meritorious Service Medal for the period 13 July 2009 through 22 September 2013, and Army Achievement Medal for the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011. - (*) DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 2 August 2013, showing that he exceeded course standards and was the honor graduate in completing 79V (Army Reserve Career Counselor) Senior Leaders Course resident course, with certificate. - (*) DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 4 October 1992, showing that he achieved course standards in Drill Sergeant School resident course, with certificate. - (*) DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 22 June 1989, showing that he achieved course standards in the Platoon Leadership Development Class (PLDC) resident course. - (*) DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 11 October 1990, showing that he achieved course standards in the Basic NCO resident course. - (*) DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 1 September 2000, showing that he achieved course standards in the Reserve Component 3 (RC3) Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) Phase 1 Class resident course. - (*) Army Training Certificates for training completion in Master Resilience Trainer Course, 4 April 2014; Army Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Reserve Component Retirement Services Officer Certification Course, 20 December 2012; Structured Self-Development Course, Levels 3 (29 June 2013) and 4 (30 September 2012); Smart Force-Internet Courses – Microsoft Office 2000, 12 March 2001; USAR Retention and Transition NCO Course, 19 April 2002; Army Recruiter Course, 20 April 2001; and Headstart and Equal Opportunity, 30 December 1988. - Certificate of Completion from American Preparatory Institute, Killeen, Texas, for Basic Skill Education Program (BSEP) II – Reading, Math and English, 18 December 1987. - transcript, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico, 3 credits for Introduction Computer Science class as an undergraduate in computer science where it also shows that he has 24 total credits. - (*) transcript, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico, 12 credits for Level I and II College Spanish. - transcript, Universidad del Turado, 3 credit hours for Correctional System of Puerto Rico class in a Paralegal Investigator major for a technical certificate. - (*) transcript, Universidad del Turado, 30 credit hours in a technical certification program in classes for Civil Rights of Puerto Rico, Human Relations, Writing Report Techniques, Social of Deviance, Social Research Techniques, Evidence, Criminal Investigation Techniques, Penal Rights, Case Preparation and Testimony, and Practicum. - (*) transcript, Kingsborough Community College, 3 credits for General Psychology class. - (*) transcript, Bronx Community College, 8 credits for elementary Algebra, Beginning Piano, Orientation, and College Reading classes, where it shows his major concentration was Performing Arts – Music. - (*) transcript, institution not identified, course level: undergraduate, 8 hour credits transferred from two other colleges, and 28 earned hours for classes in Weight Control, Spanish Language, Writing and Composition, Historical Process of Puerto Rico, Individual and Christian Faith, Contemporary Society and Culture, one class of Modern Biology in which he got a D grade, and one class in Modern Biology II in which he got an F grade. The transcript also shows that he attempted to take Modern Biology II again but withdrew from the class. - (*) transcript, CLEP Exam, College Spanish Levels I and II. - (*) transcripts, ACE, successively 6 January 1994, 19 December 1997, (*) 23 August 2002, and 27 August 2004. ABCMR considered the 23 August 2002 ACE transcript which contained most of the ACE recommended credits listed below. The last ACE transcript includes information from the prior two transcripts and shows that ACE recommends the following cumulative baccalaureate/associate degree college semester hour credits considering his military training and experience in artillery, recruiting and retention, and NCO training: 1 - Personal Physical Conditioning 1 – Outdoor Skills Practicum 1 – Marksmanship 2 – First Aid 1 – Military Science 1 – Map Reading 2 – Map Reading and Land Navigation 3 – Mechanical Maintenance 3 – Field Experience, Electromechanical/Hydraulic Maintenance 2 – Hydraulic/Electromechanical Systems Troubleshooting 4 – Applied Mathematics 6 – Audiovisual Techniques 1 – Fundamentals of Communication 3 – Oral Communication 12 – Public Speaking 5 – Communications Systems Operation 3 – Business Interpersonal Communication 3 – Technical Report Writing 4 – Publicity Release Writing 1 – Computer Familiarization 2 – Computer Application 13 – Record Keeping 3 – Records Management 6 – Office Procedures 11 – Social Psychology 3 – Human Relations 3 – Human Resources Management 3 – Work Force Management 3 – Management 3 – Personnel Management 6 – Personnel Supervision 6 – Principles of Supervision 5 – Interview Techniques 10 – Vocational Counseling 2 – Field Experience in Counseling 3 – Selling or Marketing 12 – Marketing Techniques 6 – Field Experience in Marketing 2 – Principles of Advertising 6 – Advertising Media - DD Form 2586 (Verification of Military Experience and Training), issued 1 March 1993, which provided a narrative explanation of job skills and experience the applicant acquired while on active duty in the Army from May 1989 to March 1993 that might have application to employment in the private sector. - (*) unidentified form showing enrollment year ending date of 11 May 1990 with a number of Army correspondence military subject courses totaling 101 Army correspondence credit hours. r. TAB Q – letter, Personal Investigations, Inc., 10 May 2014, subject: polygraph examination of the applicant. Using an Axciton Polygraph System test used by several government agencies, the polygraph examiner determined that the applicant exhibit no deception in his answers that he believed the degrees from SRU were legitimate and he did not know they were bogus when he applied for the degrees. Three evaluation methods used by the investigation company to evaluate the polygraph test results. Two methods concluded “Probable No Deception” and one concluded “No Deception.” s. TAB R: – memoranda of recommendation: - memorandum, Army Reserve Careers Division (ARCD), 17 December 2014, subject: Character Memorandum for (the applicant). The signatory, the colonel (COL) commander of the ARCD, states that he has known the applicant for 3 years, that he was one of his top leaders and best performers. He states that he witnessed no character issues or concerns with the applicant. The COL states that he believes the unfortunate incident of the false diplomas perpetrated by a disingenuous diploma mill negatively impacted the applicant and many other Department of Defense (DoD) service members. - memorandum, U. S. Army War College and Carlisle Barracks, 20 November 2014, subject: Supporting Statement for (the applicant) Regarding Department of the Army Notification for Potential Denial of Continued Active Duty Service. The signatory, COL director of the Department of Distance Learning, requests consideration of removal of the applicant’s General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) so that the applicant can be retained in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) service. He contends that the applicant was a victim of the SRU online scam. He states that the applicant had a track record of solid performance and leadership. - memorandum, Army Reserve Careers Division (ARCD), 25 November 2014, subject: Letter of Character for (the applicant). The signatory, a Government Service-15 (GS-15) deputy commander (ARCD), states that the applicant is an NCO of the highest moral standards, integrity, and has the character traits of a true professional. He would chose the applicant for Sergeant Major (SGM). - memorandum, 1st Battalion, Department of the Army Reserve Careers Division (ARCD), 29 November 2014, subject: Letter of Character for (the applicant). The signatory, lieutenant colonel (LTC) Cdr, states that the applicant has proven himself to be a NCO of integrity and loyalty. He requests that the applicant be given every consideration to continue service in the U. S. Army Reserve. - memorandum, 1st Battalion, Department of the Army Reserve Careers Division (ARCD), 30 April 2014, subject: Supporting Statement for (the applicant) Regarding Department of the Army Notification for Potential Denial of Continued Active Duty Service. The signatory, SGM of 1st Battalion ARCD, requests consideration of removal of the applicant’s GOMOR so that the applicant can be retained in the AGR service. He contends that the applicant was a victim of the SRU online scam. He states that the tragedy should not negatively impact an otherwise decorated career causing the loss of a senior leader of such high caliber. - memorandum, SGM, U. S. Army Retired, 24 November 2014, subject: Correction of Military Record for (the applicant). The SGM states that the applicant’s character is unquestionable and recommends that he be retained on active duty. s. TAB S: – (*) documents related to the applicant’s GOMOR: - (*) DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG), 7 May 2008, imposing an adverse action flag on the applicant’s records and personnel actions effective 6 May 2008. - (*) decision memorandum, Headquarters, 1st Mission Support Command (MSC), Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, AFRC-CPR-JA, 27 October 2008, subject: Legal Review – CID Investigation of (the applicant) referencing a 31 July 2008 CID report. He states that the CID investigation concludes that the degrees in question were false, that the applicant knew they were false, and that misconduct was committed when he submitted the degrees for insertion in his military records. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) also states that the applicant is equally a victim of the SRU scam as opposed to committing a fraud by have bought the undeserved degrees. The SJA recommended no punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that the improper degrees be removed from his military records. The CG to whom the decision memorandum was addressed concurred with his signature. - (*) letter, Deliz Legal Office, Puerto Rico, 30 January 2009. The letter lists the documents that the applicant submitted to the SRU and the sequence of events that lead to SRU degrees. He contends that the applicant was duped. - (*) college transcripts and ACE documents that are also presented in TAB P above. - (*) DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG), 12 February 2009, removing the imposed flag effective 11 February 2009, case closed favorably. - (*) orders, HRC, AHRC-PRO, 17 February 2009, promoting the applicant to MSG E-8 in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) AGR program. - (*) memorandum, from the applicant to HRC, 27 April 2009, subject: Removal of Documents from Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (iPERMS), and the Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). The applicant states that the SRU bachelor’s and master’s degrees are no longer relevant and are obsolete, and requests that they be removed from his military records. - (*) email, HRC Military Records Prepotency and iPERMS Support, undated, subject: Document Removal. The email informs that applicant that HRC can only remove documents directed by the Army Review Boards Agency. - (*) online application to the ABCMR submitted 8 July 2009 which resulted in ABCMR case AR20090011726 which issued a decision to remove the applicant’s SRU degrees from his OMPF and remove the related information from his ERB. - (*) memorandum, Headquarters, 1st MSC, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, ARRC-CPR-CG, 26 May 2009, subject: Letter of Reprimand. The GOMOR was imposed based on the findings of the CID report that the applicant submitted degrees from SRU, known to him to be false, to HRC to be included in his personnel record. The CG states the GOMOR is administrative and not a punishment under UCMJ. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 28 May 2009. - (*) memorandum, Deliz Legal Office, Puerto Rico, 1 June 2009, subject: Response to Letter of Reprimand, dated 26 May 2009, (for the applicant). His attorney asked that the GOMOR not be filed in the applicant’s military personnel records. He stated that the SRU offer of degrees seemed too good to be true, but from the applicant’s perspective, it had to be true, if not, why would SRU advertise on the internet with such a claim. The applicant sent the degrees to be placed in him military records, not because he believed them to be fraudulent, but because he actually believed them to be on the level. The applicant’s lack of sophistication in this matter made him vulnerable to the scam. He did not know them to be false. He did not intend to commit fraud. - letter, Army Review Boards Agency, 17 March 2010, informing that applicant that his records had been corrected according to the ABCMR case AR20090011726 decision to remove his SRU degrees from his military record. - memorandum, HRC, AHRC-EPO-R, 9 March 2010, subject: (The applicant), informing the applicant that his SRU degrees had been removed from his OMPF and ERB. t. TAB T – a list of the SRU faculty showing their credentials. u. TAB U – printout of Classic Collee Confidential Discussion Forum comments concerning SRU degrees showing entries between 2 February 2003 and 23 March 2003 by various commentators discussing pros and cons of SRU and its degrees. Some questioned SRU legitimacy and some defended it. v. TAB V: – a blog, “the Damaging Degree” by Steve Davidson, 29 November 2010. The blog reports the story of medical doctor who purchased a Doctor of Philosophy in Medical and Healthcare Education degree from SRU. The doctor conducted a number of investigations into SRU and concluded it was legitimate only to find out later it had been a scam. - news article, “U. S. Army Eyeing Fake Diplomas,” by Jim Camden, The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Washington), 16 May 2009. The article reports that the Army investigated Soldiers who bought degrees from SRU. As of that date, HRC had identified 25 Soldiers in the Army, National Guard, or Army Reserve who face discipline because they bought fake degrees and used them to secure promotions. Each case would be further investigated by the Soldier’s command to see what action was warranted. Some Soldiers supplied SRU with transcripts from several other schools, along with a work history, and legitimately thought they were earning a degree. Not everybody is corrupt. Some may have just been dumb. w. TAB W: – ABCMR case AR20100021648, dated 8 March 2011, denying the applicant’s request to remove the GOMOR on this subject from his OMPF finding no evidence presented that demonstrated the existence of a probable error or injustice. - letter, ABCMR, 17 March 2015, to the applicant denying his 9 February 2015 request for reconsideration of the AR20100021648 case. x. TAB XYZ – memorandum, HRC, AHRC-EPF-M, 17 April 2014, subject: Department of the Army Notification for Potential Denial of Continued Active Duty Service under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). The memorandum informed the applicant that he would be considered for separation from the Army under the QMP program due to the GOMOR in his record dated 26 May 2009. The applicant responded on 2 May 2014 that he elected to voluntarily retire and forego the QMP review of his records. 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 BCMR in Docket Number AR201000021648 on 8 March 2011. 2. The applicant was assigned to the 1st MSC, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, as a sergeant first class (SFC) AGR Army Reserve Career Counselor from 2003 through 2009. 3. On or around 12 June 2003, the applicant paid SRU $1,300 for two degrees, a Bachelor of Science in Biology which he requested be backdated to 1997 and Master of Arts in Marketing which he requested be backdated to 2000. The applicant had provided SRU the documents in TAB P in support of these two degrees. On 24 July 2003, the applicant submitted these two degrees to the Army to be included in his OMPF. His ERB was also posted with these two degrees. 3. In August 2004, information was received by the Washington State Attorney General's Office about a diploma mill producing fraudulent degrees under the name of Saint Regis University (SRU) in Spokane, WA. After several months of investigation, the Attorney General's Office presented the case to U. S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Washington. A case was opened with the lead agency as the U. S. Secret Service. A task force was formed comprised of Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Protective Service, U.S. Postal Inspectors, as well as state and local law enforcement. They investigated the SRU diploma mill exposing a network of integrated illegitimate operations. Over 8,000 suspected buyers of bogus degrees were identified, but evidence indicated that as many as 10,000 may have purchased the bogus degrees. 4. A large number of the suspected buyer’s identifying information was submitted to the U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Subsequent review of the data identified 340 federal employees and contractors among the suspected buyers. Some federal employees successfully used the fictitious degrees to secure employment and promotions. Official transcripts were also falsely authenticated for initial appointment, background investigations, and issuance of security clearances. 5. The SRU schemes were the production of counterfeit documents; affixing legitimate seals found on the internet; affixing apostilles and notarizations with no legal association to the primary documents; manipulating the names of known organizations; affixing a litany of different entities attesting to the accreditation or equivalency of the fake university or college; and finally, bribing officials in foreign governments and private accrediting bodies to falsely attest to the legitimacy of the degrees. The schemes and associated documents would have sufficiently deceived the vast majority of government officials under prior vetting procedures. Eight SRU operators were indicted, and seven pled guilty. On 5 Aug 08, the founder of SRU was sentenced to 36 months confinement in federal prison followed by a 3 year probation period and forfeiture of $500,000 in seized cash, along with other assets. 6. In 2008, CID began an investigation of Soldiers who obtained fraudulent degrees through internet web based companies. The investigation, after reviewing the applicant’s military records, identified that applicant as having requested and purchased from SRU in 2003 a Bachelor of Science in Biology degree backdated to 1997 and Master of Arts in Marketing degree backdated to 2000 and submitted both on 24 July 2003 to the Army to be added to his OMPF. 7. On 16 April 2008, the CID investigating agent advised the applicant of his legal rights which he invoked and requested legal counsel and therefore did not answer any questions from the CID investigator. 8. On 16 April 2008, the CID investigating agent obtained from a Special Agent (SA) in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Spokane, Washington, documents and information on the applicant’s purchase of the degrees from SRU. The SA related that the applicant was one of the more egregious buyers of the SRU degrees, that the applicant paid for the degrees, and that he requested that they be back dated to 1997 and 2000 respectively, and that there was absolutely no coursework or actual thesis requested or required for the Master of Arts Degree in Marketing. The SA provided copies of emails between the applicant and SRU, one dated 13 September 2004 in which the applicant stated, “I would like to request a(n) official transcript. I need to place the degree that I obtain(ed) with ST. Regis in my military records for promotion.” 9. The CID investigating agent requested the applicant’s records from HRC. He found that the two SRU degrees were put in the applicant’s OMPF on 9 December 2003 and were in his FY06, FY07, and FY08 MSG Promotion Consideration Board files. The applicant made the FY08 MSG Promotion Selection list. However, when the CID investigation started, the applicant’s records were flagged on 7 May 2008 by his commander, a LTC W, Chief Regional Officer, Army Reserve Career Division. The flag was imposed as an adverse action and the applicant’s promotion was suspended. 10. On 27 October 2008, the 1st MSC SJA reviewed a preliminary CID Investigation report dated 31 July 2008. The SJA recommended and the CG concurred that: a. The applicant’s commander, LTC W of the Recruiting Command be apprised of the CID findings and options for appropriate action. b. That no UCMJ action be taken at that time by the CG based on evidence thus far presented. c. That LTC W and HRC take action to remove any improper material from the applicant’s military records. 11. On 4 November 2008, the CID investigating agent briefed LTC W on the outcome of the investigation which concluded that the applicant committed five violations of UCMJ - fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, mail fraud, and making a false statement - when he egregiously purchased a fraudulent Bachelor of Science in Biology degree and a fraudulent Master of Arts in Marketing degree simultaneously for the amount of $1,300.00; that applicant requested that degrees be backdated to 1997 and 2000, respectively; and that the applicant knowingly submitted these fraudulent degrees to his official military records and subsequently validated his file for promotion selection to MSG. LTC W requested that the CID take no further actions as he had sufficient information and evidence at that point to make a determination pertaining to applicant. 12. On 16 December 2008, the CID investigating agent submitted a final written report to the CID Headquarters with copies to the CG and LTC W reporting all of the above. The report was marked “C” which according to CID Regulation 195-1, paragraph 4-10a (10), means that the investigation was complete enough for the commander to take appropriate action with no further investigation needed. The report stated that at that time, a Commander’s Report of Disciplinary Action Taken (DA Form 4833) was pending. The DA Form 4833 was later submitted on 8 September 2009 (see paragraph 22 below) finalizing the CID investigation. 13. On 11 January 2009, the applicant received a change of rater NCOER for the period 30 September 2008 through 11 January 2009, rating him as among the best, successful block 1, and promotion potential block 1. The senior rater was LTC W. The CID investigation findings were not mentioned in the evaluation. 14. On 30 January 2009, the applicant’s attorney from the Deliz Legal Office, Puerto Rico, provided LTC W with a letter and copies of the documents that the applicant have provided to SRU. The attorney outlined the applicant’s actions with respect to the SRU degrees concluding that the applicant was duped by SRU. 15. On 11 February 2009, the suspension of favorable personnel actions flag was removed by the CG of the 1st MSC. The flag shows it was removed for case closed favorably. On 17 February 2009, the applicant was promoted to MSG by HRC. 16. On 27 April 2009, the applicant requested that the two SRU degrees be removed from his OMPF and his ERB. HRC responded that the applicant would have to make that request to Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). 17. On 26 May 2009, the CG of 1st MSC, issued the applicant a GOMOR for purchasing and using fraudulent degrees from SRU that may have been considered for personnel actions to include promotion consideration. The applicant was given 10 days to provide response or rebuttal. The applicant was informed that his response or rebuttal would be considered in the CG’s determination on filing of the GOMOR. 18. On 1 June 2009, applicant’s attorney provided a response on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant considered the offer of degrees from SRU too good to be true, but determined that it had to be true or SRU would not have advertised on the internet. SRU’s presentation was so good that the applicant paid $1,300 for the two degrees. He placed them in his records because he thought they were on the level. The applicant lacked the sophistication to identify SRU as a scam. He did not know the degrees were fraudulent and he did not intend to commit fraud. 19. On 15 June 2009, the applicant’s attorney submitted a second letter of response contending that the GOMOR and filing it in the applicant’s OMPF was too harsh. The attorney pointed out that the applicant had been promoted to MSG, but that he did not need the degrees for the promotion. The false degrees were of no consequence with regards to the applicant’s military career. He simply and naively had requested them to be placed in his personnel records in order to provide additional education information and for the sake of completion. He contended that the applicant was a victim of a criminal scheme. 20. On 26 June 2009, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct as well as the two rebuttal statements provided by the applicant’s attorney, the CG determined that the GOMOR would be placed in the applicant’s OMPF. 21. On 12 July 2009, the applicant received a permanent change of station NCOER for the period 12 January 2009 through 12 July 2009 rating him as among the best, successful block 1, and promotion potential block 1. The senior rater was LTC W. The GOMOR was not mentioned in the evaluation. 22. The Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action (DA Form 4833) required to complete the CID final report was published on 8 September 2009 showing that the action was taken on the applicant’s five violations by issuance of a GOMOR to the applicant on 26 May 2009 and placing the GOMOR in the applicant’s OMPF. 23. The applicant applied to the ABCMR to remove the two SRU degrees from his OMPF and remove their information from his ERB. On 19 November 2009, ABCMR case AR20090011726 granted the applicant’s request and directed that the SRU be removed from is OMPF and his ERB corrected accordingly. 24. The applicant appealed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to remove the GOMOR from his record contending that is was based on unsubstantiated derogatory information. On 11 March 2010, case AR2010000124, the DASEB, after careful consideration of the facts and evidence, by unanimous vote determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify removal or transfer of the GOMOR. 25. On 4 December 2014, the applicant requested voluntary retirement on 1 February 2017as a MSG with 25 years, 8 months, and 29 days total service. HRC issued orders to retire the applicant on 31 January 2017. On 21 September 2016, the Army Medical Department Activity at West Point requested that the applicant’s retirement orders be revoked due to the applicant being evaluated in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. His retirement orders were so revoked on 5 October 2016. REFERENCES: 1. The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Rule for Court-Martial (RCM) 306 provides the rules for disposition of offenses. Each commander has discretion to dispose of offenses by members accused or suspected of committing an offense triable by court-martial. A commander may take or initiate administrative actions to include corrective measures such as counseling, admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval, criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra-military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privileges, or any combination of the above. A commander may consider issuing an Article 15, nonjudicial punishment. A commander may dismiss any or all of the charges, forward any or all of them to another commander for disposition, or refer any or all of them to a court-martial which the commander is empowered to convene, or forward them to a to a superior or subordinate authority for disposition. 2. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states in paragraph 3–3 that commanding officers have authority to give admonitions or reprimands either as a nonpunitive administrative measure or as nonjudicial punishment. Nonpunitive measures usually deal with misconduct resulting from simple neglect, forgetfulness, laziness, inattention to instructions, sloppy habits, immaturity, difficulty in adjusting to disciplined military life, and similar deficiencies. These measures are primarily tools for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance and do not constitute punishment. 3. Army Regulation 600–8–2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) sets forth the procedures for implementing and removing flags to personnel actions. A CG may remove a flag when it is determined appropriate. 4. 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; and 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. It further states that 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. 5. In the U. S. Supreme Court case of U. S. v. Scheffer, the court determined that polygraph results are not consistent or perfect and ruled them out of bounds for military courts. In the Sixth Circuit U. S. Court of appeals case of U. S. v. Semrau determined that there are concerns with whether lie detectors can in fact detect lies. Courts are opposed to admitting lie detector findings because of their unreliability. 6. The American Psychological Association (APA) published a research paper entitled “The Truth About Lie Detectors” in which it states that most psychologist agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies. After consulting experts in the field and the National Academy of Sciences, the APA conclude that the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion from a polygraph. 7. In 2002, the U. S. Department of Energy asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a scientific review and research on the validity and reliability of polygraph tests. The NAS includes the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. The NAS, after 19 months of research and study published a 398 page report under the title of “The Polygraph and Lie Detection.” In spite of the American Polygraph Association contention that polygraph tests are accurate from 80-98 percent, the NAS found scientific evidence that polygraph results are not reliable. 8. A team of doctors from Harvard’s “Center for Law, Brain and Behavior” published a study in May 2014 titled “A Polygraph Primer: What Litigators Need to Know,” stated under the subtitle “Is the Polygraph Valid?” that research on the validity of the polygraph has yielded widely divergent rates of accuracy in detecting deception, some as low as chance and others as high as 95%. This wide range of validity may be attributed to the unreliability and invalidity of the polygraph as a whole. The study also notes that subjects can employ countermeasures during the polygraph test that might show them as honest when they are not. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant and his counsel contend that the applicant was a victim of SRU and that he did not have enough command of the English language to understand the full meaning of the SRU website and to detect the scam. However, there are several indicators among the available evidence that indicate he did have sufficient command of the English language, e.g., his emails to SRU, his request to HRC to remove the SRU degrees from his OMPF, his online application text to the ABCMR, the fact that he was the honor graduate of Army Reserve Career Counselor Senior Leaders Course which required sufficient command of the English language, that he successfully completed several senior NCO courses, numerous NCOERs which state that the applicant was rated as excellent in his communication competence, and transcripts showing he took and passed college English courses. 2. The applicant and his counsel contend that that he was duped into buying the fraudulent degrees. However, the applicant’s email to SRU stating that he wired them $1,300 for the two degrees shows that he willingly purchased the degrees. 3. The applicant and his counsel contend that the applicant submitted the SRU degrees for inclusion in his military personnel record because he thought they were legitimate, to complete the record, and that he intended no fraud. However, he requested that the degrees be backdated to 1997 and 2000, respectively, which shows an attempt to deceive. It is noted that backdating the Bachelor of Science in Biology degree to 1997 predates the two biology classes he took in 1999, which he contended justified his biology degree. The two classes the applicant took in biology were basic modern biology in which he got a D grade and modern biology II in which he got an F grade. He registered to take the modern biology II course over but withdrew from the course. Between 1993 and 1999, the applicant registered for classes in five different colleges and would have had to consult college catalogs to register for the classes. The evidence indicates he would certainly have been aware that a bachelor's degree in biology is not given for completing only 2 classes in biology with 6 credits, one of which he failed, and that such a degree in biology generally requires 32 or more credits in 12 or more biology classes and laboratories. 4. The Master of Arts in Marketing degree which the applicant requested be backdated to 2000 also predates some of the documents the applicant submitted to SRU for evaluation for that degree. It is noted that all the documents the applicant submitted, including the ACE evaluation of potential college credits for military training and duty positions, were all undergraduate credits – no graduate level credits were identified. The transcript for the master’s degree shows that the applicant submitted a master’s thesis but the applicant has not provided a copy of the thesis as evidence of his qualification for the degree. 5. The applicant and his counsel contend that the GOMOR is not supported by substantiated facts. However, the record shows that the GOMOR was substantiated by the investigation and documents provided by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; the CID investigation and documents; military records from HRC; and from the applicant’s attorney’s letters of 30 January 2009, 1 June 2009, and 15 June 2009, all of which address facts and circumstances concerning the SRU degrees and submission to his military personnel records. These all substantiate the facts in the GOMOR. Furthermore, applicant’s counsel apparently expected the CG to take no action, however delayed, notwithstanding substantial evidence that one of his senior NCOs presented to Army personnel bachelor’s and master’s degrees awarded to him despite performing no work, or very little work, to earn them. One should keep in mind that by this stage in applicant’s military career, he had attended both military and civilian post-secondary schooling and therefore knew, or should have known, what it took to earn credit for legitimate undergraduate and graduate schoolwork. Consequently, counsel’s assertion that the applicant deserved absolutely no discipline is unpersuasive. 6. The applicant and his counsel contend that because the CG, 1st MSC, concurred with the recommendation of the 1st MSC SJA’s 28 October 2008 review of the 31 July 2008 CID status report to not take any action, that prevented the CG from issuing the GOMOR on 26 May 2009. However, the SJA’s review was not of the final CID report issued on 16 December 2008. It was of an earlier partial status report issued on 31 July 2008. The SJA, noting that it was not a complete report, correctly recommended that the CG take no UCMJ action based on the evidence thus far presented since the CID investigation was still in progress. The CID 16 December 2008 Final Report shows more evidence was gathered after 31 July 2008. The CG concurring in taking no action based on an incomplete CID investigation did not prevent him from issuing the GOMOR on 26 May 2009. 7. The applicant and his counsel contend that because the CG, 1st MSC, issued a DA Form 268 on 12 February 2009 removing that applicant’s flag showing the case was closed favorably, it closed the CID report favorably and therefore the CG was prevented from issuing the GOMOR on 26 May 2009. However, an examination of applicable regulation and law cited in the following paragraphs shows no provisions that support this contention. 8. The applicant and his counsel appear to argue that once a flag (suspension of favorable action) is lifted, a commander – indeed, the entire Army, if counsel’s argument is to be given weight – is forever precluded from taking any action based upon the misconduct that generated the flag. It should be noted that flags are intended to protect the interests of the command, not the Soldier. Flags are designed to prevent a Soldier from receiving favorable action (e.g., awards, decorations, selection for military schooling, promotions) pending the duration of the flag, a duration that usually coincides with an investigation involving the flagged Soldier. Thus, flags prevent the potentially embarrassing situation of promoting or decorating a Soldier at a time when the Soldier is under investigation for misconduct. Applicant’s counsel’s emphasis on flags therefore appears to be misplaced. Furthermore, applicant’s counsel misapplies the very regulations he cites. Counsel asserts that “the presumption of regularity … attaches to official documents. This applies to Flags ….” To bolster his assertion, counsel contends that “[t]his presumption of regularity is otherwise set forth in AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), paragraph 7-2, which states: “Once an official document has been properly filed … it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by a competent authority.” (emphasis added) But the acronym in AR 600-37, paragraph 7-2, for which counsel substitutes ellipsis, is “OMPF.” Significantly, flag documents are not filed in Soldiers’ OMPFs. Flags are transient documents designed to perform a very limited function. Permanently filed GOMORs, on the other hand, are indeed filed in the OMPF and the presumption of regularity does attach to them. Consequently, counsel’s discussion about flags fails to undermine in any way the CG’s decision to issue and then to permanently file applicant’s GOMOR. 9. The applicant and his counsel contend that because the CID Final Report issued on 16 December 2009 is marked “C”, that means the CID investigation was closed favorably. However, CID regulations show that marking a final report “C” indicates that the commander has sufficient evidence on which to make a decision. This is explained in the report status shown on page 4, “This investigation is being terminated IAW CIDR 195-1, Paragraph 4-10a (10), in that the action commander has related his content with the status of this investigation, has sufficient information/evidence to make an adjudication decision, and requires no further action/assistance from USACID.” It is also noted that the CID Report status shows that it is pending the Commander’s Report of Disciplinary Action Taken (DA Form 4833). This report was submitted on 9 September 2009 after the 26 May 2009 GOMOR was issued. This final action completed the CID investigation in this case. 10. Applicant’s counsel argues that the decision of the CG, 1st MSC, to issue the GOMOR is suspect because it was made after applicant’s CID investigation was closed, after the applicant’s flag was lifted, and after the applicant was promoted to MSG. But counsel fails to cite any authority that prohibits the CG’s decision in these circumstances. At best, counsel can only claim that such a sequence of events is unusual. Given that he fails to prove administrative irregularity, one might expect counsel to indicate that applicant was somehow prejudiced by the event sequencing he criticizes. But counsel does not cite any prejudice or unfairness. Consequently, equity does not require remedial action in the applicant’s favor. In fact, given that the applicant’s file was considered by a MSG promotion board when his file contained false education credentials that enhanced his promotion chances, the only individuals who arguably suffered injustices are the other promotion candidates who were required to compete against a Soldier whose file was improperly augmented by faux diplomas. 11. The applicant and his counsel contend that Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) establishes a precedence of administrative “collateral estoppel” wherein separation proceedings should not be based on conduct already considered at a prior board that retained the Soldier. They contend that this principle also applies to the issue of the GOMOR after the CG had issued a favorable flag removal, the applicant was promoted to MSG, and the applicant had received excellent NCOERs from LTC W for the period. The applicant and his counsel contend that these favorable actions bar the CG from issuing the GOMOR afterward. There is no regulation or provision of military law that would restrict the CG from issuing a GOMOR at any point that he determines that he had sufficient evidence to do so. 12. The applicant and his counsel provide a number of articles and online references showing that online education and obtaining degrees through online education is a current viable educational method. The articles and online references also support the contention that colleges can and do award college credit for military training and experience. Most colleges provide the credit based on the recommendations of ACE and the applicability of the subjects to the degree program sought. Some colleges do award credit differently than the ACE recommendations. However, the evidence does not show that legitimate degrees are offered based solely on prior training, experience, and credits without taking additional online courses from the college. While some credit is offered for past achievements, the colleges require additional course work or online courses from their colleges or universities to complete the degree requirements. 13. The applicant and his counsel contend that the SRU scam was very sophisticated and fooled many including government officials. They also contend that the applicant was a hapless victim of the scam and did not have the sophistication to know it was a scam. A lie detector examination conducted by a private investigation company in Virginia in 2014 is submitted to support this contention. Using an Axciton Polygraph System test also used by several government agencies, the polygraph examiner stated that of the three evaluation methods used to evaluate the polygraph test results, two concluded “Probable No Deception” and one concluded “No Deception” in his answers that he thought SRU was legitimate, that the degrees he received in 2003 were legitimate, and he did not know SRU was bogus when he applied for the degrees in 2003. However, these three test results show a range of validity of the polygraph test. The U.S. Supreme Court, lower federal courts, and military courts have ruled polygraph tests inadmissible in part due to their questionable reliability. Experts in the fields of law, psychology, and medicine have all found the polygraph unreliable and give the most practical advice to remain skeptical about any conclusion from a polygraph. These experts, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, include the American Psychological Association; National Academy of Sciences; and Harvard’s Center for Law, Brain and Behavior. 14. The applicant subjected himself to a polygraph test in 2014, which is 10 years after the relevant events in this case occurred. Very little weight can be afforded to these test results. As previously discussed, polygraph tests are fraught with doubts about their accuracy. It is also impossible to assess the qualifications and credentialing of the polygrapher. Although counsel genuinely and in good faith attests to the quality of the polygrapher, the facts of this case demonstrate that credentialing can be feigned or exaggerated. Furthermore, it appears that a more relevant question to have asked the applicant during the examination would have inquired as to whether the applicant was at all suspicious about receiving a master’s degree for which he did no, or exceedingly little, coursework. Consequently, the applicant’s polygraph results are not persuasive on the question of whether the applicant should be afforded relief. 15. The CG’s decision to issue and to permanently file the applicant’s GOMOR appears reasonable under the circumstances. A memorandum of reprimand is a non-punitive measure. Non-punitive measures usually deal with misconduct resulting from simple neglect, forgetfulness, laziness, inattention to instructions, sloppy habits, immaturity, and similar deficiencies in accordance with AR 27-10, paragraph 3-3. The applicant himself admits his actions relative to the fake diplomas were “naďve, ignorant and gullible.” It therefore appears the CG chose the appropriate disciplinary measure. If the applicant were to request certain language in his GOMOR be substituted with one or more of the aforementioned adjectives, his request might be more persuasive. Instead, the applicant requests that the GOMOR be entirely removed despite acknowledging his own derelictions. The reprimand is amply supported by the CID investigation and applicant was afforded full notice and opportunity to be heard before it was permanently filed. Given that the CG’s decision to issue and permanently file the GOMOR is well-grounded and in accordance with applicable regulations, the applicant’s request for its removal should is not supported by the evidence. 16. The applicant and his counsel submit a history of highly successful NCOERs (including two for periods during the incidents in question), letters and memoranda of character reference, and statements by the applicant as to his innocence. However, the findings and evidence provided by investigations from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and from CID provide documented proof that in purchasing and submitting the SRU degrees for inclusion in his OMPF, the applicant was in violation of statutes of military and federal law. 17. The applicant and his counsel contend that the GOMOR has served its purpose and should be removed. However, AR 600-37 states that once the GOMOR 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. Removal is only authorized if the individual concerned provides clear and convincing evidence that the document is untrue or unjust. There is no regulatory provision for removing a GOMOR for having served its purpose. 18. The counsel requests that the applicant’s QMP retirement of 2017 be set aside. However, the applicant’s retirement in January 2017 was revoked since the applicant is undergoing medical review for separation or retention. There is no basis for reconsideration for promotion to E9. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012690 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012690 19 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2