IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001786 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001786 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001786 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 29 May 2012, from her records. She also requests a personal appearance. 2. The applicant states the GOMOR she received in 2012 is disparate and disproportionate in relation to the treatment of other individuals involved in the same proceedings received in light of the context and cause of its filing, and constitutes an injustice that warrants relief. Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) allow the removal of a GOMOR to correct an error or remove an injustice. The GOMOR is unjust in that it is a result of an untimely filing decision based on an initial investigation in the case of then Brigadier General (BG) J.A. Si--. What was not made clear by the report was this senior leader's pattern of grooming and predatory behavior towards his female subordinates. He ultimately pled guilty to the charges involving her (the applicant) and stated that he created a situation over time that caused harm to his subordinates. Considered a victim in the case subject to the coercion and harassment of the senior leader, she believes she was disproportionately punished. Of the five females involved in the case, she was the only one who received a permanently filed GOMOR which occurred at the onset of the initial investigation. Two years later, the BG pled guilty to all actions involving her. a. The GOMOR is unjust because of the past, present, and future services she can render to the United States Army. She was issued a GOMOR for sending then BG J. A. Si-- sexually inappropriate media. During the course of the investigation, a polygraph showed that her relationship with BG Si-- never involved physical contact of any sort. Over the past three years, she has struggled with how her loyalty to a general officer, who she greatly respected, allowed her to succumb to his demands and subvert her military values. Although the GOMOR filing decision was made prior to the completion of legal proceedings, she takes full responsibility for her conduct, and submission of this request is not intended to deflect accountability for her personal and professional conduct. However, she can no longer allow personal and professional pride and self-serving fear deny the realities that contributed to her conduct. b. Four women testified in U.S. vs. BG Si--: three military personnel and one civilian. Their shared experience established that BG Si-- had a strategic pattern of behavior that would invariably end in various forms of conquest and compromised character for the women involved. Of the three military personnel involved, she and another officer received GOMORs for allegations of fraternization at the onset of the investigation in 2012. The distinct, disparate difference, however, is that the other officer's GOMOR was locally filed, whereas hers was permanently filed. Hence, of the three military witnesses/victims involved, the two other witnesses were granted the opportunity to rehabilitate their careers and continue to serve, while the permanent filing of her GOMOR jeopardizes her military career, if not dooming it. Moreover, the individual at the heart of the matter, BG Si--, despite a pattern of indiscretions, was able to retire. While the bad conduct of the parties involved is uniformly abhorrent, the application of justice was unequal and unjust. She admitted sending inappropriate material, but that was the sum of the matter. Indeed, during the course of the investigation, she submitted to a polygraph that showed the investigators that she was truthful that her relationship with BG Si-- never involved physical contact of any sort. She fully acknowledges that the exchange of inappropriate material was unprofessional and morally wrong; however, there is a distinct difference between inappropriate behaviors and adulterous behaviors. c. At the outset of the investigation, she was assigned to a unit that fell under Major General (MG) C.K. Ha--'s command (Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command). MG Ha-- issued her the GOMOR. As indicated by his letter, he never intended for the reprimand to be permanently filed and requested removal of the document from her official file. Subsequently, however, during the course of the proceedings, she was returned back to the United States in order to coordinate with the special victim advocate. It was at this time that the reprimand packet was transferred to MG E.M. Re-- (Commander, U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne)). She was not notified of the fact that she was to receive a reprimand until she had permanent change of station (PCS) back to the United States, and she was assigned an attorney to assist her, whom she only dealt with via email. Although she was able to submit matters, she is certain that she was hampered by the fact that MG Re-- had no personal knowledge of her, and she had PCS'd from the unit. Indeed, she was not informed of the filing decision until months after she had left the unit. At the time, she was perceived to be a victim, as she was assigned a special victim advocate. Unfortunately, however, she had to leave theater to coordinate with the advocate, and she firmly believes that this hampered her ability to adequately represent herself to MG Re--. But for the PCS and concurrent delays involved, it is possible that MG Ha-- would have acted on the filing determination and, as indicated by his letter, his decision would have resulted in local filing. d. To better understand her actions, however, is to understand that they did not occur in a vacuum. She is a strong individual and has always been hesitant to consider herself a victim. However, she has come to understand that she fell prey to a leader who admitted through his own investigation to routinely grooming and engaging in inappropriate relationships with junior ranking female officers with the intent to engage in inappropriate relationships. She now realizes that what she believed to be genuine professional concern for her personal wellbeing and professional development was nothing more than sexual manipulation. Perhaps had she realized this earlier, there would have been a different outcome. e. Her professional relationship with BG Si-- began when she was a company commander for two years in 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, in Schweinfurt, Germany. He was a charismatic and highly respected leader who took what she perceived to be an immediate and vested interest in her professional development. Prior to meeting BG Si--, she had not previously experienced this degree of attention from a senior grade officer. Therefore, when he revealed details about his personal life, she, in turn, exchanged insight into hers. As his subordinate and a company commander, she truly believed the nature and intent of his attention to be purely professional. Even as she pondered the somewhat intimate content of his revelations, she was reluctant to ascribe a nefarious motive, and even if she had thought his conduct to skirt propriety, she was hesitant to accuse such a highly decorated and respected senior officer and mentor of inappropriate intentions. f. Upon her PCS to Fort Bragg, NC, where BG Si-- also had moved to assume his role as the Deputy Commanding General of Support for the 82nd Airborne Division, she naively continued interacting with him. She regrets not courageously and publicly addressing his behavior that until this time she had steadfastly interpreted as mentoring. She acknowledges that she did not do so out of loyalty to a senior officer whose accomplishments, rank and position she admired, and out of fear of losing future mentorship and development, and the loss of esteem from her peers. g. Unfortunately, after attempts to distance herself from the situation, but after months of harassment, persistent requests and accusations of personal betrayal, she sent BG Si-- inappropriate media that he requested with the hope that the requests and his accusations of her disloyalty would cease. It is of no personal, professional, or emotional consolation, but during BG Si--'s court-martial, three other female officers testified to similar experiences under BG Si--'s leadership, some far worse than her experience, but nonetheless consistent with the pattern of grooming and exploitation she experienced. After months of harassment and persistent requests, she gave in to sharing the media that he requested with the hope that the requests and accusations of being disloyal would cease. BG Si-- was at the pinnacle of his career and a powerful individual. Accordingly, she did not want to be perceived as disloyal. She also did not realize the totality and severity of his actions with her and the other females involved. She realizes now the only thing that saved her from the situation escalating was the fact that he was reported by another female officer. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation revealed her images sent via personal email to BG Si--. During his court-martial, she found that the other three participating witnesses had similar experiences under the leadership of BG Si--, some far worse than what she experienced, but a consistent pattern that she experienced of grooming and exploitation. The case also revealed that he had started this same process with a young first lieutenant, who was ultimately spared by another woman's courage to come forward. h. She understands why the Army has a vested interest in relationships that directly affect the mission. Steadfast adherence to principles like the prohibition against fraternization are essential to unit cohesion and mission accomplishment. However, at the time of the act, although she still somewhat considered him a mentor, she no longer worked for BG Si--. For that reason, she does not believe that her actions negatively affected her fellow Soldiers or her job performance, nor did she receive any special favors over other officers in return. She is not defending her actions, but rather she is attempting to focus on the intent of the Army's fraternization policy and to show the potential danger of the disproportionate power of authority between senior officers and their subordinates. Though she does not believe her actions affected her job performance or the mission itself, she does not believe that her actions failed young and aspiring women Soldiers. Her failures led her to re-evaluate herself as a leader, her judgment, and her steadfast devotion to the Oath of Office above individual leaders. As a result of this time of often gut-wrenching personal reflection, she believes that she is a better officer and leader. i. Throughout her entire career, she has worked hard for everything she has received. Before this incident, she earned the opportunity to attend Long Term Health and Education Training (LTHET). She also served 38 months in command and successfully led her company into two Operation Iraqi Freedom rotations. Following command, she was selected to serve as the Deputy Surgeon for the Combined Joint Special Operations Command ahead of her peers. Since receiving the GOMOR, it has been her purpose to demonstrate to superiors and subordinates alike that the events of this incident were isolated and singular in nature, not an accurate reflection of her character. She constantly strives to ensure her daily actions reflect only the highest moral and ethical conduct. j. Since receiving the GOMOR, she is one of few Medical Service Corps Officers to complete Intermediate Level Education via the Naval War College and to earn a Master's Degree in National Security Studies from the Naval Post Graduate School. She was also selected to serve at the Executive Officer for the 47th Combat Support Hospital and she was nominated for and accepted into the Order of Medical Military Merit (O2M3). It is clear that the Army has invested in her, and she, in turn, wishes to continue to serve and invest in the Army and the Army's future leaders. No human is perfect, but her experience will allow her to teach and equip young leaders with the necessary tools to succeed. With the heightened awareness of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Response Program related incidents, she has shared her story with leaders, cohorts, and subordinates with the hope that they will understand the warning signs of grooming and inappropriate mentor and mentee relationships and protect themselves from all that she has had to endure. Though she has continued to perform exceptionally in her duties as an Army officer, she has spent every day in painful reflection on the poor choice she made and the shame of being led astray from her values. She will always believe that the true measure of a leader is how he or she responds to difficult events. She hopes that is evident through demonstrated performance, as noted in her performance profile, including her duties, self-development, evaluations, and letters on her behalf. k. In sum, she believes that the permanent filing of the reprimand was an injustice. She acknowledges her shortcoming, and has worked tirelessly to overcome her mistake. However, the permanent filing is unjust because she received much harsher treatment than the other three women involved for the same type of conduct. Additionally, she feels the permanent filing was in error, as the issuing authority had no intent to permanently file it when it was issued. But for the timing involved, there likely would have been an entirely different outcome. She prays that she provided the necessary evidence that will warrant a decision that will provide her the opportunity to continue service to this great nation, her fellow Soldiers, and military families. She requests that her GOMOR be removed from her official file. 3. The applicant provides: * GOMOR and filing decision * character reference letters * CID Report * Officer Record Brief * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) and the most recent DASEB decision * awards, decoration, and other certificates * DA Form 1059-1 (Civilian Institution Academic Evaluation Report) * Officer Evaluation Reports from 2010 to the present * Naval Post Graduate School transcripts and certificate CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and executed an oath of office on 12 May 2001. She completed the Army Medical Department Officer Basic Course. 2. She entered active duty on 2 June 2001 and has served in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments, including Hawaii, Iraq, Germany, and Afghanistan. She was promoted to captain in November 2004. She was previously assigned to C Company, 172nd Support Battalion, 172nd Infantry Brigade. 3. Around May 2010, the applicant was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, NC, as the Group Medical Plans and Operations Officer. She was promoted to major (MAJ) in February 2011. 4. In April 2012, CID obtained emails of BG Si-- and discovered numerous explicit emails between him and the applicant. Further, during the examination of BG Si—'s digital media, explicit photographs were found depicting the applicant. CID interviewed the applicant who admitted she sent nude photographs of herself and a video of herself masturbating to BG Si--. She denied she had a sexual relationship with him. There was probable cause that the applicant committed the following offenses: failing to obey general orders (fraternization, violation of no contact order, and indecent act). 5. On 29 May 2012, the Commanding General (CG), Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command - Afghanistan, reprimanded the applicant for conduct unbecoming. The GOMOR stated: a. As an Officer in the United States Army, she created and sent sexually explicit photos and a video of herself to a married General Officer in the United States Army. Further, she had numerous inappropriate and illicit conversations with the same General Officer. She knew this was abhorrently wrong; yet, she deliberately acted in this manner repeatedly and over the course of more than a year. Her complete disregard for differences in rank and rules against fraternization displayed a lack of character and integrity. Her actions were of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. b. Her conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and her fraternization was in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She dishonored and disgraced herself and the Army. Her behavior was inexcusable and incompatible with high standards of performance and military discipline. Because of her decision, she lost the trust placed in officers to make sensible and sound decisions. c. Her reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure under the provisions of AR 600-37 and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. The CG intended to direct placement of this reprimand into her OMPF but withheld a final decision pending his review of matters she submitted in her defense. 6. On 8 June 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and on 22 June 2012, she submitted a statement together with multiple character reference statements and/or statements of support. She stated: * her relationship with BG Si-- was strictly professional and when she left for Fort Bragg, she maintained contact with him * after she left his chain of command, she developed a friendship with him and consulted with him regarding her cosmetic surgery * she only wanted the honest opinion of a trusted friend and that is the only reason she sent him the explicit photographs and video * this was the only incident and after that she did not send any inappropriate images * she recognizes her lapse of judgment and lost sight of her behavior as a professional officer; she took full responsibility for her actions and regretted those actions * she willingly spoke with CID and cooperated with their investigation; she also underwent a polygraph test to confirm the information she provided to CID * she had been an exemplary Soldier with super results; she has served for 11 years and had been deployed for 43 months; she requested the reprimand be filed in her local file 7. On 13 July 2012, after careful consideration of the applicant's case, her rebuttal, the chain of command's recommendations, and the statements she submitted with her rebuttal, MG E. M. Re--, the CG, U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Airborne) ordered the filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. The GOMOR was filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. 8. Around May 2012, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Lewis, WA, as the Executive Officer to the 47th Combat Support Hospital. She then attended and successfully completed Naval Post Graduate School in Monterrey, CA, from 19 May 2012 to 20 December 2013. 9. On 23 June 2014, she petitioned the DASEB to transfer the GOMOR from the performance to the restricted folder of her official military personnel file (OMPF). However, on 25 September 2014, the DASEB determined the overall merits of her case did not warrant removal or transfer. The DASEB unanimously voted to deny her relief. 10. In July 2014, she again petitioned the DASEB for the removal of the GOMOR from her official records. The DASEB determined that in view of the applicant's performance, the GOMOR had served its intended purpose and it was in the best interests to transfer it to the restricted folder of the applicant's OMPF. 11. The applicant provides: a. Several character reference letters from field grade officers and a sergeant major, with her June 2012 rebuttal to the GOMOR and that were considered by the imposing officer. b. Her 2014 DASEB application together with several certificates, awards, and OERs, and the 2014 DASEB decision to deny her relief. c. Her 2016 DASEB application together with her argument as well as several certificates, awards, transcripts, and OERs, and the 2016 DASEB decision to grant her relief. 12. She also provides multiple letters of support and/or character reference letters from senior General Officers and/or Colonels, as follows: a. MG C.K. Ha--, the imposing officer, recommends removal of the 2012 GOMOR. He states he issued the GOMOR in order to reinforce appropriate standards of conduct as the result of what he believed to be an isolated incident of misconduct. Despite originally directing filing in her AMHRR, he later decided that the letter had served its purpose based on her continued growth as an officer and her demonstrated leadership potential. He previously requested that HRC remove it from her file, however, HRC has not complied and the letter remains in her file. The applicant's performance before and after receiving the reprimand demonstrates that she is a valuable asset to our Army. Her continued service is in the best interest of our Soldiers and there is no doubt that she has the potential for continued service at increased levels of responsibility. He believes the incident and the subsequent reprimand have strengthened her character. This GOMOR has served its purpose and its existence will continue to prejudice the career of a highly qualified officer. The Board should remove the GOMOR and its removal is clearly in the best interest of justice. b. Lieutenant General K. R. Da--, the CG, U.S. Army Installation Management Command, strongly supports the applicant and recommends the removal of the GOMOR. He believes that the intent of the reprimand has been met and that its removal would be in the best interest of the Army. In this particular case, he believes the permanent filing of the GOMOR was unjust and its removal would be the most just outcome. He spoke with the applicant and reviewed her performance record. He is also personally familiar with the case against former BG Si--. The context of the US v. Si-- case is unique. He observed it firsthand as former BG Si-- replaced him in Regional Command South in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that his charisma was intoxicating and that he exploited this intoxication in his junior females to extract bizarre loyalty. The applicant admits she allowed herself to become a subject of BG Si--'s exploitation, but she does not consider herself a victim. She is a survivor and a leader who has learned from it and I believe deserves to move on. She is genuinely contrite, has demonstrated resilience and loyalty and continues to perform in the top 1 percent of all officers of her grade and position. c. Lieutenant General S. R. La--, the CG, I Corps, strongly recommends and requests the Board remove the GOMOR. He believes that the intent of the reprimand has been met and its removal would be in the best interest of the Army and justice. When he first learned of the GOMOR in her file, he was surprised. Having had the opportunity to observe her performance in the field, this singular event is out of character and not in line with the values and beliefs he knows her to possess. He is personally familiar with the case involving then BG Si-- and believe the filing of the GOMOR was unjust. Of the women caught up in the BG Si- investigation, she was the only one to receive a permanently filed GOMOR; even though she was one of the least involved. Unlike the other females involved, she never considered herself a "victim" although having personal knowledge of the situation he believes it is quite clear that she was certainly that. However, her willingness to take responsibility for her actions and lapse in judgment shows growth as both a person and a leader, highlights her true character and demonstrates her dedication to the Army and its values. She continually demonstrates that she has overcome this incident and solidifies his belief that her character has only grown stronger. The Army has invested years in this officer and her potential is such, that if allowed to move beyond this event the Army will reap years of significant contributions and great leadership. The applicant has his full endorsement to lead Army formations and his full recommendation for selection for promotion. d. Lieutenant General C. T. Cl--, the CG, Special Operations Command, strongly supports and recommends that you transfer the 2012 GOMOR from her performance folder to the restricted folder. He believes that the intent of the reprimand has been met and that its transfer would be in the best interest of both the Army and justice. Since receiving the GOMOR, she has excelled as an officer. She earned a Master's Degree from the Naval Post Graduate School, supported the Army's Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Response Program by sharing her situation with others, and served with distinction as a Medical Operations Officer. Her superior performance demonstrates that she has internalized the intent of the reprimand and has learned from her mistake. She is an asset to the Army and has the potential to serve as a senior leader in the Army's Medical Service Corps. Based on the intent of the reprimand being met and her potential for future service in the Army, he recommends a transfer of the GOMOR to restricted folder. e. Colonel H. A. Kn--, Commander, U.S. Army Recruiting Brigade, requests the Board remove the GOMOR. (1) She has served as the applicant's professional mentor since 2008. She is an officer of incredible talent, passion, and judgment. Her interactions with then BG Si-- that resulted in the GOMOR from are the result, in her opinion, of BG Si--'s careful and deliberate grooming of the applicant over many years, his clever manipulation of her, his influence over her as a senior officer, and her misplaced loyalty to him as a supposed mentor. Over the past several years, she has observed the applicant experience many stages of emotions resulting from his abuse, ranging from shame, guilt, anger, frustration, hope and disappointment. Despite these emotions and the issues associated with her involvement of his court martial, she has served with the utmost honor and professionalism. Instead of giving up on the Army and the various leaders who have turned their back on her, she has poured her heart into serving the profession she loves and performed in a manner far above that of her peers. She has done so out of a genuine passion to serve our nation rather than out of a misplaced belief that doing so would improve her standing with anyone or any board convened to determine her suitability for further service. She trusts the Board will favorably consider her performance record - nearly perfect in every respect with the exception of the GOMOR - in its deliberations and decision and weigh the actions of a despicable and disgraced former senior leader against the actions of a naive junior officer who was blinded by his supposed care for her and her career. (2) She first met the applicant when she served as her assignments officer at HRC in 2008. At the time, she served as a company commander in the 172nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in Germany, commanded by then-Colonel Si--. She distinctly recalls receiving a phone call from Colonel Si-- - because it was the only phone call she received from a BCT commander in two years - asking her about her plans for then-applicant's next assignment. She intended to assign her to the 1st Special Forces Group at Joint Base Lewis McChord as the Group Medical Operations Officer based on her superlative record and desire to serve the Army in the most challenging assignment available. Colonel Si-- asked if she could be assigned to one of the two SFGs then stationed at Fort Bragg. Based on his overwhelmingly favorable comments during our phone call and his comments on her OER as her Senior Rater, I changed her assignment to Fort Bragg. In retrospect, she believes that Colonel Si--'s desire to have the applicant assigned to Fort Bragg was merely part of his "grooming" of her as a sexual harassment victim. She recalls her excitement, once she was stationed at Fort Bragg, at having then BG-Si-- officiate her promotion ceremony to Major. She viewed him as a mentor and sincerely appreciated his seemingly professional interest in her career and development. She never spoke of BG Si-- in anything other than a professional aspect and she (the author) is beyond disappointed that he "duped" her over a period of several years for what now appears to be only his personal, unprofessional desires. (3) The applicant is a sexual harassment victim. While the type of harassment she endured does not meet the Army definition of harassment – quid pro quo or hostile environment – then-BG Si--'s careful and deliberate actions to build an environment in which she would comply with his sexually-oriented requests had the same result. She has remained bravely steadfast throughout the court martial and the effects of her GOMOR, giving her typical 100% to every single assignment and mission. The Army standard has been met in that the ' intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served and she strongly urge the Board to remove the letter from her performance file. Doing so will allow this very talented officer to remain in the Army and, most importantly, end the victimization that she endured at the hands of a convicted and disgraced Army leader. f. Colonel J. B. Ca--, Commander, Combined Joint Task Force, Kuwait, requests the Board consider removing the GOMOR. (1) She believes that the Army standard has been met in that the intended purpose of the GOMOR has been served and that its transfer would be in the best interest of the Arm y. When MG E. M. R-- filed the GOMOR in question he did not make any remarks, but he seemingly endorsed the opinion of BG C. K. Ha-- which was that the applicant's actions "displayed a lack of character and integrity." After several years of watching the applicant's professional development in garrison and while deployed and benefitting from her daily hard work for over two years of command, she (the author) can truly say that she (the applicant) has learned a valuable lesson and that her character and integrity is second to none. She worked directly with the applicant in the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan Surgeon's office and was consistently impressed by not only her operational acumen but her professional bearing and demeanor. The applicant was enduring the effects of the situation surrounding then-BG Si--'s legal proceedings but did not allow it to impact her performance. Her focus was appropriately on ensuring the provision of the best medical support possible to our Special Operations Forces. (2) For over two years of serving as the Commander of the 47th Combat Support Hospital, the applicant embodied everything she needed from an Executive Officer. She challenged the staff while consistently mentoring junior officers and NCOs so they could meet my expectations and exceed the Army standards. She handily managed multiple tasks simultaneously and demonstrated great pride in the unit and the Army. It is without question that her presence and ability raised the operational readiness and overall effectiveness of the unit and the Army is a better organization with her in it. The applicant is one of the finest Medical Service Corps officers she has served with in 24 years, to include 4 years downrange. Any lack of effort in ensuring that she has the opportunity for continued service would not only be wrong but would defy logic when it comes to maintaining the quality of the officers in the AMEDD and the Army. (3) With reference to MAJ Buchner's specific acts necessitating the GOMOR, she can quite confidently state that if a BG had consistently requested photos or some other type of personal information from her when she was only a captain, she may have responded the same way that the applicant did if only to make him stop asking. The applicant has admitted that she made a mistake in sending the photo but she (the author) would argue that the fault ultimately lies with the General Officer who repeatedly asked a company grade officer to send him inappropriate photos, thereby placing an inordinate amount of pressure on a young officer who is now suffering the repercussions of his vile behavior. The fact that she is even writing this letter for an officer whose performance exceeds most, if not all of her peers, is unconscionable. (4) She is the only one of five females involved in the situation to receive any negative action whatsoever and it is only because she did not claim herself to be a victim, which sadly, she was. Despite the fact that she was not appropriately represented to begin with, the applicant flawlessly led the 47th Combat Support Hospital in her absence and continued to dedicate herself to an institution which quite honestly did not do her justice. She has a stalwart, unwavering spirit when it comes to our Army and our Nation and she has not allowed herself to be held back by this challenge. She has the support of numerous General Officers which is a testament to her dedication and her ability. This entire situation has resulted in her developing a more prudent evaluation of her peers and seniors and ensured that she does not succumb to the pressure of others, regardless of their rank or title. She has a continued dedication to and enthusiasm for her profession, the support of their unit and Soldiers and maintained an exceptional level of performance as an Executive Officer for over two years. In conclusion, and in consideration of the Army standard being met, she requests the Board completely remove the GOMOR. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-37 provides that an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. a. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance section. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7. Paragraph 7-2 provides 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, the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. b. Only letters of reprimand admonition or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted portion of her OMPF. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer will 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. c. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF. Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance section of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (DASEB or this Board). d. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. 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. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR 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. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in 2012 for conduct unbecoming an officer and fraternization after sending sexually explicit photographs and a video to a married General Officer in violation of AR 600-20 and Article 134, UCMJ. She was provided an opportunity to submit matters on her own behalf and she did so. The imposing CG considered the facts and circumstances of her case, as well as her rebuttal, and ordered the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. The GOMOR was filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. She argues that of the five female officers involved, she was the only one to have a reprimand filed in her record. This Board is not an investigative body and is not able to determine what, if any, actions were taken against the others involved. 3. She petitioned the DASEB to remove the GOMOR on two occasions. On the second attempt, the DASEB determined that the GOMOR served its purpose. When a GOMOR is determined to have served its purpose, it is transferred to the restricted folder of a commissioned officer. That is what the DASEB determined and that is where the GOMOR is currently filed. 4. Her conduct was investigated by CID and her chain of command determined her conduct as an officer was a serious departure from that expected of officers in similar positions. The applicant admitted to her misconduct and took responsibility for her inappropriate behavior in her rebuttal statements and requested leniency. The multiple character statements she provided were also considered by the imposing officer. 5. Former BG Si--'s indiscretion and pattern of inappropriate or illegal behavior and conduct has already been adjudicated through legal channels. He is not on trial here, and although his actions as a senior officer cannot be condoned, the evidence indicates the applicant shares responsibility for her behavior, as she admits. The reprimand was imposed based on the evidence. Likewise, the decision whether or not to remove the reprimand must be based on the evidence. 6. Removal of adverse information from the OMPF can place an individual on par for promotions, assignments, and other favorable actions with peers who have no record of misconduct. Once the GOMOR was filed in her OMPF, it became a permanent record and will not be removed unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. The basis for removal would be evidence of a clear and convincing nature showing the GOMOR is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. The Board must determine if the evidence in this case meets that standard. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170001786 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170001786 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2