SAMA-RB 27 November 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Department 100, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5100 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings tor, AR20170010418 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records of Proceedings, dated 26 October 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations . I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief . Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) , dated 5 January 2016, and all allied documents from the applicants Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to the restricted folder of her OMPF. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 27 March 2018. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, it any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: · t!. Lt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170010418 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: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170010418 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: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170010418 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 removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 January 2016, and all allied documents from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transfer to the restricted folder of her OMPF. 2. The applicant states: a. The GOMOR and allied documents (45 pages) has been filed in her OMPF for over 18 months. The GOMOR is now being used for the intended purpose of her elimination with 18 years of service. She received the GOMOR for an incident that occurred on 25 November 2015, the same day she redeployed. She believes the GOMOR has served its intended purpose. She has taken personal actions over the course of the past 2 years to ensure that this never occurs again. She has not been convicted of any criminal activity and she is a law-abiding citizen and Soldier. Her diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) does not exonerate her from her actions that resulted in the GOMOR, but it is a mitigating factor in addition to the fact that she was physically assaulted by the battalion command sergeant major in the hallway while she was departing from the area. b. The incident was provoked, which triggered her PTSD, and resulted in her insubordination because she was incredulous that she was being separated from the Army immediately upon arrival (return) from her sixth deployment over a command climate survey that was already adjudicated by her forward-deployed chain of command. She was exhausted from traveling over 24 hours with her husband and 4-year old daughter to get to her final destination at Fort Drum the day before Thanksgiving. Her appeal was denied by the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) on 30 May 2017. c. It is unjust to be discharged from the Army with 18 years of service for one incident of poor judgement in her entire career. If the GOMOR remains in her file, she will be eliminated from the Army and, if not eliminated, passed over for promotion due to this derogatory information. Her primary promotion board is in 2018. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the periods 14 December 2002 to 23 June 2013 * DA Forms 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) OER) covering the periods 24 June 2013 to 1 March 2017 * rebuttals to the DASEB, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, and GOMOR * DA Form 4856 (Development Counseling Form), dated 27 October 2015email * miscellaneous service personnel records * family photograph * Officer Record Brief * character-reference letters * awards CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having prior active enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was commissioned as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant on 8 August 2002. 2. She was promoted to major effective 1 January 2012. 3. She provided favorable OERs covering the periods 24 June 2012 through 30 June 2015. 4. Her records contain a referred OER covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 showing she was rated "Capable" for her overall performance by her rater and rated "Qualified" for her potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade by her senior rater. 5. She provided a DA Form 4856, dated 27 October 2015, showing she was counseled regarding a flagging action. The form states a recent investigation revealed she was derelict in the performance of her duties as commander by failing to address anger outbursts by one of her noncommissioned officers; allowing significant, severe, and frequent fraternization to occur within her unit; using the unit's non-tactical vehicle for her own personal use; directing the first sergeant to process legal paperwork in an active sexual assault court-martial action without first coordinating with either the service member's assigned legal advisor or the prosecutor of that case; mistreating and failing to develop her junior officers; using unnecessary profanity; and creating the appearance of reprisal against Soldiers who volunteered information in Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention Program complaints, command climate surveys, and other similar forums. In their sworn statements, at least 11 different individuals noted this misconduct. 6. She provided a memorandum of admonition from the Commanding General, Headquarters, 1st Sustainment Command (Theater), dated 13 November 2015, for her substandard leadership while serving as the 33rd Financial Management Support Unit Detachment Commander in Kuwait. 7. On 5 January 2016, she received a GOMOR from the Commanding General, Headquarters, Fort Drum, for: * being disrespectful toward the battalion commander as she was counseled on 25 November 2015 * using profanities and knocking items off of the battalion commander's desk, causing damage to a laptop screen * having to be physically restrained by the battalion command sergeant major 8. On 3 February 2016, the Commanding General, Headquarters, Fort Drum, directed filing the GOMOR in her OMPF. 9. She provided an OER covering the period 28 October 2015 thorough 1 March 2017, showing she was rated "Proficient" for her overall performance by her rater and rated "Highly Qualified" for her potential compared with officers senior rated in same grade by her senior rater. 10. On 11 January 2017, she submitted a request to the DASEB to remove the GOMOR from her OMPF. In summary, she stated: a. The GOMOR has been in her record for over 12 months and it is unjust for it to remain in her permanent file. She contends the GOMOR is unjust because she was confronted with false information and was unaware of a psychological condition that led to a volatile exchange with her battalion commander. On 25 November 2015, the day of her redeployment from Kuwait, her battalion commander told her she would be discharged from the Army due to a command climate survey conducted against her and down-trace detachments while forward deployed. This information was false and created unnecessary and undue hardship because she was not allowed to execute a permanent change of station as planned. She was not a substandard officer nor where there any disciplinary actions that would warrant her elimination. b. She claims her former brigade commander and battalion commander reached out to her gaining chain of command and rating chain to share their incomplete and inaccurate version of the incident that was still under investigation. Her orders were revoked after that contact was made. This exacerbated the unnecessary and undue hardship inflicted upon her on the day she redeployed. c. She contends she has sought and received the continued medical care required for her previously diagnosed behavioral health condition. She regrets her response at the time of the incident and believes she would not have responded the way she did under better conditions. She has been unable to move on with her career and new assignment because of the GOMOR. d. The residual effects from the situation affected her professional and personal life greatly. She regrets being unable to control her emotions. She has sought out and participated in counseling to ensure her mental status remains stable. She regularly participates in counseling sessions and is taking medication to help with her mental state. 11. On 30 May 2017, the DASEB voted to deny her request. The DASEB determined the evidence presented did not clearly and convincingly establish that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust. The DASEB determined the overall merits of her case did not warrant the requested relief. 12. She provided numerous character-reference statements from subordinate Soldiers, senior officers, and civilians, dated May and June 2017, stating: * the applicant displays true professionalism and leads by example * she is a key leader in ensuring the health and welfare of the Soldiers under her command * she has an awesome display of dedication to the Nation, mission, and Soldiers * she has a positive attitude * she has displayed the appropriate qualities to allow her to continue to be a successful leader and commander in the Army * she possesses the attributes and competencies that would allow her to continue her career as an Army leader * she continues to serve with pride daily and should be given the opportunity to complete her well-earned military career on her own terms * she is an intelligent and selfless finance officer * she has an outgoing, customer-oriented personality, and is always open, friendly, and helpful * she possesses the intellect, character, and experience to continue doing great work for the Army * she is composed, mature, and professional * separating her is not in the best interests of her or the Army * the financial management career field is experiencing a shortage of quality personnel in her grade and needs to retain quality people 13. A review of the performance folder in her OMPF in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) revealed a copy of the GOMOR in question. 14. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist, dated 18 July 2017, wherein he stated: a. The applicant has cited PTSD as a mitigating factor for her tantrum. In one sense her complaint is surprising, as she completed a Standard Form 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), dated 25 February 2016, for a security clearance in 2016 in which she claimed not to have received behavioral health treatment in the past 7 years, a claim that is inconsistent with her claims after the GOMOR incident and with the treatment she is receiving. She has had treatment for a variety of conditions. b. According to her records, treatment goes back to at least 2004 when she said she was treated for either PTSD or PTSD symptoms. There was no paperwork to substantiate the 2004 diagnosis. She did receive a PTSD diagnosis twice in her electronic medical record. Both instances of the use of this diagnosis occurred in Kuwait in 2009 when she was feeling fearful around trams. She told the provider she developed her symptoms as a result of a prior deployment in which she was in dangerous situations. The note was inadequate to justify a PTSD diagnosis as written, but perhaps it omitted important symptoms. c. A theater electronic medical record did say her symptoms were mild and did not require further visits after her second visit for this PTSD diagnosis. It is notable that no provider offered PTSD before or since then in the electronic medical record. She had her diagnoses and treatment reviewed after she began having regular behavioral health visits after her tantrum. She did make queries about PTSD at that time, but never received a diagnosis of PTSD from her providers after the incident. The evaluating psychologist could not find evidence of her having psychiatric profiles, which would imply functional impairments. Instead, a multi-disciplinary team meeting on the applicant on 28 January 2016 noted she had no physical profile rating. d. In the first behavioral health visit after the tantrum, she simply noted she snapped. She went to the women's room in an attempt to reconsolidate, but failed to do so. She returned and the tantrum that led to her GOMOR unfolded. She did note at the time that she had been traveling, was very tired, and had just returned from a deployment. In all, it seemed she was an exhausted woman who felt unappreciated and became enraged, as she feared the loss of her career after years of hard work. Giving a counseling to her in her sleep-deprived state seemed insensitive to her fatigue. Still, PTSD would be a poor explanation of her tantrum, even if it were present. There was nothing resembling a reenactment of prior trauma. Instead, an exhausted, fearful woman had reached her emotional limit. The behavioral health record has abundant evidence that she is prone to feel stress keenly, to develop anxiety and depression when it occurs, but to respond well to pharmacological and behavioral treatment. She reconsolidates well. She has had numerous instances of treatment for adjustment disorder over the course of her career. e. Her medical records do, at the time of her GOMOR, reasonably support her having had mental health conditions at the time of her tantrum. f. Available case material did not support the existence of a mitigating mental health condition at the time of her unsatisfactory performance. g. Based on available behavioral health evidence, there is insufficient evidence to remove her GOMOR because of mental health conditions; however, the exhaustion she was experiencing, as well as fear of losing her career, appears to have been real. The tantrum was an exception in her history as a Soldier. In his judgment, she has a personality organization that makes her feel vulnerable and defensive when criticized, inducing rage with strong criticism. In her exhausted condition, she lost the ability to cage her rage. To have her lose her entire career after nearly 18 years of satisfactory service does seem, at least in his judgment, extremely harsh. h. The applicant did meet medical retention standards. i. The general officer considered the applicant's mental health conditions when issuing her GOMOR. j. A review of available documentation did not discover evidence of mental health conditions that bear on the GOMOR. A mitigating nexus between the applicant's misbehavior and her mental health was not discovered. 15. An additional advisory opinion was rendered by the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor, dated 20 July 2017, wherein he stated: a. Her behavioral health clinic visit notes show she was diagnosed with anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified) – rule out PTSD – on 28 March 2007. On 28 May 2008, she was diagnosed with mild PTSD (note: not substantiated by clinical documentation). On 21 March 2013, she was diagnosed with single-episode major depressive disorder – rule out anxiety and rule out PTSD. b. Her OERs for the periods covering 24 June 2012 through 30 June 2015 were favorable. c. The available record does reasonably support PTSD or another boardable behavioral health condition existed at the time of her military service – anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified) or generalized anxiety. Her primary issue is anxiety and related insomnia. She at times manifests symptoms that overlap with those of PTSD. She does not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal diagnosis of PTSD. d. The condition meets retention standards. e. Behavioral health conditions were present at the time of her misconduct, but were not mitigating for the misconduct. Her current and past behavioral health diagnoses do not mitigate the unprofessional verbal, behavioral, and physical (overturning objects) actions that resulted in the GOMOR. The misconduct may be behaviorally characterized as resulting from an acute stress reaction based on the untimely circumstances of the negative counseling. f. She meets medical retention standards. g. Her medical conditions were duly considered after her rebuttal regarding filing of the GOMOR in her permanent record. h. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical and/or behavioral health disability or condition that would support removal of the GOMOR from her OMPF. The applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offense that led to her act of misconduct and the subsequent GOMOR. 16. A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and/or rebuttal. She responded and stated removal of the GOMOR should not be solely based upon whether or not she has a PTSD diagnosis or symptoms. All factors and evidence surrounding the incident should be taken into consideration versus various pieces of information. She finds the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor's opinion inaccurate for the following reasons: a. The question asked whether or not she has a nexus for and a mitigating medical and/or behavioral health condition for the misconduct resulting in a GOMOR. The advisor does not fully address the noted issues in her behavioral health records, but rather dismisses them as unsubstantiated. He also includes her thyroid analysis, which has no relevancy to the question asked. b. The Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor states he was able to review clinical notes from October 2004 through current. There are no clinical notes from 2004, which makes the medical advisor's statement false. She has been unable to obtain copies of her behavioral health records from January 2004 through October 2004 for the past 13 years from any medical facility she has requested them through. Her preliminary diagnosis in the only document found was for PTSD, which is dated 6 October 2004. Another provider seen sometime after that states her previous diagnosis was PTSD, which resolved 15 months after her return from Operation Iraqi Freedom. She might not meet a formal diagnosis for PTSD at the current time – whatever the medical community classifies as a medical diagnosis – but she still suffers from the residual effects of PTSD, especially after six deployments. She was not then taking three to four psychiatric medications that she does now for anxiety/ depression prior to her first deployment, nor did she have the need for behavioral health treatment. c. She suffered from acute stress exacerbated by the battalion commander's badgering and provoking her during their meeting, with her continuous negative comments about her husband and family. It was already late in the afternoon the day before Thanksgiving on 25 November 2015 with all resources closed for the 4-day weekend. At no time was any type of support offered when she gave her this devastating news – not even a chaplain. Instead, she was assaulted by the battalion command sergeant major and she tried to defend herself. d. The Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor who did not treat her at the time the incident occurred is unqualified to make an analysis/ conclusion that she did not have any mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to her misconduct. The only person qualified to make any statements or conclusions about her mental state at the time is the therapist who treated her immediately following the incident. She has been unable to reach the therapist for a counter statement because she is no longer in the military system and no longer works for the government. e. Both her current psychiatrist and psychologist informed her they are unable to write a counter statement to this medical advisory opinion because they did not treat her at the time the incident occurred and are therefore unqualified to make a determination as to her mental state and whether or not it was a mitigating factor. If her current doctors are unable to make a counter statement, then she questions how the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor is qualified to come to his conclusion about her mental health. If there were no issues whatsoever during the meeting she had with the battalion commander on that fateful day, she would have been able to better control her emotions and impulsiveness and the incident never would have occurred. She believes the incident she endured that afternoon would have elicited the same or similar amount of stress in any reasonable person and should be taken into consideration with all other factors. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the Army Military Human Resource Record. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the OMPF, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. 2. Appendix B (Documents Authorized for Filing in the AMHRR and/or iPERMS) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command website provide a listing of documents authorized for filing in iPERMS. The instructions state to file letters of reprimand, censure, or admonition in the performance folder unless directed otherwise by the DASEB. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR in 2016 for: * being disrespectful toward the battalion commander while she was being counseled * using profanities and knocking items off of the battalion commander's desk, causing damage to a laptop screen * having to be physically restrained by the battalion command sergeant major 2. Although she contends the GOMOR should be removed from her OMPF because it has served its intended purpose, it has only been filed in her OMPF for approximately 21 months. She has not provided substantial evidence that its intended purpose has been served and that its removal or transfer to the restricted folder of her OMPF would be in the best interest of the Army. 3. She also contends the incident was provoked and triggered her PTSD, which resulted in her insubordination. 4. The Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist opined there is insufficient evidence to remove her GOMOR because of mental health conditions based on available behavioral health evidence. 5. The Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor opined the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral conditions for the offenses which led to her act of misconduct and the subsequent GOMOR. The available documentation found no evidence of a medical and/or behavioral health disability or condition which would support removal of the GOMOR from her OMPF. 6. The governing regulation provides that administrative letters of reprimand will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by the DASEB. In May 2017, the DASEB voted to deny her request to remove the GOMOR from her OMPF. 7. There is no evidence indicating the GOMOR was improperly imposed. 8. The GOMOR is properly filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170010418 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170010418 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2