ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170012368


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

*	removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from her 
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
*	in the alternative, transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder of her OMPF
*	a personal appearance before the Board

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Statement in Rebuttal to GOMOR memorandum
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states:

	a.  The GOMOR was unjust and has served its intended purpose to have her 
removed from the Army as an act of retaliation for turning in fellow officers for 
misconduct.  She would like to have the GOMOR either removed from her record or 
placed in the restricted folder.  Documentation and supporting evidence show she 
applied to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) on 21 July 2017.  These 
documents show the injustice as well as the steps she has taken to attempt to have this 
matter corrected.  Her chain of command did not afford her an interview nor read her 
rebuttals before making their decision to issue her a GOMOR and remove her from the 
service.

	b.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) allows such transfers 
when the GOMOR has served its intended purpose, has been in the OMPF for at least 
1 year since imposition of the GOMOR, the Soldier is at least a staff sergeant, and has 
received at least one Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report or an Officer 
Evaluation Report (OER) since the filing of the GOMOR.  She is requesting an 
exception to policy regarding the requirement for an evaluation.  She was 
administratively separated from the Army after receiving the GOMOR and prior to 
receiving an OER.

	c.  The GOMOR has served its intended purpose because she was involuntarily 
separated from the Army as a result of the GOMOR.  She requests the Board note the 
following achievements since the imposition of the GOMOR:

*	when she was placed on close hold for a year, pending involuntary separation 
from the Army, she volunteered to serve full-time at the Fort Rucker Honors 
Detachment; there, the Cadre quickly identified her as hardworking, 
professional, and dedicated
*	she was quickly awarded additional responsibilities ahead of her peers; she 
was appointed as a trainer and eventually the lead trainer
*	she also became the lead staff member in charge of training new office staff 
members, preparing case sheets, performing inventories on all equipment, 
and she was responsible for 56 weapons in the company arms room
*	she continued to improve both her physical fitness and the fitness of her 
officer peers who had failed their Army Physical Fitness Tests

2.  Review of the applicant's military record shows: 

	a.  She was appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve, as a second lieutenant, on 15 July 
2014.  She was ordered to active duty for a 6-year commitment and entered active duty 
on 21 January 2015.

	b.  On 28 January 2016, an AR 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and 
Boards of Officers) Findings and Recommendations memorandum stated the evidence 
suggested the applicant had an inappropriate relationship of a dating and sexual nature 
with a fellow warrant officer (WO) while she was still legally married and her husband 
and the WO’s wife had no knowledge of their relationship.  It was recommended the 
applicant and the WO be reprimanded by the commanding general (CG), eliminated 
from flight school, and separated from the Army as expeditiously as possible.   

	c.  On 17 March 2016, she was issued a GOMOR for reprehensive conduct of 
engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a male WO Flight Student, despite both 
being married to other people, which began around November 2015.  The 
memorandum stated her selfish conduct was unprofessional, unbecoming an officer in 
the U.S. Army, and demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a lack of maturity.  Her 
actions fell below the standards expected of an officer in the U.S. Army and were 
contrary to the Army Values.  She was advised of her rights.

	d.  On the same date, she acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and she elected to 
submit a statement and/or documents in her own behalf.

	e.  She provides a Statement in Rebuttal to GOMOR memorandum, dated 30 March 
2016, wherein she stated:

*	the subject GOMOR was unsupported and she requested reconsideration of 
its issuance
*	the AR 15-6 investigation findings were not supported in law or fact and 
based entirely on false and misleading statements; at no point had she ever 
engaged in sexual, romantic, or otherwise inappropriate relations with WO A_
*	the AR 15-6 investigation was biased and not legally sufficient
*	she only became aware of the statements against her when she received the 
GOMOR to which she was not rebutting
*	the person who initiated these baseless allegations against her, knowingly 
and falsely reported her to the chain of command in retaliation against her for 
reporting that person’s inappropriate actions
*	her fellow students were (or at a minimum felt) coerced into either making 
statements against her, or not making statement favorable to her
*	every action she took was directed, encouraged, or cleared by the chain of 
command; those same action were not being presented as evidence against 
her
*	she is a good student and a good officer
*	even after everything that had happened to her, she still with all her heart, 
wanted to serve as an aviator in the greatest Army in the world
*	she had dedicated her life to God, her family, and her country; for her being in 
the military was an honor far beyond wearing the uniform

	f.  On 4 and 21 April 2016, her chain of command recommended permanent filing 
the GOMOR in her OMPF.

	g.  On 3 May 2016, after carefully considering all matters available and the 
recommendations by the applicant's chain of command, the CG directed permanently 
filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.

	h.  On 5 May 2016, she acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR filing determination.

	i.  In a Memorandum For Record, dated 16 May 2016, the staff judge advocate 
(SJA) stated:

*	the applicant’s attorney sent an email directly to the CG and attached a sworn 
statement from the applicant primarily concerning the CG’s handling of her 
rebuttal matters
*	contrary to the applicant’s attorney’s contentions to the CG, that the Office of 
the SJA “had some difficulty/issues and failed to ensure the CG received and 
considered all matters submitted in rebuttal by the applicant,” the applicant 
was in fact afforded all due process
*	the CG based his filing determination on the investigation, all of the 
applicant’s rebuttal matters, and her chain of command’s recommendations; 
and as such, it was unnecessary for the CG to reconsider the exact same 
information, including the applicant’s submissions, a second time

	j.  On 9 June 2016, she submitted a rebuttal to her involuntary separation from the 
Army wherein she stated:

*	she believed that she should be retained because her performance at 
Fort Rucker had been and continued to be outstanding in every regard
*	she was never provided a chance to take corrective action before the 
investigation, but she had done so since it began
*	had she known that anyone had perceived wrongdoing in her actions, she 
would have readily changed her behavior
*	after she discovered that some of her actions during the investigation were 
possibly regarded as an attack on her chain of command, she took the step to 
personally apologize to every level of the command and submitted herself for 
questioning
*	the AR 15-6 investigation in her case was biased to produce a particular 
outcome
*	the statements used as evidence against her were contradictory and 
extremely vague (as addressed her 135-page GOMOR rebuttal)
*	she never intended any malice or wrongdoing in her professional relationship 
with WO A_
*	at the time, she engaged in behavior that was repeatedly advised and 
emphasized by the leadership at Fort Ruck and by their academic instructors:  
study in pairs and in groups, work as a cohesive team with your assigned 
flight partner, sit next to your assigned flight partner in class, and carpool
*	she became a geographically-single mother while her husband was deployed 
to Kuwait, she needed to make the best possible use of her time
*	it was unfair that her career should be ruined because she followed the 
suggestions of her leaders

	k.  On 15 June 2016, her chain of command recommended her separation under 
honorable conditions (general).

	l.  Her record contains an Officer Elimination Memorandum, dated 20 June 2016, 
wherein the CG stated, after careful consideration of the applicant’s case, rebuttal 
matters, and her chain of command recommendations, he initiated elimination action 
against the applicant on 12 May 2016, under the provisions of Army Regulation 
(AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfer and Discharges), paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c, due to 
misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information.  He 
recommended her service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

	m.  On 24 January 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Review 
Boards (DASA (RB)), reviewed the applicant’s elimination case on and determined she 
would be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with an Honorable 
characterization of service.  This elimination is based on both misconduct and moral or 
professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), and derogatory information (AR 
600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c). 

	n.  Accordingly, she was honorably discharged from active duty on 9 February 2017.  
Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 2 years and 19 days of active duty.

3.  By regulations:

	a.  AR 600-8-24 – officers may be eliminated from the service for acts of personal 
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer.

	b.  AR 600-37 – administrative memorandums of reprimand may be issued to a 
Soldier for adverse action.  The memorandum will be referred to the Soldier.  
Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient will be reviewed and considered 
before a filing determination is made.

	c.  AR 600-8-104 – for a GOMOR, once placed in the OMPF becomes a permanent 
part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the 
OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.

4.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance.

5.  By regulation (AR 15-185), applicant do not have a right to a hearing before the 
ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice 
requires. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the 
relief was not warranted.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  Her 
chain of command investigated alleged misconduct.  The findings of the investigation 
was not in the applicant’s favor.  The appropriate authority issued her a GOMOR in 
which there is no evidence due process was not followed when he determined to file the 
GOMOR in the performance folder of her OMPF.  The Board considered the evidence 
provided and of her record, and agreed there was no error or injustice in this case.  The 
Board concluded the GOMOR has not served its purpose and should remain in the 
current folder to show a clear record of her service.

2.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	  
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.



REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) provides policies 
and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel.  An 
officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the 
President and the Nation have placed in his patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence.  
An officer is expected to display responsibility commensurate to this special trust and 
confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times.  However, an officer who will 
not or cannot maintain those standards will be separated.  Elimination action may be or 
will be initiated for acts of personal misconduct, conduct unbecoming of an officer.

2.  AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that an administrative memorandums 
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 regulation states:

	a.  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.

	b.  A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's Official Military 
Personnel File (OMPF) only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to 
be filed in the performance folder.  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 chapter 7.

	c.  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.

	d.  Unfavorable information filed in the OMPF that indicates substandard leadership 
ability and a lack of promotion potential, morals, or integrity must be identified early and 
shown in those permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel 
managers and selection board members for use in making positions of significant trust 
and authority or positions or appointments screened for suitability personnel decisions.  
Other unfavorable character traits of a permanent nature should be similarly recorded.

	e.  Only memoranda of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an 
appeal for transfer to the restricted folder.  Normally, such appeals will be considered 
only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers.  The above 
documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been 
served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of 
proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have 
been met.

3.  AR 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, including the OMPF.  

	a.  Chapter 2 provides detailed guidance and instructions with regard to the initiation, 
composition, maintenance, changing, access to, and transfer of the OMPF.  Documents 
authorized for filing in the OMPF are kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a 
Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and corrections to 
other parts of the OMPF.  It also serves to protect the interests of the Soldier and the 
Army.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  
The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless 
directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency.  
	b.  Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance folder of 
the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (Department of the 
Army Suitability Evaluation Board or this Board).  

4.  AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military 
records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins 
its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is 
that what the Army did was correct.  

     a.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the 
evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  

     b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence 
or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that 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.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170012368

7

1