ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: . BOARD DATE: 30 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170012395 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) * removal of unjust evaluations APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Applicant Letter of Appeal * Applicant Emails * 2 DA Form 2166-8 NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOER) * Summarized Record of board Proceedings * Findings and Recommendations * General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOMOR) * Report of Investigation/Investigative Inquiry * DD Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) * Informal Inquiry and Recommendation * Memorandum from Clinical Psychologist FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: “Evaluations: I did not have access to perform my duties, based on the fact that I was FLAGGED a few times during the year 2013. I was officially sent home (see DA 4856) by COL X___, X__ (unit commander) 7 September 2013. The rating chain was never officially changed or even initiated according to AR 623-3/DA Pam 623-3. Rater and senior rater were not officially authorized to rate or senior rate him, per Army Regulations. The reviewer made a false review and didn't try to correct the discrepancies as far as rating chain, lack of counseling’s, lack of job to perform in order to be rated. Reviewer sent emails to him, commending on a job well done, without access to systems (see emails). GOMOR: This was presented to him two weeks following a separation board recommending rehabilitative reassignment (see attachment). The Military Intelligence Readiness Command (MIRC) Separation Board was conducted 30 September 2014. These unjust documents were officially placed in his permanent files at HRC Fort Knox, which caused his eligibility for another separation board, for the same offense-Double Administrative Jeopardy. Additionally, LTG X__, X__ refused to conduct an investigation into those unjust evaluations. Also, CPT X__, X__ told him the MIRC refused to sign off on an Article 15 because they were afraid he may ask for court-martial and win the case”. He further states: a. Double Administrative Jeopardy-he stood trial at a board conducted by the Military Intelligence Readiness Command (MIRC) on 30 September 2014, for the same offense which was later used to separate me from the Army on another Administrative Separation Board. The Board recommended Rehabilitative Reassignment, which was never afforded. b. Fraudulent Evaluations (5 December 2012-4 December 2013 and 5 December 2013-2 April 2014) filed in permanent record. He was ordered to stay home by effective 7 September 2013. He haven't worked consistently in his duties since February of 2013. He had his permissions to the systems taken away numerous times due to being flagged by 2400th MIG, then by NSIG, between February and September 2013. He had emails from COL X__ thanking him for performing his duties despite what was transpiring with the MIRC and no access to systems, since the MIRC revoked his security clearance (He was never presented with a memorandum stating such). However, he reviewed the fraudulent evaluations and concurred with the rater and senior rater, both of whom he had never worked for and was never formally counselled on change of raters and job description. He was rated by ineligible rater and senior rater on a job that was never performed, since he didn't have access to the personnel/administrative systems. c. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. This punishment was given to him two weeks following the MIRC separation board. He was never punished until the MIRC figured the separation board did not work in their favor. He had evidence to show the MIRC circumvented the system to work this GOMOR into his records, so he could be administratively boarded for the same offense of not leaving his house in the snow and drive unsafely for a $5 Starbucks card from a LTC who wasn't his commander and didn't have any authority to order him from his house. He had a DA 4856 which clearly stated by his 06 commander to stay home. The LTC clearly testified in court that he was not on military duty and that he was visiting his son at the University of Chicago. The regulations clearly states that a Soldier will not accept and have the right to decline personal gifts from superiors. Also, please take a look at the wording of the GOMOR. That is a blasphemous way of talking about a Soldier who gave 16+ years of service to his country. "SFC Brown is a CANCER to the United States Army." A witness (CPT X__, X__) told him the MIRC wanted to find a way to get him out of the Army without a Court-Martial, so they tried their own separation board, that didn't work, so they went on and placed bad evaluations and GOMOR in his record. This subsequently made him eligible for another administrative separation board. d. When this all started 25 January 2013, he reached out to MG X__ (CG at that time) and they quickly formed an alliance to force him out of the military. There's a MAJ B_ who was tagged to write up a false report, so as to have something to discharge him at that time. He said that gave him a hard time for not finding in their favor that didn't work, so they waited until the applicant was at home to have a LTC X__ call him at home to harass him about a $5 gift card. He was at home stressing out and taking depression medicine to cope. No one called and checked on him while he was at home the three months leading up to the allegations which brought him to the first board. The MIRC failed him as a Soldier. No rehabilitation, per the Army Regulations. He had attached testimonies, board transcripts, and other pertinent documents. 3. The applicant provides: a. A personal statement (self authored letter above). b. The applicant’s emails state: (1) E-mail from the applicant’s commander: He realized these were bad days for the applicant, and this certainly wasn’t what his commander wanted for the applicant, as the commander thought things were going well at the unit. Even in spite of all that he still saw the applicant doing great work for the 2400th, and he really appreciate it. So thanks. COL X__. (2) E-mail from the applicant to his commander: No problem sir, he was still there for Soldiers no matter what and the applicant would prevail, because he didn't do anything to warrant a separation. Also, Please send me something to give to TDS, so he could be represented. If the commander had nothing from the MIRC, then please have them court-martial the applicant for whatever the allegations are against him. Thanks and have a great weekend sir. (3) E-mail from the applicant’s commander: He had nothing from the MIRC. Did the applicant need the commander to write him a letter to pass to the JAG? c. The Informal Inquiry and Recommendation dated 5 February 2013 shows: (1) Recommended change of rater and implement basic leadership steps to include counseling and laying out clear expectations. (2) The Soldier should be held accountable for those expectations. (3) An unprofessional work environment was fostered and tolerated. A change to the rating scheme and directed supervisors (if possible) to solve the problem and foster a more productive work environment. (4) If the behavior did not change, the leader should document the situation and conduct correct actions, including the use of administrative and punitive actions in accordance with local policies and the UCMJ. (5) Alternate recommended course of action would be to inquire and pursue locally realigning the Soldier with an adjacent unit. (6) If neither course of action resulted in positive changes, recommended documenting the steps taken and put together required paperwork that would lead to the Soldier to being released from Active Duty (REFRAD). (7) At that point, there was not enough evidence the Command had a valid reason, or supporting paperwork to support this course of action. d. Memorandum from Clinical Psychologist dated 21 August 2013 states: * he was currently being treated for occupational stress since 8 March 2013 * he had previously requested of his command a reassignment * received orders to NJ, and then the orders were revoked * the action resulted in increased stress within the work environment * the psychologist recommended and supported a reassignment/permanent change of station e. DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) dated from 5 December 2013 to 2 April 2014 shows in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential): * block Va Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility- Marginal * block Vc Senior Rater, Overall performance Poor f. DA Form 2166-8 dated from 5 December 2014 to 4 December 2015 shows in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential): * block Va Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility- Marginal * block Vc Senior Rater, Overall performance Poor g. The summarized Record of Board Proceedings dated 30 September 2014, findings and recommendations: (1) An administrative elimination board convened on 30 September 2014 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c found by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed serious misconduct by his actions on or about 22 December-23 December 2013. Specifically, the board found that he willfully disrespected a senior commissioned officer and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a senior commissioned officer. (2) This serious misconduct demonstrates a grave lack of personal responsibility and judgment that brings discredit upon the applicant, the Army and the Military Intelligence Readiness Command. Actions such as his were a cancer to the good order and discipline of the Army and severely violate the trust he was given as a Soldier and senior non-commissioned officer. These actions would not be tolerated and seriously cause to question the applicant’s fitness to continue serving in the United States Army Reserve. He was thereby reprimanded for intentionally violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Army values. (3) This written reprimand was imposed as an administrative matter and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. The General intended to file this reprimand in his Official Military Personnel File; however, the general would not make a final decision until after the general reviewed any matters submitted by the applicant or on his behalf. (4) The applicant would acknowledge receipt of this reprimand by return memorandum submitted on his own behalf must be returned to the general within 7 calendar days of his receipt of the memorandum. h. General Officer Letter of Reprimand dated 14 October 2014 found under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c found by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed serious misconduct by his actions on or about and between 22-23 December 2013. Specifically, the board found that he willfully disrespected a senior commissioned officer and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a senior commissioned officer. i. A Report of Investigation/Investigative Inquiry dated 28 June 2013 discussed, in effect the applicant was subjected to a hostile work environment because of slander and harassment by his supervisory chain of command and a toxic work environment. (1) Substantiated allegation 1-improperly established negative work expectations and attitudes for a subordinate thereby producing an ineffective work environment and ineffective work attitudes in violation of AR 600-100, Paragraphs 1-6 and 2-1. The applicant testified his work expectations and work performance while assigned as an administrative specialist with the 2400th MIG were never defined upon his arrival in mid-2011. In December 2012, the applicant received his annual NCOER and was rated "among the best", it was determined he was both "successful-2" in his overall performance and "superior-2" in his potential. In late January 2013, the applicant testified he submitted a request for local realignment because the work environment became "hostile" after he declined to attend an off duty party a residence December 2012. He then became the subject of numerous counseling statements and publicly damaging comments he testified he was "shocked" she publicly announced intent to deny his transfer request. The applicant also overhead __ make public and private comments of a disparaging nature about him to others and subjected him to certain hostilities that fed to his perception of having to work in a hostile and toxic environment. (2) Substantiated allegation 2-improperly treated a subordinate with disrespect, indignity, unfairness and inconsistency in violation of AR 600-100, Paragraph 2-1k. (3) The applicant received a favorable NCOER in error. He was recommended for an involuntary mental health evaluation which caused resentment and there was concern for a Soldier’s safety. The applicant was recommended for transfer to a new work location, ironically, after the applicant had voluntarily submitted a local transfer request that was denied by his chain of command. The applicant was treated differently when he tried to take time off for appointments j. The DD Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) (not dated or signed) the applicant received counseling from his commander regrading separating him from the Army shows: the applicant’s commander sought to withdraw paperwork for his discharge, the higher headquarters chose to initiate the paperwork anyway. His commander was unable to persuade them otherwise in spite of several e-mails and phone calls to the chain of command. k. An e-mail from the investigating officer to the applicant states “Hello, it was nice to talk to you. Please keep this between you and I. I got considerable grief for not finding in favor of the Command, but feel strongly about it. Keep strong”. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Army Reserve on 17 May 1999. b. His orders B-06-904018 dated 10 June 2009 show his promotion to sergeant first class (SFC/E-7). c. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged from active duty on 5 November 1999. His character of service was uncharacterized and the narrative reason for separation was completion of period of active duty for training (ADT). He served 4 months and 13 days this period. d. He reenlisted in the Army Reserve on 21 December 2010. e. His DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER) from 1 July 2011 to 4 December 2012 shows in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential): * part Va Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility- Among the Best * part Vc Senior Rater, Overall performance Successful (2) f. His DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER) from 5 December 2012 to 4 December 2013 shows in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential): * Competence needs some improvement- needs much improvement-rarely goes beyond what is required * Physical fitness & military bearing needs much improvement- demonstrated poor military bearing and blatant disrespect to the unit leadership * Leadership needs much improvement-does not support the SHARP and EEO programs because of disrespectful treatment of superior officers which created a hostile working environment * Training needs some improvement-failed to manage his assigned duties which led to negative impacts on unit readiness; other staff members had to assume his duties * Responsibility & accountability needs some improvement-followed orders only if he felt like it; di not feel he was accountable to his chain of command * part Va Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility- Marginal- recommend removal from military service due to inability to be a team player or obey lawful orders-the applicant refused to sign * part Vc Senior Rater, Overall performance Poor g. he orders R-05-383479 dated 13 May 2013 show active duty in active guard/reserve status permanent change of station (PCS). h. His DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) dated from 5 December 2013 to 2 April 2014 shows in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential): * competence needs some improvement verbally disrespected an officer and disobeyed orders to report for duty as directed * physical fitness & military bearing needs some improvement-refused to take the semi-annual APFT and does not have a current weigh-in on file * leadership needs some improvement-and ineffective leader * training needs some improvement-negatively affected the unit state of readiness by not performing his assigned duties * responsibility & accountability needs some improvement-was and negligent in meeting his responsibilities causing numerous obstacles to mission accomplishment * part Va Rater. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility- Marginal-do not promote, the applicant refused to sign * part Vc Senior Rater, Overall performance Poor i. The General Officer Letter of Reprimand dated 14 October 2014 shows: * by a preponderance of the evidence the applicant committed serious misconduct by his action 22-23 December 2013. Specifically, the board found he willfully disrespected a senior commissioned officer and willfully disobeyed a lawful order form a senior commissioned officer * serious misconduct demonstrates a grave lack of personal responsibility and intended to be filed this reprimand in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); however, the general would not make a final decision until after he reviewed any matters submitted by the applicant on his behalf * the applicant acknowledged receipt of the written reprimand on 14 October 2014 * he understood it was being considered that the written reprimand be filed in his OMPF * he understood the reprimand would not be filed in his OMPF until after he had an opportunity to submit matters in rebuttal, extenuation, or mitigation * he understood he had 7 calendar days to submit his written response. He also understood that failure to do so would constitute a waiver of his right to submit such a response j. The memorandum of rebuttal dated 21 October 2014 states: * he received the GOMOR memorandum on 22 December 2013 * he read and understood the unfavorable information presented against him and he was submitting the letter in the hop the reprimand would be withdrawn and allow him to continue to serve in the United States Army * the separation board on 30 September 2014, determined that misconduct occurred, but given the circumstances, it did not warrant separation from the Army * he recounts the actions that lead to his misconduct and asks to suspend the filing of the reprimand in his OMPF for 6 months k. The GOMOR Determination memorandum dated 3 November 2014 shows: * the commander issued a memorandum of reprimand to the applicant with notice that recommended filing in his OMPF was being considered * the applicant acknowledged receipt of the reprimand and provided rebuttal dated 21 October 2014 * after careful reflection of the nature of his misconduct and after taking into consideration his rebuttal and entire record of service, the general directed permanent filing. The memorandum of reprimand dated 14 October 2014, the memorandum of rebuttal dated 21 October 2014 and the memorandum of reprimand filing determination, dated 25 October 2014 be filed in the Soldier’s OMPF l. Permanent Orders W-11-494222 dated 25 November 2014 announced the Good Conduct Medal (4th award). m. The summarized Record of Board Proceedings findings and recommendations from that board found the allegations: * that on or about 22 December 2013, the applicant willfully disrespected a senior commissioned officer, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence * that on or about 23 December 2013, the applicant willfully disobeyed and order from a senior commissioned officer is supported by a preponderance of the evidence * the findings do no warrant separation with respect to the applicant n. The board recommended the applicant be retained and rehabilitatively transferred to another unit The memorandum for the disqualification for the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) dated 13 January 2015 shows: * he was disqualified for the period of service from 30 November 2011 thru 30 November 2014 * the reason for the decision was that he received a GOMOR during that period of service * he was entitled to make a statement on his behalf * he was given 30 days to provide a statement, the commander would review his statement and supporting documentation * His decision would be based on the facts provided * If it is determined disqualification for the AGCM is valid his refusal wo acknowledge and lack of response to the memorandum would serve as notification that the disqualification was valid and a copy of the memorandum might be filed in his OMPF o. In a memorandum for the disqualification for the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) dated 13 January 2015 the applicant disagreed. p. The applicant’s memorandum to support refusal to his disqualification memorandum for the AGCM dated 15 January 2015 states: * the applicant was given the memorandum to review and sect statements which applied to him * he elected to disagree with the memorandum and did not initial any of the statements contained within * instead he lined out “agree”, circled “disagree” and initialed his action. q. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 1 March 2016 shows character of service as honorable and narrative reason for separation as non-retention on active duty. He served 13 years, 3 months and 1 day this period. 5. Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files. 6. By regulation (AR 600-8-104), a GOMOR is an administrative tool used by the imposing officer to train and rehabilitate. Once the GOMOR was filed on his OMPF, it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 7. Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the military personnel system. It is linked to AR 600-8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS). It also provides guidance regarding redress programs including Commander’s inquiries and appeals. a. Chapter 3 (Evaluation forms and preparation) governs evaluation principles, forms, preparation, and submission of evaluation reports. * Part Va. Rater places a typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) “X” in the appropriate box. NCOs receiving one or more “needs improvement” ratings in part IVb-f cannot receive a rating of “among the best.” The following definitions will be used when completing part Va (3) Marginal. NCOs who have demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time * Part Vc and Vd. Senior rater evaluates overall performance and potential by placing one typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) “X” in the appropriate box for each area. (Box marks should be consistent throughout the report, either all typewritten or all handwritten.) The senior rater’s box marks are independent of the rater’s. (3) Poor. Represents NCOs who are weak or deficient and, in the opinion of the senior rater, need significant improvement or training in one or more areas. Do not promote and consider for DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found some relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The governing regulation authorizes transfer of a GOMOR to the restricted folder of the OMPF when it can be determined that it has served its intended purpose. Removal of a GOMOR is generally not warranted unless it is factually incorrect. The Board agreed the GOMOR does not represent factually correct information, and that it should be removed from the OMPF. The OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority. The Board agreed there does not appear to be any evidence the contested NCOERs were unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's OMPF. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the GOMOR, dated 14 October 2014, and all allied documents from his OMPF. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to removing evaluation reports. 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) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and, to ensure that the best interest 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. a. Chapter 3 states a memorandum, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), and managed by Human Resource Command. The General Officer directing filing must exercise General Court- Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) over the recipient, be the designee or delegate of the individual exercising GCMCA over the recipient, been a filing authority from the recipient’s losing command, or be the chief of any designated special branch acting pursuant to their statutory authority. Memoranda filed in the AMHRR will be filed in the performance folder. b. Chapter 7 states once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by a competent authority. The recipient has the burden of proof to show, by clear and convincing evidence, to support assertion that the document is either untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. Evidence submitted in support of the appeal may include, but is not limited to: an official investigation showing the initial investigation was untrue or unjust; decisions made by an authority above the imposing authority overturning the basis for the adverse documents; notarized witness statements; historical records; official documents; and/or legal opinions. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) is the final decision authority for removal of unfavorable information from the AMHRR. This authority will not be further delegated. 2. By regulation (AR 600-8-104), a GOMOR is an administrative tool used by the imposing officer to train and rehabilitate. Once the GOMOR was filed on his OMPF, it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 3. Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System) This regulation prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the military personnel system. It is linked to AR 600-8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS). It also provides guidance regarding redress programs including Commander’s inquiries and appeals. a. Chapter 3-3 (Evaluation forms and preparation) governs evaluation principles, forms, preparation, and submission of evaluation reports. There are two forms used in the evaluation process: DA Form 2166-8-1 and DA Form 2166-8. b. Chapter 3-13 Part V, Overall Performance and Potential Structured potential rating for overall performance and potential consists of, and includes, rater box marks for promotion/service potential; rater specific positions recommendation; senior rater overall performance and potential; and senior rater choice of alternatives for future performance. 2166-8-1 as a guide to prepare, conduct, and record performance counseling sessions with the rated NCO. The rating chain uses DA Form 2166-8 to record the performance evaluation of the rated NCO. * Part Va. Rater places a typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) “X” in the appropriate box. NCOs receiving one or more “needs improvement” ratings in part IVb-f cannot receive a rating of “among the best.” The following definitions will be used when completing part Va: * (1) Among the best. NCOs who have demonstrated a very good, solid performance and a strong recommendation for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. * (2) Fully capable. NCOs who have demonstrated a good performance and strong recommendation for promotion should sufficient allocations be available. * (3) Marginal. NCOs who have demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time * Part Vc and Vd. Senior rater evaluates overall performance and potential by placing one typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) “X” in the appropriate box for each area. (Box marks should be consistent throughout the report, either all typewritten or all handwritten.) The senior rater’s box marks are independent of the rater’s. There are no specific box mark ratings required of the senior rater based on box marks made by the rater. The following definitions will be used when completing parts Vc and Vd: * (1) Successful/superior. A “1” rating represents the cream of the crop and is a recommendation for immediate promotion. A “2” rating represents a very good, solid performance and is a strong recommendation for promotion. A * “3” rating also represents a good performance and, should sufficien allocations be available, is a recommendation for promotion. * (2) Fair. Represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time. * (3) Poor. Represents NCOs who are weak or deficient and, in the opinion of the senior rater, need significant improvement or training in one or more areas. Do not promote and consider for DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) 4. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) states that the OMPF is defined as permanent documentation within the AMHRR that documents facts related to a Soldier during the course of his or her entire Army career, from time of accession into the Army until final separation, discharge, or retirement. The purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, and any other personnel actions. Once properly filed in the AMHRR the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by one of the following: a. Boards of the Army Review Boards Agency such as the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), Army Discharge Review Board, Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board, Army Special Review Board, and the DOD Physical Disability Review Board. b. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency for physical evaluation board documents only. c. The Chief, Appeals and Corrections Section of the Evaluations, Selections, and Promotions Division. d. The ORC (official records custodian) for administrative purposes; this includes, but is not limited to deleting or moving mistakenly filed documents from the performance or service folder to the restricted folder and vice versa. e. Upon end of retention period for nonpermanent documents. 5. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. a. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170012395 12 1