ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170015836 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: a. removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from the Commander, 82nd Airborne Division, dated 29 June 2012, from his official military personnel file (OMPF); b. removal of the associated officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 7 July 2011 through 8 July 2012 from his OMPF; c. reinstatement to active duty as a Medical Service Corps officer; d. retroactive promotion to major (MAJ) based on the MAJ below-the-zone promotion board held August 2016 for area of concentration (AOC) 70H (Medical Operations Officer); e. retroactive pay and allowances from 1 December 2016 through 31 December 2018; and f. a personal appearance hearing before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) with attached brief in support of application, dated 9 August 2017 * Enclosure 1 – Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Record of Proceedings, dated 20 February 2015 * Enclosure 2 – GOMOR, dated 29 June 2012 * Enclosure 3 – Report of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigation, dated 12 June 2012 * Enclosure 4 – Appointment of Army Regulation 15-6 Investigating Officer, dated 15 May 2012, with Exhibits A through Z(1-5) * Enclosure 5 – OERs covering the periods 30 May 2008 through 20 August 2016 * Enclosure 6 – Request for 90-Day Extension of Active Duty Service Obligation, dated 2 August 2016, and Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 2 August 2016 * Enclosure 7 – Letters of Support (13) * Enclosure 8 – Southern University at Shreveport Louisiana School of Nursing Enrollment Verification, dated 24 July 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant appeals the decision of the DASEB and therefore requests: (1) removal of the GOMOR, dated 29 June 2012, from his OMPF or (2) transfer of the GOMOR and the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation findings from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (see enclosure 3). b. On 15 May 2012, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) X____ L____ appointed Captain (CPT) X____ X. X____ as the investigating officer (IO) to conduct an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation concerning possible misconduct on the part of the applicant (see exhibit B). c. A GOMOR was presented to the applicant that reads, "You are hereby reprimanded for fraternizing with an enlisted female Soldier in violation of AR [Army Regulation] 600-20 [Army Command Policy]..." based on the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. d. The GOMOR was based solely on the evidence of record – the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation – which does not support the allegations in the GOMOR that gave rise to its issuance. e. The petition seeking removal of the adverse documents – the GOMOR and OER – from the applicant's record is based on two premises: (1) the substantial procedural and factual deficiencies in the investigation which contributed to imposition of the GOMOR and (2) the GOMOR had served its purpose and should be removed. f. The actions of the IO raise an issue as to the honesty and integrity of that officer and the validity of the conclusions formed because: (1) he failed to take sworn statements from two witnesses whose information he relied upon in reaching his conclusion; (2) he failed to utilize DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) as directed through the Army Regulation 15-6 IO appointment memorandum (see exhibit B); and (3) a memorandum for record (MFR) was written by the IO on 11 June 2012 with no corroboration or witnesses as to its accuracy (see exhibit L). g. On 10 and 16 August 2012, the witnesses X___ X___ and X___ X___, after having the opportunity to read the MFR written by the IO that captured what they stated, made sworn statements completely refuting the MFR written by the IO (see exhibits M and N). Both witnesses swore the IO falsely represented what was said, as they were never provided the opportunity to see the IO's statements or notes. h. There were procedural deficiencies that required rejection of the GOMOR and showed: (1) Paragraph 5c of the IO appointment memorandum (see exhibit B), states, "I prefer that all witness statements are sworn (DA Form 2823); however if a sworn statement is not feasible, you may utilize other methods of recording." This was not followed by the IO, as telephone and mail interviews should be used only in unusual circumstances where the person has permanently changed stations or is otherwise not readily available. The IO should have documented why he couldn't get a sworn statement. (2) The IO requested a 7-day extension. The IO had enough time to obtain sworn statements. In addition, the IO never stated why he needed the extension (see exhibit I). (3) There was no evidence explaining why the IO did not obtain the sworn statements on DA Forms 2823. His failure to follow clear guidance with no explanation was a serious flaw in the collection of evidence. (4) Exhibit B, paragraph 3 (Conduct of the Investigation), reads, "Your investigation will include all relevant details, to include dates, times, places, participants, and witnesses." This was not done in a number of instances. The failure of the IO to examine, compare, and corroborate facts that were in dispute and to follow and pursue obvious leads was a fatal deficiency. (5) Among the witnesses with whom a serious procedural error existed was Ms. X____ X__, the female who the applicant had a passing acquaintance with during his stay at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Lindsey. Her testimony or information that she provided became critical to the investigation due to the fact that she was African- American and generally fit the description of the female who the applicant's detractors sought to place him with (see exhibit P). (6) The summary of the IO's recollection of his conversation with Ms. X____ X____ via telephonic interview notes she was not deploying from FOB Lindsey until July 2012, the month following the completion date of the IO's investigation. The question the IO should have asked was "did she have any relations with the applicant." He chose not to do so. There was no explanation for why a telephonic interview was conducted versus a face-to-face interview with her signing a sworn statement since she was physically on FOB Lindsey. i. There were factual deficiencies that were not inclusive of all the factual deficiencies of the investigation, but represent some of the major ones which establish the conclusions and ultimate imposition of the GOMOR as unjust. They were: (1) The IO's statement in exhibit A relates that the three accusers said the applicant was having a sexual relationship with an African American female specialist (SPC) who was not a member of the applicant's parent unit. The statement showed: * it was hearsay * the best evidence could have easily been obtained from the three accusers * the brief statement provided more questions than answers * there was no follow-up questions to the accusers as to why they thought the female was not a part of the applicant's parent unit * the accusers stated the female worked in the FOB motor pool * there was no evidence that the IO ever attempted to contact the FOB motor pool to locate this female, which was critical to the investigation * that in the applicant's statement for the record, the entire FOB consisted of approximately 1,000 individuals and it would have taken very little effort for the IO to contact the motor pool commander to ask how many African American SPCs were assigned (2) The witness, X___ X___ (see exhibit D1), stated he could not see the name tag of the female Soldier, which was odd considering his profession was as an intelligence analyst in the Active and Reserve Army. (3) Coupled with the failure of the IO to independently verify that any such female existed, called into question by counsel, not only the quality of the investigation, but the IO's conduct. (4) The IO failed to conduct an analysis of the information that the three tent mates witness statements provided did not stand up to scrutiny. (5) The IO stated the three accusers attempted to resolve their differences by taking the issue to First Sergeant (1SG) X___. The IO made no attempt to contact 1SG X___ and there was no evidence that a 1SG by that name existed. (6) If the IO had made the attempt to interview 1SG X__, he would have realized that person was non-existent, thus casting doubt on the credibility of the accusers and the statements they made. j. The IO stated in his findings that someone had posted a sign, allegedly signed by the Base Defense Operations Center (BDOC) 1SG, stating that females were not allowed in quarters and posting of the sign became a point of contention between the applicant and his tent mates. The IO did not pursue this issue with the BDOC 1SG during his investigation. k. In August 2012, the applicant tracked down 1SG J____, the BDOC 1SG, regarding the IO's statement above and exhibit X (1SG J____'s sworn statement) showed that he never wrote or left a message on the B-Hut where the applicant and his tent mates lived. l. In exhibit C, J____ T____, one of the applicant's accusers stated the applicant arrived at the tent between 1800 and 1900 hours. The discrepancies with his sworn statement are as follows: * the applicant alleged that J____ T____ maintained a space in the tent, but never actually lived there and was continually absent and was in no position to know his comings and goings * MAJ C____ verified in her sworn statement that the applicant worked in the Joint Rapid Action Cell (JRAC) until at least 1800 hours every day, causing him to be back at the tent no sooner than 1900 hours, considering travel and dinner time (see exhibit G) m. In exhibit E, K____ K____ stated the alleged female visitor wore a reflective belt that had the rank of SPC on it when visiting the applicant. The applicant stated no one wore reflective belts on the FOB for the following reasons: * no need to wear belts on a small size installation that had no vehicles present * wearing protective belts would be a target for a sniper * the applicant took a survey of 40 random personnel residing on the FOB and asked if any of them wore reflective belts while on the FOB * only 1 out of 40 personnel surveyed wore a protective belt while in uniform * the IO should have questioned the statement provided by K____ K____ that the female he alleged was visiting the FOB was wearing the physical fitness protective belt with the understanding that belts were not worn on the FOB n. He questions why J____ T____, who barely resided in the tent, K____ M____, and K____ K____ would relate a story that was not true. o. Staff Sergeant (SSG) D____ answered the above question as (see exhibit Y1, page 2): * when he and Sergeant First Class (SFC) L____ resided in the same tent as the applicant previously, they had nothing but trouble with the civilian contractor occupants * SSG D____'s stated K____ M____ and K____ K____ did not like military members in the tent and constantly attempted to make trouble for them * SSG D____'s statement showed K____ M____ and K____ K____ were upset that an officer was about to reside in the tent * MAJ C____ verified in her statement that the applicant moving into the tent in question was proper as it was offered to him by one of the noncommissioned officers * it was noted by SFC L____ that at least one of the civilians had an issue with the applicant moving into the tent, as they were trying to save the space for a civilian * there was more evidence that established animosity that existed on the part of the civilians against the applicant or military members who resided in the tent at various times p. The applicant received a GOMOR for fraternization. The elements of the offense under Article 134 (Fraternization), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), are as follows: * that the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer * that the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner * that the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s) * that such fraternization violated the custom of the accused's service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality * that under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces q. The burden is upon the IO to prove the facts and unless every element of the offense is proven, there is no offense. There was no evidence the conduct in question took place and whether the applicant acted on it since the enlisted person was never identified. r. The investigation was lacking in credibility and was deficient procedurally, factually, and legally. s. The GOMOR should be removed as it has served its intended purpose in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7, that allows: * removal or transfer to the restricted folder when the letter of reprimand has served its intended purpose * has been in the OMPF for at least 1 year since imposition * the Soldier is at least an SSG or above * the Soldier has received at least one evaluation since filing of the reprimand t. Since the imposition of the GOMOR, the applicant has met all criteria listed above and he continued his stellar performance as an Army officer. If the GOMOR remains in his file, he will not be able to recover from this one incident and any chance at future service with the Army is impossible. u. His OER's from 2013 through 2016 and earlier have the following captured bullet comments (see enclosure 5): (1) OER ending 20 August 2016 is top blocked across the board where his rater writes, "(Applicant) was a model officer during this rating period" and his senior rater writes, "(Applicant) is in the top 15 percent of the Captains he rated...select for promotion ahead of peers"; (2) OER ending 20 June 2015, his rater placed the applicant in the top 25 percent of the Captains he rated and his senior rater rated him "Most Qualified"; (3) OER ending 15 March 2015, his rater noted he consistently scored 285 or better on his Army Physical Fitness Test and his senior rater placed him in the top third of the company commanders and recommended him for promotion. (4) OER ending 15 March 2014 is all top blocked and his rater stated "(Applicant) possesses unlimited potential, promote to Major ahead of peers" and his senior rater rated him as "Best Qualified, "Promote to Major ahead of peers"; (5) OER ending 17 January 2013, his rater's comments include "Groom this Captain for Major; this officer has unlimited potential" and his senior rater stated, "(Applicant) is in the top 10 percent of all officers I have served with"; and (6) The OER in question that the applicant received immediately following the incident had positive remarks and both his rater and senior rater stated the applicant should be allowed to recover from the one incident. v. The applicant served 24 months overseas, to include 12 months in Afghanistan, and received the following awards (see enclosure 6): * Meritorious Service Medal * Two Army Commendation Medals * Army Achievement Medal * Army Parachutist Badge w. Many officers wrote letters in support of the applicant, which can be found at enclosure 7. Excerpts of the letters are as follows: (1) Colonel (COL) T____ P____ wrote that the applicant's character was "impeccable, he lives the Army values." (2) LTC (Promotable) K____ L. W____ wrote "[Applicant's] military values, professionalism, and dedication to duty are unquestionable." (3) LTC D____ E. R____ stated, "In a deployed environment you get to know your team members well. [Applicant] gained my unequivocal trust in a very short period of time. I would select CPT F____ above countless other Medical Service Corps Officers to serve on my team." (4) Command Sergeant Major M____ D. B____ stated, "He [Applicant] was invaluable in coordinating MEDEVACS (medical evacuations) which resulted in hundreds of lives being saved..." (5) MAJ N____ O. H____ notes, "It would be a grave injustice to [Applicant] and the Army if this issue was not resolved immediately. I recommend that the GOMOR be removed..." (6) N____ C____ pointed out in her recommendation that the FOB where she served as the Chief Medical Logistics Officer for the Division noted that no female Soldiers worked in the motor pool. This fact further substantiated false testimony given by the applicant's accusers. (7) Brigadier General W____ B. H____, in recommending the applicant for the Strategic Broadening Seminar, attests to the applicant's character as "impeccable." (8) Dr. S____ D____ noted the applicant was one of the most impressive students she taught in her 23 years of experience. (9) COL C____ A. S. B____, a hospital commander, heartily recommended the applicant for the Army Nurse Program. She had the opportunity to work with him and her letter makes it clear that she endorsed his opportunity to continue to serve and be integrated into the Army Nurse Program. (10) COL B____ wrote "[Applicant] consistently demonstrated through his actions his commitment and dedication to upholding the Army standard and always operated in an exceptional manner...His integrity is above reproach." (11) COL L____ C____ wrote, "During my 25 years of active service I have not met many junior officers that display Army values at the level that [Applicant] does...I humbly ask this GOMOR be removed...grant him the opportunity to continue his service to our great country." x. The common ground in all the endorsements listed above is that they all speak of the integrity and selflessness of the applicant, bolster his credibility, and cast doubt on those who have attacked his truthfulness and service. y. The applicant is currently engaged in obtaining the necessary degree and training at Southern University at Shreveport and is expected to graduate in December 2018 (see enclosure 8). z. The damage to the applicant as the result of vicious lies and an investigating officer who, at best, shirked his duty cannot be overstated. This Board has the ability to right the wrongs and make this officer whole again, giving justice to him and the U.S. Army. 3. From 30 May 2008 through 20 August 2016, the applicant has provided several OER's for review (see enclosure 6). 4. On 15 May 2012, the IO was appointed under Army Regulation 15-6 to investigate the applicant concerning violation of General Order Number 1, dated 13 November 2010, for allegedly having a female visitor in the male tent where he resided. 5. On 12 June 2012, the IO completed his report of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation where the findings showed: a. The applicant did have a female visitor and as yet, an unidentified Soldier, highly likely an Army SPC, in his room behind a closed door on multiple occasions, including overnight stays in his bed. b. The applicant did have a female visitor in the male tent on multiple occasions and inside his own room within the tent. The visitor had not been identified at the time of the investigation, but was a female African American Army SPC. c. The visits were at times sexual in nature; all three tent mates state clearly that they heard sounds clearly associated with sexual intercourse on multiple occasions, including giggling, moaning, and the sounds of bedsprings moving rapidly for several minutes. No other resident of the tent had any overnight visitors during the period covered by the investigation. d. The visits began early in the first week of April 2012 as the female would arrive in the evening around 2000-2200 hours, enter the applicant's room, and leave early in the morning between 0400 and 0600 hours. e. The visits occurred several times per week, though it varied by week. f. The applicant's actions were in clear violation of General Order 1B, specifically Article 134 of the UCMJ. He clearly was a commissioned officer fraternizing with an enlisted Soldier who was known to him to be an enlisted Soldier. g. The applicant did not discuss anything about a female visitor with his tent mates prior to the posting of a sign on the main door to the tent by Information System Technician Second Class (IT2) T____ on or about 20 April 2012. h. The applicant had a female visitor behind his closed door, which does have a lock on the inside. i. The applicant did have a female visitor sleep with him in his living space, behind a closed door, on multiple occasions. j. The applicant did not show aggression to his tent mates. While it is clear there was a loud argument when IT2 T____ posted a sign on the outer door to the tent, there was no violence or aggressive or threatening behavior substantiated by the evidence. k. The evidence of fraternization between the applicant and an enlisted Soldier consists of the eyewitness accounts of his three tent mates, including one noncommissioned officer of the U.S. Navy, a U.S. civilian contractor, and one retired Air Force master sergeant. l. The applicant was highly likely to have committed fraternization with an enlisted Soldier, though the name of the female Soldier is not definitively supported by any evidence. m. The IO recommended appropriate administrative action. 6. On 19 June 2012, a legal review of the investigation was conducted by the Regional Administrative Law Attorney, Headquarters, Regional Command-South, who determined: a. The review of the investigation was legally sufficient. b. The IO's proceedings complied with the procedural requirements of Army Regulation 15-6 and all other pertinent legal authorities. c. There was sufficient evidence contained in the investigation to support the IO's findings. d. The IO's recommendations were consistent with the findings. 7. On 29 June 2012, he was issued a GOMOR for fraternizing with a female enlisted Soldier in violation of Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 4-14. The GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 8. On 11 July 2012, the applicant submitted matters in rebuttal to the GOMOR and filing of the GOMOR (see exhibit U). 9. On 21 July 2012 after considering the applicant's rebuttal matters, the GOMOR- imposing authority directed filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 10. On 31 July 2012, the applicant received the contested OER (see exhibit Z(2)). 11. On 16 August 2012, the applicant conducted his own investigation by randomly asking 40 military and civilian personnel to complete a questionnaire by selecting "Yes" or "No" to whether they saw Soldiers wearing reflective belts on the FOB and, if "Yes," whether they saw rank on the belt. All but one said they never saw any Soldiers wearing reflective belts (see exhibit Y). 12. On 19 August 2012 in a sworn statement, 1SG J____ stated he never posted a sign on one of the huts and the physical training (reflective) belt was the standard uniform for the 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery, but not for the 1st Battalion, 64th Combat Aviation Brigade, during limited visibility (see exhibit X). 13. On 20 February 2015, the DASEB denied the applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR from his AMHRR (see enclosure 1). The DASEB determined the evidence presented: a. did not establish clearly and convincingly that the document under consideration was untrue or unjust, b. that the presumption of regularity should not be applied, and c. the overall merits of the case did not warrant the relief requested. 14. On 2 August 2016, the applicant requested a 90-day extension of his active duty service obligation (see enclosure 6). 15. The applicant enrolled in the Nursing Program at Southern University at Shreveport for courses beginning 28 August 2017 (see enclosure 8). BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s and Counsel’s requests, supporting documents and the evidence in the records. The Board discussed the applicant’s statements regarding the AR 15-6 investigation, the OERS and statements of support he provided, the review of the investigation that found it legally sufficient. The Board acknowledged that the GOMOR and the contested OER resulted from the investigation and determined that the applicant was in violation of the General Order 1B and based on preponderance of evidence violated AR 600-20 policy regarding fraternization. The Board determined that based on the investigation the GOMOR and OER comments were warranted and should remain in the applicant’s file. The Board also found insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s reinstatement, retroactive promotion to Major and retroactive pay and allowances. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): not applicable. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) 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. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files. a. Paragraph 1 (Purpose) states the intent of Army Regulation 600-37 is to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely or incomplete is not filed in the individual official personnel files; and, to ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. b. Paragraph 3-2 (Policies) states unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity. These traits must be identified early and shown in permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making decisions that may result in selecting Soldiers for positions of public trust and responsibility, or vesting such persons with authority over others. Other unfavorable character traits of a permanent nature should be similarly recorded. c. Paragraph 3-5 (Filing of Nonpunitive Administrative Memoranda of Reprimand, Admonition, or Censure) provides that a memorandum, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the AMHRR, and managed by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command upon the order of a general officer (to include one frocked to the rank of brigadier general). The general officer directing filing must exercise general court-martial convening authority over the recipient, be the designee or delegate of the individual exercising general court-martial convening authority over the recipient, been a filing authority from the recipient’s losing command pursuant to (f)(1) below, or be the chief of any designated special branch pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3064 – acting pursuant to their statutory authority over members of their respective special branches. Memoranda filed in the AMHRR will be filed in the performance folder. Directions for filing in the AMHRR will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. A memorandum to be included in a Soldier's AMHRR will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment. (1) The referral will include reference to the intended filing of the memorandum. (2) This referral will also include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, and other documents that serve, in part or in whole, as the basis for the memorandum, provided the recipient was not previously provided an opportunity to respond to information reflected in that documentation. (3) Statements and other evidence furnished by the recipient will be reviewed and considered by the officer authorized to direct filing in the AMHRR. The statements and evidence, and/or any applicable written correspondence thereof, will be attached as enclosures to the memorandum (4) If the filing authority desires to file allied documents with the memorandum, these documents must also be referred to the recipient for comment. This includes statements, previous reprimands, admonitions, or censure. Allied documents must also be specifically referenced in the memorandum or referral document. Care must be exercised to ensure additional unfavorable information is not included in the transmittal documentation, unless it has been properly referred for comment. d. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) provides that 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 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. Normally, consideration of appeals is restricted to grades E-6 and above, to officers, and to warrant officers. This does not include documents that have their own regulatory appeal authority such as evaluation reports and court-martial orders. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. e. Paragraph 7-2b provides that only letters 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. Such 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. f. Paragraph 7-6 (Correction of Military Records) states Army Regulation 15-185 contains policy and procedures for applying to the ABCMR and for correcting military records by the Secretary of the Army. Applications should be sent to the ABCMR to correct an error or remove an injustice only after all means of administrative appeal have been exhausted. 3. Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy) prescribes the policy and responsibilities of command which include the well-being of the force, military discipline and conduct, the Army Equal Opportunity Program, and the Army Sexual Assault Victim Program. Paragraph 4-14b states relationships between Soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command; cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain; are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature; or create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records 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 folder of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (DASEB or the ABCMR). a. 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. b. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. c. Appendix B governs the list of documents required for filing in the OMPF. All documents approved by the Department of the Army and required for filing in the AMHRR can be found at the Army Soldier Records Branch web site. This web site shows letters or memoranda of reprimand, censure, or admonition are filed in the performance folder of the OMPF. A letter or memorandum, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF only upon the order of a general officer senior to the recipient or by direction of an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual. The direction for filing in the OMPF will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter or memorandum. If it is desired to file allied documents with the letter or memorandum, these documents must also be referred to the recipient for comment. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170015836 14 1