ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170019267 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 20 October 2014, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), and a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement and Statement from Attorney * GOMOR * Board of Contract Appeals Decision, In the Matter of X___ X____ * Active Duty Orders, dated 21 January 2011, 5 July 2012, 9 October 2012, and 26 July 2013 * Annual Training Orders, dated 16 December 2013 and 23 January 2014 * Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) Excerpt * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) with investigation * Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Decision, In the Matter of X___ X. and In the Matter of X___ X X___ * Defense Travel System (DTS) Travel Voucher * DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 29 April 2013 and 1 April 2017 * DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period endings 26 September 2009, 25 April 2010, 17 June 2011, 20 February 2012, 20 February 2013, and 30 September 2013 * DA Forms 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) for the period ending 30 September 2014 and 31 March 2016 * 25 Letters of Reference * Email from Inspector General * Memorandum and Attachments, Protest of Involuntary Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) * Request for Deferment of Separation Date * Memorandum, subject: Notice of Second Nonselection for Promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. The allegations addressed were not all fully supported by a preponderance of evidence and he was cleared of falsifying any documents. The only evidence presented were statements from his ex-wife, the DTS manager, and the DTS alternate approver. b. That the GOMOR incorrectly states that his place of residence is in Brandon, Florida when in fact his home of record is Orlando, Florida as identified on his DD Form 214 and his orders. c. The travel claim in question was fully processed as correct on 11 March 2015 after the issuance of the GOMOR which is a complete admittance to the proper filing in accordance with the JTR (Joint Travel Regulation) and not fraudulent. d. The information provided to support the travel claim was not false or fabricated and to the best of his interpretation and within all legal parameters of Army Regulations and the JTR; the command issuing the GOMOR nor the board of inquiry did not take those into account. e. He was placed on a number of temporary duties (TDY) and annual training orders to MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) (the greater Tampa area) where he obtained a lease to accommodate for the TDY. In the absence of his lease he would commute from Orlando, Florida to the greater Tampa area. f. He was reimbursed for his lease expenses in accordance with the JFTR. 2. The applicant provides: a. A statement from his attorney detailing his application for request to remove the GOMOR from his AMHRR as well as additional corrective actions. b. Board of Contract Appeals Decision, in the matter of X___ X___. This case held that if a Federal employee on TDY spent his night in a residence he owned at the TDY location, the costs he incurred in staying in the house were reimbursable if the house was purchased as a place to live during the temporary duty. c. Active duty orders and annual training orders which state the dates that he was required to be in the greater Tampa area performing military duty at MacDill AFB. d. Excerpt of the JFTR regarding Reserve Component member travel allowances and authorized lodging options. e. DA Form 1574, dated 30 June 2015 to determine evidence presented for three allegations of moral or professional dereliction. The findings and recommendation as well as the summarized transcript are included to complete the board packet. f. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Decision, in the matter of Jeanne S. and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Decision, in the matter of X___ X. X___are cases that offer precedent that one can receive lodging reimbursement while TDY for an apartment leased for the purpose of that TDY. g. Approved travel voucher from DTS, dated 11 March 2015, which indicates travel from Orlando, Florida to MacDill AFB, FL and expenses incurred. h. Eight OERs and 25 letters of character references that reflect his integrity and trustworthiness. i. E-mail correspondence, dated 23 February 2017 with documentation of his request to defer his REFRAD. j. Memorandum, subject: Notice of Second Nonselection for Promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three, dated 17 October 2016, which shows his election of rights and Army Directive 2015-17 (Reinstatement of Separation for Two-Time Nonselection for Promotion and Implementation of Selective Continuation Boards for U.S. Army Reserve Warrant Officers. It also shows that his REFRAD would occur on the first day of the seventh month after the date the board was approved. He would then be removed from an active status. 3. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted on 3 August 1998 in the U.S. Army Reserve. b. He served on active duty from: * 16 February 2003 – 18 April 2004 with service in Kuwait from 22 March 2003 – 15 August 2003 and 29 September 2003 – 1 October 2003, and service in Iraq from 28 August 2003 – 27 September 2003, * 2 October 2003 – 14 October 2003 * 2 November 2003 – 29 February 2004. * 9 November 2007 – 17 December 2007 * 29 June 2008 – 24 September 2008 * 21 February 2011 – 20 February 2012 c. On 18 December 2007, he took the Oath of Office as a USAR Warrant Officer. d. On 20 October 2014, he was issued a GOMOR which states: (1) He was reprimanded for utilizing a false lodging receipt while on temporary duty at SOCOM in January 2014. He further filed a false claim for mileage from Orlando, FL to MacDill AFB, FL notwithstanding that he had been residing in Brandon, FL. Finally, he made false statements to AFOSI during his interview about his travel. (2) His conduct was unacceptable for an officer in the Army. His actions demonstrate a complete lack of responsibility and concern regarding use of government money and integrity. His conduct falls to meet basic standards of professional conduct and is unacceptable. (3) This reprimand ls imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. This reprimand may be filed in your official personnel file. The documents that form the basis for this reprimand are enclosed. e. On 4 November 2014, he submitted rebuttal matters which state: (1) Any false statements or submission of false documents were unintentional mistakes and not intentional misconduct. The allegation of filing a false claim for mileage was a mistake and should have been remedied at the lowest level possible. (2) Discrepancies and clerical errors on the receipt for rent used as a lodging receipt are the fault of the leasing company. The amount claimed using those receipts were more advantageous to the government as it was less than the lodging per diem rate that he would have been entitled if he did not have rental property. (3) His written statement was not false, but was misinterpreted or misunderstood and further misconstrued by the reporting officer. (4) This situation is due to a misunderstanding that should have been resolved at the lowest level. He was not given the opportunity to correct his mistakes when they were discovered. f. On 18 November 2014, the Commander, United States Special Operations Command, (a general officer) directed that the letter of reprimand be placed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). It was subsequently filed in the applicant’s OMPF on 2 February 2015. 4. By regulation: a. 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. b. 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The GOMOR and his rebuttal confirm the errors in which he filed a false claimed. Based upon the documentary evidence available, the Board found no error or injustice which would warrant removing the GOMOR from the applicant’s record. The Board found that all due process was afforded to the applicant at the time of processing and that an authorized official to place it in his official file took such action. Therefore, in the Board’s opinion, 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. 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. 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 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. 3. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170019267 6 1