ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008605 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 24 February 2012, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 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) * Statement, Applicant, dated 16 April 2014 * Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Docket Number AR20140016338, dated 13 November 2014 * DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the periods 13 December 2010 through 19 March 2014 * DA Forms 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the periods 20 March 2014 through 25 June 2017 * Memorandum, Headquarters, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, dated 24 February 2012, subject: Reprimand (GOMOR) * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 2 March 2012, subject: Acknowledgement of Receipt of Reprimand * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 9 March 2012, subject: Reprimand Filing Consideration Rebuttal * Memorandum, U.S. Army 1st Medical Recruiting Battalion, dated 12 March 2012, subject: Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination * Memorandum, U.S. Army Medical Recruiting Brigade, dated 14 March 2012, subject: Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination * Headquarters, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, dated 17 April 2012, subject: Filing Determination on Reprimand * Memorandum, Army Medical Department Professional Management Command, dated 14 July 2015, subject: Recommendation for (Applicant) REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that an administrative memorandum 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 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. a. Paragraph 3-5 provides that a memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR 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 AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7. b. Paragraph 7-2 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 AMHRR. c. Paragraph 7-2 also provides that only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the AMHRR. 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR. Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance folder of the AMHRR unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (i.e., DASEB or Army Board for Correction of Military Records). FACTS: 1. The applicant states he received a GOMOR on 24 February 2012 for misuse of his Government Travel Charge Card. He had allowed a stressful time in his life to cloud his judgment and for that he is truly sorry. He sought both financial and marital counseling to ensure he would never find himself in a similar situation. He accepts responsibility for his actions and has continuously demonstrated true professionalism. He further states: a. On 13 November 2014, the DASEB favorably considered his request to move the GOMOR to the restricted folder of his AMHRR. Since then, he has continued to demonstrate professional growth and development as evidenced through several OERs, mentoring, mission accomplishments, and proper use of the Government Travel Charge Card, to include multiple temporary duty assignments and two permanent change of station relocations. b. The incident which led to his reprimand was an isolated one and will not be repeated. He learned an invaluable lesson and believes he has regained the trust and support of his chain of command. The GOMOR has fully served the purpose for which it was issued and he would like to have it completely removed from his AMHRR. 2. On 13 September 2003, he was ordered to active duty under the U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve Program in the rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2 and he has continued serving in positions of increasing responsibility. On 7 January 2007, he was promoted to the rank/grade of captain/O-3. 3. On 24 February 2012, he was issued a GOMOR for unauthorized purchases on his Government Travel Charge Card wherein the Commanding General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, stated: a. Between May 2010 and July 2011, he made unauthorized purchases on his Government Travel Charge Card. The estimated amount of money used for personal and unofficial expenses, which included food and gasoline, and cash withdrawals, varied from $130.00 to $1,200.00 per month, totaling approximately $2,800.00. b. His actions undermined the good order and discipline within the command. As a commissioned officer, he has a duty to act responsibly in every situation, to do what is right, and to set a positive example for others. Has failed in these responsibilities. c. The administrative reprimand was imposed under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. 4. On 9 March 2012, he submitted a rebuttal through his chain of command wherein he stated: a. He acknowledged the severity of his actions and understood there are no excuses for usage of the Government Travel Charge Card other than official military travel. That type of behavior will never happen again. He apologized for his actions. b. He and his wife had a crisis within their marriage and were separated for approximately 18 months. During that period, he was the sole financial provider for two households, including his two children. The routine bills and other financial responsibilities accumulated at a fast pace and it created a downward financial spiral. c. Since then, he and his wife reconciled and have a joint vision regarding their financial goals to ensure they never find themselves in that situation again. He has been diligent in proactively learning debt and financial management techniques to develop a keen sense of financial awareness. 5. On 12 March 2012, his battalion commander recommended temporary placement of the reprimand in his local file for a period of 3 years or until he is reassigned outside of the jurisdiction. On 14 March 2012, his brigade commander concurred with that recommendation. 6. On 17 April 2012, the GOMOR-imposing authority directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. 7. On 28 August 2013, he was promoted to the rank/grade of major/O-4. 8. His records show he was awarded a Master of Business Administration degree in Human Resource Management from Columbia Southern University on 15 September 2014. 9. On 13 November 2014, the DASEB approved transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR on the basis that the intended purpose had been served and it would be in the best interest of the Army. 10. The Army Medical Department Management Command memorandum, dated 14 July 2015, subject: Recommendation for (Applicant), supports the applicant's effort for retention in the Active Guard Reserve Program. The commander stated: a. He has known the applicant for a period of 1 year as the commander. The applicant has taken on several projects and programs that had stagnated prior to his arrival. His personal determination and his ability to lead others has reenergized the section and bought a higher level of success and performance to the team. b. He recommends the applicant for retention and continued service in the Active Guard Reserve Program. He is convinced the applicant has grown and developed as an officer and leader beyond the point where he made the judgment errors that led to his reprimand. He will be a positive influence and outstanding future leader. 11. He provided copies of his OERs covering the periods 13 December 2010 through 25 June 2017 showing his consistent favorable and successful duty performance that rates him as "Highly Qualified." 12. His DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 16 January 2018, shows he successfully completed the Command and General Staff Officer Course from 24 June 2016 through 17 December 2017, achieving course standards and satisfactorily demonstrating his abilities. 13. On 6 February 2018, he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for outstanding achievement while serving as Division Chief of Incentives and Strength Management for Army Medical Department Professional Management Command during the period 30 June 2014 through 25 June 2017. 14. His DA Form 1059, dated 22 June 2018, shows he successfully completed the Health Services Plans, Operations, Intelligence, Security, and Training Course from 4 June 2018 through 22 June 2018, achieving course standards and satisfactorily demonstrating his abilities. 15. His OER covering the period 26 June 2017 through 25 June 2018 shows his rater commented that he is an innovative and critical thinker who always incorporates team concepts in order to achieve the mission. His overall performance was rated "Proficient." His senior rater commented that he is the hardest working major in the division G-3 and became a trusted agent within operations, working daily in a turbulent and uncertain environment. His potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade was rated "Highly Qualified." 16. His OER covering the period 26 June 2018 through 19 April 2019 shows his rater commented that he continues to show exceptional work and has displayed great strength in leadership, initiative, and intellect. His overall performance was rated "Excels." His senior rater commented that he tackles assigned tasks with incredible enthusiasm and determination. His potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade was rated "Highly Qualified." 17. U.S. Army Human Resources Command Orders B-07-904670, dated 25 July 2019, promoted him to the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel/O-5 effective 1 August 2019. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence presented by the applicant and found within the military service record, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction of the applicant’s record. The Board considered the decision of the DASEB regarding filing of the GOMOR. After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the Board found that all due process protections were afforded the applicant and that the processing of the GOMOR was done within regulatory guidelines and standards. For that reason, the Board recommended that denying the requested relief was appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XXX :XXX 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180008605 6 1