ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180009359 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 30 December 2014 through 31 May 2016 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 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) * Enclosure 1 – OER covering the period 30 December 2014 through 31 May 2016 * Enclosure 2 – Command Investigation – * Memorandum for Record (MFR), Second Lieutenant (2LT) C____, Battalion S-1 Officer, Headquarters, Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Discussion and Events that Occurred in Conversation with the Executive Officer, (Applicant), on 19 January 2016 * MFR, Battalion S-1 Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, Headquarters, Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Incident between 2LT C____ and (Applicant) * MFR, Mrs. S____, dated 20 January 2016 * MFR, Applicant, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Work Related Interaction with 2LT C____, Battalion S-1 Officer, on 19 January 2016 * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer (IO)/Board of Officers), dated 15 March 2016 * Memorandum, Commander ,Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, dated 1 February 2016, subject: Appointment of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) IO * 14 Sworn Statements * Memorandum, Commander, National Ground Intelligence Center, dated 15 March 2016, subject: Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Informal Investigation Concerning the Behavior of (Applicant) * MFR, Commander ,Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, dated 5 May 2016, subject: Action by Appointing Authority for Army Regulation 15-6 Informal Investigation Concerning the Behavior of (Applicant) * Enclosure 3 – Three Character-Reference Memorandums 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 will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) includes, but is not limited to, the OMPF, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 3. Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy and Procedure) prescribes the policies and responsibilities of command, which include the Army Ready and Resilient Campaign Plan, military discipline and conduct, the Army Equal Opportunity (EO) Program, and the Army Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program (formerly the Army Sexual Assault Victim Program). When evaluating officers, enlisted Soldiers, or department of the Army civilian employees, rating officials will evaluate those individuals' commitment to the goals and objectives of the EO or Equal Employment Opportunity Program. This includes the individuals' actions or non-actions toward the prevention and elimination of unlawful discrimination and/or sexual harassment. Raters are required to document significant deviations from that commitment and identify instances of reprisal/retaliation taken by the rated individual in that evaluation report. 4. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 2-12 stated the rater will assess the rated Soldier's performance in fostering a climate of dignity and respect and adhering to the requirements of the SHARP Program. This assessment should identify, as appropriate, any significant actions or contributions the rated officer or noncommissioned officer made toward: (1) promoting the personal and professional development of subordinates; (2) ensuring the fair, respectful treatment of unit personnel; and (3) establishing a workplace and overall command climate that fosters dignity and respect for all members of the unit. (4) This assessment should also identify any failures by the rated Soldier to foster a climate of dignity and respect and adhere to the SHARP Program. (5) Raters will include this information in the DA Form 67-10-2, Part IVd1 (Character). b. Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) addressed requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier's AMHRR and reports that are being processed at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), prior to completion. (1) An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, has been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represents the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. (2) Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier's AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program. (3) Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored if the request is based on the following: * statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier * statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did * requests that ratings be revised * statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, performance, or potential * statements from rating officials claiming OERs were improperly sequenced to HQDA by the unit or organization * a subsequent statement from a rating official that he or she rendered an inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier's performance or potential in order to preserve higher ratings for other officers (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection) (4) For reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's OMPF, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an OER, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report, or Academic Evaluation Report "THRU" date. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time reports were rendered. (5) An exception is granted for evaluation reports when: * information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified * this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier * the following actions will be accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report – * if the report is an OER, and the information would have resulted in a higher evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report, and rating officials may provide input to support this point * if the report is an OER and the information would have resulted in a lower evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the OER c. Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program), section I (Managing the Redress Program), stated the program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent, and provide a remedy for, alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred. (1) Paragraph 4-8a (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. (2) Paragraph 4-11a (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: * the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration * action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice (3) Paragraph 4-11d stated for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the applicant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. FACTS: 1. The applicant states the basis for his OER appeal is substantive inaccuracy, as the report includes unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct in the command's formal investigation and is unjust. On 15 March 2016, the IO published his findings, summarizing his report by finding in paragraph 2: "I did not find any actions by [Applicant] that rose to the level of misconduct." Despite this fact, he was issued a referred OER. This is a third-priority appeal under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-10. a. The OER in question ignored the specific findings of the investigation, and instead wrongfully indicated he engaged in misconduct. It indicated he made unwelcome comments in the workplace, invaded the personal space and unnecessarily touched coworkers, and in so doing failed in his duties to foster a climate of dignity and respect. The OER should not be permitted to report performance that is a direct conflict to the command's investigation that specifically found that he had not engaged in any misconduct. This practice violates Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-19c, which excludes unverified derogatory information from evaluation reports, noting that such references are "unjustly prejudicial." In this instance, the OER is unjust and must be removed in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-11a(2), which calls for the deletion of reports necessary to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. b. Moreover, the OER implies that he engaged in sexual harassment of a subordinate by indicating that he failed to foster a climate of "dignity and respect" at the workplace. The use of this language unfairly suggests he engaged in sexual harassment of a subordinate despite the clear finding of the investigation that he did not engage in any such misconduct. c. In addition, the senior rater was physically located in Charlottesville, VA, about 100 miles from his duty location, and had minimum interaction with him. His senior rater, Colonel (COL) D____, did not review his work, had no opportunity to observe his duty performance, and therefore had no basis to evaluate his performance. The senior rater's comments were exclusively based upon the rater's erroneous and adverse comments in Part IVd (Character) of his OER. The comments contribute to the overall misleading and unjust nature of the OER. 2. The applicant provided memorandums pertaining to the command investigation. a. The MFR from 2LT C____, Battalion S-1 Officer, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Discussion and Events that Occurred in Conversation with the Executive Officer, (Applicant), on 19 January 2016, states: (1) 2LT C____ briefed Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) D____ on the S-1 battle rhythm without briefing the applicant first. This upset the applicant. 2LT C____ told the applicant that LTC D____ previously told her that she had permission to inform LTC D____ about any S-1 issues without having to consult the applicant each and every time. The applicant told 2LT C____ that she should have told LTC D____ that she could not look at the information before he had a chance to see it. He also informed her that Captain (CPT) N____ had just told LTC D____ that she could not see her information until the applicant did. (2) The applicant reiterated to 2LT C____ that he was the Battalion Executive Officer and all of the sections inform him of information prior to going to LTC D____. 2LT C____ responded with: "Sir, I don't imagine the shops always do this since we are her [LTC D____'s] staff, it is ok to speak to her without your consent or knowledge." 2LT C____ apologized and the applicant told her that they were good. (3) After 2LT C____ returned from the bathroom, the applicant asked her, "How do you think LTC D____ would feel if I told her that I showed the BDE [brigade] Commander something without her knowledge and said, 'She already approved it'?" 2LT C____ realized that she had offended the applicant when she told him that she spoke to LTC D___ and LTC d____ approved of the battle rhythm. 2LT C____ apologized for how she said it earlier. She tried to clarify what she said earlier to him by saying "What I meant was LTC D____ is my higher, and yes higher than you and she has already given me the authority to see her without seeing you concerning everything I do in my shop as the OIC [officer in charge]." (4) The applicant kept reiterating that he should have seen the paperwork first but said, "Its ok, we are good." At this point 2LT C____ was confused and asked him, "Sir, how am I supposed to know what I can show her before showing you or do I take everything to you but you are telling me not to because it is not necessary but when I do we end up having conversations like this, repeatedly." The applicant took the pen off the paperwork on 2LT C____'s desk, reached over to her, tapped her rank twice, and said, "You're just a Lieutenant, everything will go through me." This offended 2LT C____. The applicant closed with: "We are good, I am not upset" and walked away. (5) 2LT C____'s husband [CW2 C____] told her to speak to LTC D____ to clear up what her boundaries were because the applicant was giving her mixed signals and conflicting information. LTC D____ noticed something was wrong and asked 2LT C____ if they needed to talk privately. 2LT C____ informed her of the events and of the current and previous conversations with the applicant that did not seem professional in nature. 2LT C____ felt humiliated and very uncomfortable with the applicant's contact. It was very clear to her that the applicant did not regard her with the respect that every Soldier and person deserved and did not view her as a true officer in charge of a shop, or even considered her to be a true staff member. She felt he crossed the line and she did not feel comfortable working under his authority. b. The MFR from Sergeant (SGT) D____, Battalion S-1 Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Incident between 2LT C____ and (Applicant), states the S-1 section had a discussion about the S-1 battle rhythm on 19 January 2016. After the discussion, the battle rhythm was proposed to the battalion commander. Shortly after that 2LT C____ and SGT D____ were talking about the outcome of the conversation with the battalion commander. While they were talking, the applicant walked by and sat at 2LT C____'s desk. 2LT C____ followed him over to her desk. The applicant seemed as if he were upset because 2LT C____ did not bring the battle rhythm to him first. He kept saying, "it should have come to me first." 2LT C____ said to him "that the reason it didn't come to him [was] because the Battle Rhythm was something that had been discussed, the outcome from a conversation between the Battalion Commander, Command Sergeant Major (CSM) and herself." After a few minutes the applicant walked away and she noticed 2LT C____ was very upset and her eyes was watering. c. The MFR from Mrs. A____ S____, dated 20 January 2016, states she saw the applicant walking toward 2LT C____'s desk on 19 January 2016 at approximately 1600 hours. 2LT C____ sat down and the applicant sat on one of the collaboration stools at the desk. Mrs. S____ did not hear their conversation. After about 20 minutes, the applicant walked past her desk toward his office. She looked back at 2LT C____'s desk and 2LT C____ looked noticeably upset. 2LT C____ was packing up her things. She walked to the printer and came back toward her own desk when she saw CW2 C____ at 2LT C____'s desk. 2LT C____ was talking really fast, throwing her hands in the air, and getting emotional. ·She walked over to 2LT C____'s desk and asked if 2LT C____ was okay. 2LT C____ said, "no." CW2 C____ walked away and left them to talk. 2LT C____ told her the applicant was really angry with her about a document she had taken to LTC D____ that he had not seen. 2LT C____ said she tried to explain to him why she had done it, but he told her not to take anything to LTC D____ without going through him. 2LT C____ told her that he said some other things to her, but she couldn't remember what all 2LT C____ said. 2LT C____'s eyes became very red and she started to cry, saying the applicant then took his pen and started tapping her on her chest in the middle of her rank while saying she's "Just a lieutenant or you're a lieutenant." She couldn't remember 2LT C____'s exact words. d. The applicant's MFR, dated 20 January 2016, subject: Work Related Interaction with Battalion S-1 Officer on 19 January 2016, states at no point did the referenced interaction become confrontational or unprofessional. (1) At approximately 1500 hours on 19 January 2016, he was approached by 2LT C____ who asked him if he had a minute. At this time, he walked with her to her desk and they both sat down. 2LT C____ proceeded to show him a one-page PowerPoint slide which depicted a new battalion S-1 battle rhythm or new battalion S-1 hours. As he was viewing the document, 2LT C____ stated she had already shown it to LTC D____, the battalion commander, and that it was good to go. (2) This was his first time seeing the new battle rhythm/new S-1 hours. At this time, he was elated to see 2LT C____'s initiative with the new S-1 battle rhythm and thus verbally praised her for her efforts. He commented that from an initial glance, the PowerPoint slide looked great; however, he would have to look at it in more detail later because he was working other work-related matters. He informed 2LT C____ that as the battalion executive officer, he would have liked to have had some input in the suggested section hours and new S-1 battle rhythm prior to submitting it to the battalion commander. At this time, 2LT C____ requested that he elaborate on his remarks. He then asked her to consider the scenario that should the new S-1 hours become effective immediately and that he, as the executive officer, unknowing about the new S-1 hours, needed something from the S-1 and no one was present or otherwise, he would have been left in the dark. 2LT C____ then stated that she thought her actions were justified because she had shown the PowerPoint slide to her main boss. (3) At this time, he was puzzled by 2LT C____'s remarks and he asked her what she meant by "main boss." 2LT C____ responded, "Oops, I have had a case of the slip of the tongue all day." 2LT C____ then informed him that she had had some previous undesired verbal interactions with the battalion CSM, CSM L____, earlier in the day. He then asked 2LT C____ how far she thought that he would go if he took his battalion actions directly to the brigade commander, hence bypassing and not informing the battalion commander, with him thinking the brigade commander was his "main boss." (4) At this time, it seemed as though 2LT C____ was better understanding the conversation. However, she went on to ask him, "How do I determine which actions to run by you and which actions that can I take directly to the battalion commander?" He then pointed to the rank on her shirt and stated that he trusts her judgment as an officer, and for her to use her own discretion. As he is extremely conscientious of working with female coworkers, especially subordinates, and even more conscious of physically touching anyone, he is certain that he did not touch her rank. (5) He then informed her that something as significant as new S-1 hours and a new S-1 battle rhythm would be something in which he would have wanted to have had input. 2LT C____ then commented that from now on she would run all of her battalion actions through him before taking them to the battalion commander. He immediately said, no, that was not the case. He stated she did not have to run all of her work actions through him and that he did not want to stifle her initiative, nor did he want to impede her rapport with any of the battalion leadership. He commented that he thought she was well-liked and appreciated by the battalion leadership and that she should continue to build those relationships, so her direct engagements were very much warranted. e. The memorandum from the IO to the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion Commander, dated 15 March 2016, subject: Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Informal Investigation Concerning the Behavior of (Applicant), states: (1) He was appointed to conduct an informal investigation regarding the applicant's behavior for allegedly using a pen or other device to touch the rank of 2LT C____. The applicant was also alleged to have made comments in the workplace or elsewhere about the attractiveness and dress of females or about their personal appearance where he was overheard by subordinates or co-workers or members of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion. (2) He did not find any actions by the applicant that rose to the level of misconduct. During the investigation, he looked at four main areas to see if the applicant acted inappropriately for a workplace setting, for his position and rank, or in ways that made others uncomfortable. These four areas, addressed below, relate to whether he used a pen or other device to touch the rank insignia of 2LT C____, whether he made comments regarding the attractiveness and dress of females, whether these actions were appropriate for someone of his rank and position, and whether he intruded upon the personal space of members of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion. (3) Background. (a) During the late afternoon of 19 January 2016, the applicant and 2LT C____ had a discussion regarding the proposed S-1 battle rhythm that occurred at a collaboration table located next to 2LT C____'s desk within the offices of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion. 2LT C____ alleges that during the discussion, the applicant used a pen to tap the rank on her chest, which made her feel humiliated and very uncomfortable. (b) The IO found the applicant did tap, using a pen in his hand, 2LT C____'s rank insignia located on the center of the chest area of her official camouflage pattern uniform top. There is no direct evidence to support this other than 2LT C____'s statement saying he tapped it twice while he said: "You're just a lieutenant, everything will go through me." However, during his interview with 2LT C____, her recollection of the conversation/interaction with the applicant was detailed and very specific regarding many aspects of the entire interaction. Contrasted with the IO's interview with the applicant, where his recollection was very general and generic when he questioned him about how far apart he and 2LT C____ were sitting and how close or far away his hand and pen were in relation to 2LT C____'s rank when he made, what he calls, a hand gesture toward her rank, while telling her, "I trust your judgment as an officer." The applicant did not give him any indication as to how close or far his pen came to 2LT C____, even when the IO asked him if he could demonstrate his hand gesture on him, as if he were 2LT C____. The applicant said he did have a pen in his hand during their interaction that afternoon, but insisted that he did not touch 2LT C____ with it. The IO found that 2LT C____'s recollection of the events surrounding their discussion more credible. The IO found the applicant did not intend anything sexual in nature. He did not find that the applicant's actions rose to the level of misconduct. (4) Background. Multiple members of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion alleged the applicant made comments about the attractiveness and dress of females or about their personal appearance and other similar comments that might be inappropriate under the circumstances or in the workplace. (5) Findings. The IO found credible the personal observations of multiple witnesses regarding comments about females that the applicant made to them, and that the applicant made comments that were inappropriate for the workplace. The IO found there were too many instances of members of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, from witnesses who work in disparate sections of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion and are from different social circles, for their statements to be contrived. The members of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion who were interviewed had very specific recollections about what the applicant said to them, as well as the location and scene. However, all of the witnesses thought the applicant intended no harm or malice by what he said, but rather thought he was just trying to connect with them. The IO did not find that the applicant's actions rose to the level of misconduct. (a) To CPT M____ and CPT W____ of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, the applicant made a reference to scenes from the 2015 movie Fifty Shades of Grey (known for explicitly erotic scenes) when a female worker at the Kawamura gym at Fort Belvoir demonstrated for them a muscle-up exercise. (b) To CPT W____ of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, the applicant commented multiple times in the workplace about young attractive females who worked on Capitol Hill. (c) To Mr. S____ of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, the applicant commented that a female who Mr. S____ had been talking with earlier in the day was "hot." (c) To Mr. S____ of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, the applicant commented while in a tunnel in the Capitol building in Washington, DC, "we have a lot of that up here" when referring to Mr. S____ glancing back at a female on Capitol Hill who had just walked past them in the tunnel. (5) With regards to comments about females, the IO found that the applicant's comment about being reminded of scenes from the movie Fifty Shades of Grey was inappropriate for a workplace setting and for someone of his rank and position. It appears the applicant tried to be discreet when making any comments about females, as no female member of the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion who was interviewed had ever heard the applicant remark anything about the appearance or attractiveness of females. However, the IO did not find that the applicant's actions rose to the level of misconduct. (6) During the course of the investigation, the issue of personal space and personal boundaries came up many times, and the IO found that it was an issue that was directly related to the subject of this investigation. This involved the applicant either being physically too close to someone and/or placing his hands in a way that made them feel awkward, weird, or uncomfortable. It also involved grabbing a personal cell phone without consent. (7) Findings: The IO found the applicant was not aware of the personal boundaries of others. This issue came up many times throughout the course of the investigation. None of the witnesses thought the applicant had malicious intent, ill will, or intended anything sexual in his actions they observed. The IO did not find that the applicant's actions rose to the level of misconduct. The IO made the applicant aware, in part, of the following evidence of personal observations: (a) According to Private First Class (PFC) C____, and witnessed by CPT M____, the applicant came up very close behind PFC C____ while she was standing in the doorway to the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Commander and First Sergeant's office. (b) According to PFC C____, the applicant was close enough to the side of her face that she could feel his breath on her cheek when he began talking (see sworn statement). (c) According to CPT M____, the applicant's mouth was very close to PFC C____'s ear (see sworn statement). (d) PFC C____ told me that she now feels she needs to avoid situations where the applicant may have an opportunity to encroach upon her personal space. (e) SGT D____ said it was weird when the applicant came up behind her while she was sitting at her desk. She did not feel he violated her personal space, but rather that his standing close behind her chair for no apparent reason was just weird (see sworn statement). (f) Ms. K____ said the applicant was in her personal space once; she asked him to back up and he did (see sworn statement). (g) 2LT C____ stated the applicant has placed his hands on her shoulders or touched her elbow on multiple occasions. She didn't perceive these touches as sexual in nature, but rather as just not necessary (see sworn statement). (7) Recommendations. The IO recommended continued mentorship and discussions with the applicant by the battalion leadership team (Commander and CSM), centered on appropriate and inappropriate physical interactions as well as appropriate and inappropriate discussions in the workplace. f. The MFR from the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion Commander, dated 5 May 2016, subject: Action by Appointing Authority for Army Regulation 15-6 Informal Investigation Concerning the Behavior of (Applicant), states the preponderance of the evidence indicates the applicant did and/or said everything he accused of doing and/or saying. (1) Regardless of the applicant's intent, his comments were far from appropriate for a field grade officer to make to his subordinates (military or civilian). They indicate an objectification of females in the workplace and foster an environment which considers some less worthy of dignity and respect than others. That is entirely antithetical to Army Values and clearly a violation of Army Regulation 600-20. These comments and actions also represent a lack of judgment. (2) During his 23 years of service, the applicant has repeatedly received training related to preventing sexual harassment and treating others with dignity and respect from the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Training, EO training, and Consideration of Others training, to the current SHARP training. (3) The applicant will receive a letter of concern. Per Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 2-12j, and Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 6-11a, the results of the investigation will be annotated in his next evaluation. 3. His OER covering the period 30 December 2014 through 31 May 2016 shows in: a. Part IVd1 (Character), his rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] failed to foster a climate of dignity and respect. He repeatedly made unwelcome comments objectifying women in the workplace to multiple civilian and military subordinates. [Applicant] invaded the personal space of colleagues and subordinates, unnecessarily touching them on more than one occasion." b. Part IVd2 (Provide Narrative Comments Which Demonstrate Performance Regarding Field Grade Competencies and Attributes in the Rated Officer's Current Duty Position), his rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] meticulously tracked and managed the battalion's budget portfolio consisting of 14 Accounting Personnel Codes/Budget Line Items; worth in excess of $17 million in support of contingency operations, Foundry training, garrison operations at nine locations, and research and development. [Applicant] initiated an officer physical training program. [Applicant] planned and executed two professional development sessions for all members of the AGB [Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion]. [Applicant] failed to consider the impact of his inappropriate comments on those hearing them or the position he was placing subordinates in when he unnecessarily touched them or others in their presence." c. Part IVe (Comments), his rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] is #4 of 4 Majors in the Battalion. While he is clearly capable of performing his duties and is technically proficient, his repeated comments objectifying women in the workplace represent behavior not expected of a field grade officer." d. Part VIc (Comments on Potential), his senior rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] possesses potential for continued service. His potential for promotion to LTC and selection for Battalion Command are limited by the referred nature of this OER." 4. The applicant provided three character memorandums regarding the quality of his service and his military character during the time frame covered by the OER. a. In an MFR, dated 18 February 2018, COL (Retired) L____ stated she has known the applicant for over 10 years. In her role as the Chief, House Liaison Division, on Capitol Hill, she witnessed first-hand the applicant educate and inform Members of Congress, their staffs, and committees concerning legislative aspects of Army plans, policies, and programs. The applicant also spearheaded, and executed various high- visibility Congressional and staff delegations' travel inside and outside the continental United States. Throughout his Army career, the applicant successfully interacted with, educated, and mentored a vast number of females, including female recruits as the Commander, Basic Combat Training; female members of Congress; and female Congressional staff as a legislative liaison; as well as numerous female Soldiers; without any allegations of misconduct, unprofessional behavior, or comments. b. 19 February 2018, Ms. R____ stated she met the applicant in June 2015 while working at the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion. He was her immediate supervisor. The applicant showed he cared by demonstrating his compassion towards others. He posed strong characteristics of an outstanding leader. He was responsible, focused, respectful, empathetic, and humble. The applicant dedicated his life to the Army and was an integral part of it. He embodied his job as the Battalion Executive Officer and placed his job and the Army as a top priority in his life. c. In an MFR, dated 20 February 2018, Mr. K____ stated he served as the applicant's supervisor in his capacity as the Army Cyber Command G-2 Intelligence Plans Branch Chief, from January until June 2015. (1) Based on his direct communication with LTC D____, the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion Commander, prior to the applicant's assignment at the Army Geospatial Intelligence Battalion, Mr. K____ did not complete a change-of-rater OER. They determined the best course of action was for LTC D____ to complete an annual OER or extended annual OER with Mr. K____'s input/letter of continuity for the OER at a future date. LTC D____ never informed Mr. K____ when she was going to complete the applicant's OER and therefore Mr. K____ was not afforded an opportunity to submit his input for January through June 2015. (2) The applicant's service at the Army Cyber Command was completely honorable and no complaints were ever filed or submitted by anyone in the command over the applicant's conduct or professionalism to the best of his knowledge. At no time did he observe any unprofessional conduct by the applicant towards female co-workers; he had close interaction with female co-workers on a daily basis throughout his assignment at the Army Cyber Command and treated them and all other employees in the command with the utmost respect. The applicant clearly performed above his peers and provided mission-essential analysis and information to the commanding general and the command. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the contents of an investigation with supporting documents and the investigating officer’s findings, the determination of the Commander and the comments records in the contested evaluation report. The Board considered the three character recommendations provided by the applicant. The Board found insufficient evidence to modify the outcome of the investigation or to support a change to the comments recorded regarding the investigation in the contested evaluation report. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the contested evaluation report, as filed in the applicant’s record, is not in error or unjust. 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 :XXX :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) AR20180009359 16 1