ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180010111 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a. removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 20 October 2016, from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) or, alternatively, transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder; and b. 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) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 29 May 2018, subject: Request for Removal of GOMOR of (Applicant) * Memorandum, Counsel, dated 31 May 2018, subject: (Applicant) * Information Sheet, Applicant, Defense Health Agency, undated, titled: Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Approaches to Post-Traumatic Headache * Information Sheet, Applicant, Defense Health Agency, undated, titled: How Many Traumatic Brain Injuries Go Unreported? * 23 Character Reference Letters/Memorandums * DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (04-05; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 10 January 2017 through 20 October 2017 * Research Paper, Applicant, undated, titled: Preparing for Disaster: Analgesic Needs for Mass Burn Casualties * Curriculum Vitae, Applicant, undated 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. 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) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files) states 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. b. Paragraph 3-4 states filing of nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure in official personnel files, such as 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 (Appeals). c. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) 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 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. d. 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. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the official military personnel file, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. 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. FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Commander informed her that she was under investigation on 4 April 2016. She was instructed to take her laptop (portable personal computer) and go home. She did not speak to an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigating officer until 8 April 2016. At that time, she was told this was not an official investigation and it was not necessary to advise her of her rights. The investigating officer sent her a list of questions that she answered to the best of her ability and he never contacted her again. b. In November 2016, to her surprise, she was called in to meet with the I Corps Deputy Commanding General and issued a GOMOR. She requested an extension due to surgery scheduled for 10 November 2016 and follow-up surgery scheduled for 2 December 2016. c. She never called anyone "fat." She can't do anything about how people perceived her "face" during staff meetings. She never accused a contractor of stealing a laptop (the issue was overtime that would not be paid). She did not, as a rule of thumb, swear at people, but she did get frustrated like anyone and used a swear word on sparing occasions. She does believe in the Army physical training program, height and weight standards, and an 8-hour work day if you are in the Army. She never ordered Dr. N____ to write papers for her benefit. Lastly, when she used the term "girl Friday," to her it meant someone who was a hard worker and an assistant, and she genuinely meant it as a compliment. She had no idea that anyone could misinterpret the story of Robinson Crusoe or have alternative interpretations until months later. Therefore, the statements in the GOMOR are inaccurate and witnesses attested to the inaccuracies. d. During her limited time at the unit, she felt she was working in the best interest of her staff. It was not about her, it was about them, her unit members doing well and getting recognition for their successes and their work. She was staffing the unit with outstanding people and working to give them opportunities for growth and development. e. All of her lieutenant colonel OERs were good, to include her final OER that stressed that she is an ethical and professional officer and researcher. She never had any problems during her career until she went to Joint Base Lewis-McChord and worked with Captain L____. She has never received a negative counseling statement or been placed in any sort of performance improvement plan. f. She performed a leadership self-assessment and, in the end, she believes communication (or miscommunication) was a major issue. She will choose her words more carefully and will always remember the message that is sent is not always the message received. She is going to practice active listening skills and will reflect each day on how her interactions with people can be perceived. She never had any of these issues in her career prior to being assigned to the Medical Research Directorate (MRD)- West, but it has been a major wake up call for her – one she will not soon forget. She is going to take the skills she has learned, develop them, and use them in her civilian career. 2. The memorandum from the applicant's civilian counsel, dated 31 May 2018, states: a. First, the GOMOR, Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, and the applicant's successful appeal to the Army Grade Determination Review Board took a toll on her mental health. She is currently receiving a Department of Veteran Affairs disability rating directly tied to her preretirement process. Retaining the GOMOR in her records serves no purpose other than to cause her further mental anguish. b. Second, Major (MAJ) W____, who was a member of her previous command, initially wrote an unfavorable statement relating to the applicant. MAJ W____ has had time to reflect upon the case and all the parties involved, namely the executive officer, MAJ L____, and now realizes he may have been falsely convinced to have a negative view by the executive officer. This is the most benign alleged case of toxic leadership by MAJ L____ that she has ever seen in her career. The applicant was not toxic at all. This was a case of misperception, miscommunication, and gender bias. 3. She was issued a GOMOR on 20 October 2016 wherein the I Corps Deputy Commanding General stated: a. The applicant was reprimanded for creating a toxic work environment by making disparaging comments to her subordinates and displaying unprofessional behavior and unethical conduct while serving as the Director of the MRD-West. (1) Specifically, on numerous occasions she made repeated degrading and lewd comments in the presence of or while addressing her subordinates, such as "girl Friday'' (a racially charged term) and "fat" among other derogatory comments. She used excessive profanity in the office. (2) She also suggested ways to cheat on military training examinations to her colleagues. She improperly accused one of her subordinates of stealing a Government laptop when, as commonly practiced in the office, the subordinate took her laptop home to finish her work. She publicly confronted two of her subordinate officers, improperly accusing them of being drunk on duty and sniffing them. (3) Additionally, she displayed difficulty managing her emotions, exhibiting excessive and rapid mood swings; erupting in outbursts of anger; and expressing irrational paranoia, suspicion, and jealousy of others in the workplace. She refused to collaborate with researchers outside of her office and she pressured subordinates not to assist them. (4) Lastly, she used her office for gain by ordering a civilian contractor in her office to perform a personal task for her during the duty day, namely to complete an academic paper primarily authored by her daughter and unrelated to her duties. b. He was extremely disappointed in her unprofessional conduct and poor judgment. As an officer and the Director of MRD-West, she was charged with the responsibility of setting the example for Soldiers to emulate, and for creating an atmosphere that is free of any hostile toxic environment. Her actions not only demonstrated a serious lack of maturity, they fell well below the standards expected of an officer in the U.S. Army, causing him grave concern about her ability to lead. He expected her to conform her behavior to reflect the degree of professionalism expected of every officer in the command. c. The memorandum of reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. She was advised that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-4, he was considering whether to direct permanently filing the GOMOR in her AMHRR. She was given 7 calendar days from receipt of the reprimand to submit matters in her own behalf. 4. On 7 December 2016, the applicant's defense attorney responded to the GOMOR on her behalf. The applicant disputed the allegations in the GOMOR on the basis that they appeared to be comments and actions taken out of context. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-4, counsel requested reconsideration or filing the GOMOR locally. 5. On 9 January 2017 after considering the GOMOR, supporting documentation, the circumstances of the misconduct, all matters submitted by the applicant, and recommendations from the applicant's commanders, the imposing authority directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR with all enclosures. 6. On 20 January 2017, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR filing determination. 7. The applicant provided 22 letters of support, stating, in part: a. The applicant was seen as an outstanding Army officer who consistently displayed the highest professional standards and ethical conduct as an officer, researcher, mentor, and friend. During a 2009 deployment to Balad, Iraq, where she was serving as the Deputy Director of the Combat Casualty Research Team, the applicant eagerly outreached to deployed medical personal from all service branches and professionally educated them on her role and their roles in military medical research. Throughout her time in Iraq, the applicant worked closely with the staff at the U.S. Air Force Contingency Aeromedical Staging Squadron and theatre hospital. Dedicated to her mission, she stayed on-call 24/7 to respond to all trauma and mass casualty calls in order to conduct research while providing assistance to the health care personnel in saving lives. b. Dr. N____ first met the applicant as part of a collaborative project at the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research in 2013. After (the applicant) had left the institute to stand up the MRD-West, Dr. N____ applied for a position within the applicant's new unit. Had Dr. N____ not had faith in the applicant's abilities, Dr. N____ would not have moved her family to Washington to take a position. Dr. N____ found the applicant to be a competent leader. If actions speak louder than words, uprooting her family to take a similar position in another state is evidence that she is a worthy leader. It came as a great shock to Dr. N____ that, within months of standing up the unit, the applicant was accused of being a toxic leader. Dr. N____ found the accusations to be false and self-serving to those who initiated them. c. MAJ W____ provided clarity regarding his impressions of the investigation regarding the applicant's leadership, while serving as the Director of the MRD-West. Although he'd like to think he was objective when writing his impressions of the applicant for the investigation, he can see how his impressions were jaded by the applicant's deputy, MAJ L____. In the time following the applicant's removal and after submitting his impressions, he became more aware that MAJ L____'s intentions were centered on self-advancement. In hindsight, he feels the applicant would have succeeded as a director if she had a deputy who was supportive and team-focused. To be fair, his impressions were from one vantage point and following closure of an old investigation. d. The consensus was that the applicant was an outstanding Army officer who displayed the highest professional standards and ethical conduct as a researcher, collaborator, mentor, and leader. She was an exceptional leader and mentor whose professional achievements made lasting and positive contributions to human research protections, clinical investigations, and social behavioral research. She has always sought to support the mission and Soldiers, never asking anyone to give what she was not willing to. The applicant works well with stakeholders, superiors, peers, and subordinates. She was never complacent, always striving to make improvements at work and in her personal life. In addition, the applicant was an engaging leader who took a genuine interest in everyone's professional development and well-being. 8. She provided her OER covering the period covering 10 January 2017 through 20 October 2017, showing she was rated "Proficient" by her rater for overall performance and "Highly Qualified" by her senior rater for potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade. The rater provided positive comments regarding her character (block d1.) and positive narrative comments about her performance (block d2). Both her rater and senior rater comment positively about her mentorship. 9. She retired on 31 January 2018. She completed 25 years, 1 month, and 12 days of total active service. 10. The applicant additionally provided research papers written in collaboration with other health care professionals. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. 1. Regarding removal of the GOMOR, the Board found insufficient to grant relief. The board found insufficient contemporaneous, independent, corroborating evidence that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust. a. The record is void of and the applicant did not provide the AR 15-6 investigation findings and recommendations and supporting evidence for that investigation. The Board, therefore, assumes administrative regularity. The Board found that the applicant did not overcome the burden of proving that the GOMOR was untrue or unjust or that the imposing authority (IA) did not follow proper regularity procedures in administering the GOMOR. b. The GOMOR IA had the authority to issue the GOMOR as an administrative measure to correct the applicant’s behavior that the IA deemed inappropriate. 2. Regarding applicant’s request to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder, the Board found sufficient evidence to grant relief. The Board found sufficient evidence that the GOMOR has served its intended purpose. Subsequent to receiving the GOMOR (20 October 2016) the applicant received an OER (period covered from 10 January 2017 thru 20 October 2017) with positive comments regarding her character and mentorship The Board found this evidence was sufficient to indicate the GOMOR had achieved its intended purpose and transfer of the GOMOR from the performance folder to the restricted folder of her AMHRR is warranted. 3. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :XX :XX :XX GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. 1. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring her GOMOR, dated 20 October 2016, from her AMHRR to the restricted folder. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to * removal of the GOMOR, dated 20 October 2016, from her AMHRR; and * a personal appearance hearing before the Board. 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) AR20180010111 9 1