ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:  18 June 2019
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180012256


APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.	The applicant requests, in effect, removal from her Official Military Personnel 
File (OMPF) the following documents:

*	Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 Investigation, dated 11 January 2018
*	A General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 
respectively 26 February 2018
*	DA Form 67-10-3 (Strategic Grade Plate (O-6) Officer Evaluation Report 
(OER)), Relief for Cause (RFC), for the period of 20171103 through 
20180312

2.	The applicant requests personal appearance before the Board and defers to 
her counsel.

3.	On 6 March 2019, the applicant submitted a memorandum with supplemental 
requests and supporting documents. She requested that the board remove all 
adverse information from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 
based on the injustice and legal error outlined in my original application, and 
because the adverse administrative action taken against me has served any 
intended purpose and removal or transfer of these adverse administrative 
records to my restricted file is in the best interest of the Army. Contentions are 
presented: excessive adverse actions, interaction with her rater/senior rater, and 
in the vest interest of the Army. The following supporting documents were 
attached:

*	Memorandum from LTG R, 4 March 2019, subject:  Letter of Support
*	Memorandum from MG B, 28 February 2019, subject: Letter of 
Recommendation
*	Memorandum from GS-13 B, 4 March 2019, subject: Letter of 
Recommendation



Enclosure 2




COUNSEL REQUESTS:

1.	Counsel requests removal of an AR 15-6 Investigation, a GOMOR, and a 
Relief for Cause (RFC) OER for the period 3 November 2017 through 12 March 
2018 (hereinafter referred to as the contested OER) from the applicant's OMPF. 
Counsel also requests personal appearance before the Board.

2.	Counsel states the military records in question (identified above) are the result 
of a legally defective AR 15-6 Investigation; a biased Investigation Officer (IO) 
[Brigadier General (BG) B], appointing/approving authority [Major General (MG) K, 
Commander, U.S. Army Element], and commander [General (GEN) H, 
Commanding General (CG), United States Strategic Command 
(USSTRATCOM)]; and retaliatory action taken by the decision makers in the 
applicant's case. The request is based on both legal error and injustice, and 
because the normal process for redress is untimely and unjust.

   a.	Counsel states the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board 
(DASEB) stated only the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 
could remove the AR 15-6 Investigation from the applicant's OMPF.  He 
contends that the AR 15-6 Investigation is the underlying record for all the other 
records.

   b.	The derogatory records are based on a legally defective AR 15-6 
Investigation because the investigating officer's (IO's) findings are not based on 
an Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or a punitive provision 
of any Army regulation or policy. The IO also relied upon general, conclusory, 
and uncorroborated rumors and hearsay. He notes that the punitive provisions 
for bullying, hazing, and sexual harassment; and Article 133 (Conduct 
Unbecoming an Officer), UCMJ, exist to capture actual cases of hostile work 
environments and/or toxic leadership. If the facts and circumstances do not rise 
to the level of violation of an Article of the UCMJ or a punitive provision of an 
Army regulation or policy, a finding of misconduct or a derogatory finding is 
legally defective.  Counsel states the IO's investigation and findings:

*	lacked legal authority: were not tied to an Article of the UCMJ or Army 
regulation or policy
*	offered insufficient evidence:  did not define "hostile work environment"
*	did not establish the existence of a hostile work environment, toxic 
leadership, or destructive leadership
*	the sworn statements contained generalities, hearsay, lacked context, 
and a number were uncorroborated




*	failed to address/investigate the credibility, veracity, or motive of a 
number of witnesses whose statements were in question
*	alternative findings:  the IO –
*	failed to state why the finding made was more credible and 
probable than the other reasonable conclusion
*	disregarded positive sworn statements pertaining to the applicant –
*	counsel identifies and provides extracts from thirteen individuals' 
sworn statements to this effect
*	counsel emphasizes that the applicant's sworn statement also 
directly contradicts the sworn statements of others

   c.	The derogatory records should be removed because they are the result of 
a biased IO, appointing/approval authority, and commander.

*	The IO was not impartial, unbiased, or objective because –
*	prior to the investigation he received a one-sided account of one of 
the alleged incidents at issue in the investigation
*	he had a pre-existing close professional relationship with another 
witness
*	The appointing/approving authority was improper because he –
*	was cited as a witness in at least six sworn statements (counsel 
identifies and provides extracts from the individuals' sworn 
statements pertaining to the applicant's behavior and counseling)
*	was a relevant witness that the IO should have interviewed directed 
the IO to interview a person with no knowledge of the allegations at 
issue who had a negative view of the applicant
*	The appointing/approving authority's commanding officer was biased 
and a relevant witness because –
*	he knew of and condoned the alleged conduct at issue
*	he took no corrective action
*	the investigation should have been handled by a different command 
because of conflicting views –
*	he offered positive comments about the applicant
*	when asked by the applicant (on 12 March 2018) if he had ever 
seen any negative or unprofessional behavior; he stated, "No."
*	he evaluated her "#1 of 71 O-6's in USSTRATCOM"

   d.	Prior to the investigation, the applicant informed the Chief of Staff and the 
CG, USSTRATCOM of numerous problems (e.g., bullying, command climate 
issues, poor legal advice, etc.) within the command prior to the initiation of the 
investigation.  This resulted in retaliation against the applicant in the form of an
   



investigation that led to a GOMOR, coercion into submitting her retirement 
application, the contested OER, and a second referred OER.

      (1)	Counsel asserts that the applicant had an unblemished record in her 
previous 28 years of service as an enlisted Soldier, noncommissioned officer 
(NCO), and commissioned officer. [NOTE: See applicant’s military record facts 
of prior events.]

      (2)	She was not counseled on any perceived problem areas nor given the 
opportunity to address any issues before being issued the GOMOR. Counsel 
adds, "[i]t also appears that the reprimand is an attempt by the senior leaders at 
STRATCOM to cover up their potential culpability for knowing, condoning, and 
engaging in the same conduct as [the applicant]."

      (3)	She was instructed to submit her retirement application or face 
additional adverse action; the retirement application was later rescinded.

      (4)	On 12 March 2018, GEN H told the applicant not to discuss the 
circumstances surrounding her removal from her position. However, the 
applicant refused to conceal the circumstances. She was allowed to rescind her 
retirement because of the questionable circumstances surrounding its 
submission. Then, four months later, GEN H, serving as both the rater and 
senior rater of the applicant, initiated the contested OER. NOTE

         (a)	His negative comments and rating were based on a legally 
defective investigation and a memorandum for record (MFR) he prepared on 
11 July 2018, which memorialized three interactions between him and the 
applicant that should have been independently investigated. [NOTE CI]

         (b)	On 27 July 2018, the applicant submitted significant comments in 
response to the contested OER. However, the applicant's comments were 
ignored, and the command attempted to post the contested OER to her OMPF 
without her comments. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) 
returned the contested OER for the required referral to the applicant for 
comments.

         (c)	The applicant requested that the Secretary of Defense initiate a 
Commander's Inquiry (CI) into her evaluation. Despite this, the contested OER 
was posted to her OMPF on 16 August 2018, instead of remaining in 
administrative hold status until completion of the CI.
         



         (d)	On 25 July 2018, a draft Change of Rater OER (# 2284348) for the 
period 13 March 2018 through 20 July 2018 was initiated in the Evaluation Entry 
System (EES).  Counsel states this was an attempt to give the applicant a 
second referred OER even though she had not performed an assigned duty 
since 12 March 2018, she did not have a valid rating chain, and the period was 
unrated time; all in violation of the governing Army regulation.

   e.	Counsel states, in the Army system, the only avenue to address the 
biased and unjust action based on untrue information is through lengthy 
administrative processes. He opines, "[f]ortunately, in the present case the 
ABCMR is the only entity authorized to remove an AR 15-6 Investigation from 
[the applicant's] OMPF and the investigation is the underlying record for all other 
derogatory records. If the ABCMR determines removal of the AR 15-6 
Investigation is appropriate, justice would require the removal of all other 
derogatory records."

      (1)	Counsel refers to AR guidance that the GOMOR is "presumed" to be 
"administratively correct" and the result of "an objective decision made by a 
competent authority." The "burden of proof" then unjustly shifts to the Soldier to 
provide "clear and convincing evidence" to the DASEB that the administrative 
action taken is "untrue or unjust." He asserts, "[t]his burden is essentially 
impossible to meet."  The applicant's request to the DASEB to remove the
AR 15-6 Investigation was met with a response that did not address the 
reprimand and referred her to the ABCMR.

      (2)	Counsel also refers to Army regulatory guidance that an evaluation is 
"presumed to be administratively correct." In evaluation appeals, the "burden of 
proof" also unjustly shifts to the Soldier to provide "clear and convincing 
evidence" to the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) that there is a "material 
error, inaccuracy, or injustice." He notes, on 29 August 2018, the applicant 
submitted an OER appeal to USA HRC and notified the Department of the Army 
(DA) Inspector General (IG, or DAIG) of irregularities with the contested OER. 
The applicant received notification from HRC, Evaluation Appeals Branch, that 
her appeal is pending a decision.

      (3)	Counsel further states that the Department of Defense (DoD) IG, on 
behalf of the Secretary of Defense, has active investigations (related to matters 
under review in this case).

         (a)	There are two investigation (both with five subordinate cases under 
investigation):
         



*	DoDIG Case Number 20180321-050298 (initiated March 2018) 
into the conduct of senior leaders at USSTRATCOM based on 
the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) and 
DoD Directive 7050.6 (Military Whistleblower Protection).

*	DoDIG Case Number 20180626-05224 (initiated June 2018) 
based on a request for a Commander’s Inquiry (CI) into the 
referred OER.

(b)	A classified investigation is underway as of 14 September 2018. 
[See paragraph 25 below in this record of proceedings.]
         (c)	Counsel states, "[a]dditionally, these investigations are more 
focused on the improper actions of the chain of command and senior leader 
misconduct than the injustices facing [the applicant], so it is unlikely that they will 
lead to the removal of the derogatory records at issue." He adds that DODIG, 
DAIG, and senior leaders advised the applicant "to pursue an expedited ABCMR 
as the only way to obtain relief from these injustices in time to save her career."

   f.	Counsel also states, "[t]he window for [the applicant's] Brigadier General 
(BG) Promotion Selection Board (PSB) closes on 7 November 2018 and the 
board convenes on 14 November 2018." He acknowledges the governing Army 
regulatory guidance, "[t]he ABCMR will not consider an application until the 
applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error 
or injustice." He asserts, "the normal administrative process could be read to 
prevent [the applicant] from achieving any redress before she is passed up for 
promotion and/or elimination is initiated."

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) with 
62 supporting documents
*	Counsel's memorandum, dated 20 September 2018, listing 61 enclosures
*	Contested OER (Period Covered:  3 November 2017 – 12 March 2018)
*	DASEB memorandum (Docket AR20180005645), dated 15 August 2018
*	email messages pertaining to the contested OER
*	contested OER appeal, dated 29 August 2018
*	ASRB memorandum, dated 11 September 2018
*	Request for CI, dated 30 July 2018
*	GOMOR, dated 26 February 2018, and allied documents
*	AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 26 February 2018, and allied documents




Evidence from the applicant's service record, and DA and DOD records and 
systems:
*	OMPF
*	ASRB memorandum (Docket AR20090013130), dated 21 August 2009, 
and allied documents
*	ABCMR memorandum (Docket AR20140013232), dated 19 September 
2014, and allied documents
*	ABCMR memorandum (Docket AR20140017133), dated 24 October 2014, 
and allied documents
*	Change of Rater OER (Period Covered:  4 May 2016 – 2 November 2016)
*	Annual OER (Period Covered:  3 November 2016 – 2 November 2017)
*	GOMOR, dated 26 February 2016, and allied documents
*	Contested OER (Period Covered: 3 November 2017 – 12 March 2018) 
and allied documents
*	DASEB memorandum (Docket AR20180005645), dated 15 August 2018
*	ASRB memorandum, dated 11 September 2018
*	Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Military Review Boards (MRB), 
memorandum, dated 2 October 2018, and related email messages
*	ASRB Docket AR20180012309, closed 4 October 2018
   *	DASEB Docket AR20180005645, closed 4 October 2018 
FACTS:
1.	The applicant's application for correction of military records was received by 
the ABCMR on 21 September 2018.

   a.	On 2 October 2018, the Deputy/Operations Officer, Military Review 
Boards, sought clarification from the applicant and her counsel regarding the 
processing of her three active applications with boards in the Army Review 
Boards Agency:

*	AR20180012256 with the ABCMR to which this record of proceedings 
responds
*	AR20180012309 with the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) for an 
OER appeal
*	AR20180005645 with the DASEB requesting removal of derogatory 
information from the applicant’s records

   b.	On 2 October 2018, the applicant responded, in pertinent part, "I request 
that the ABCMR address all three issues collectively. I understand that this 
request will result in the closure of my DASEB and ASRB appeals and my waiver 
of all rights to seek review by the DASEB and ASRB."
   



   c.	The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Review Boards (DASA (RB)), 
approved the applicant's request. Accordingly, cases AR20180012309 with the 
ASRB and AR20180005645 with the DASEB were closed without action and the 
issues added to this ABCMR case.

2.	The request of applicant and her counsel for a personal appearance hearing 
was carefully considered.  However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to 
a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the 
ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record 
and independent evidence provided by the applicant and counsel is sufficient to 
render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal 
appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in 
this case.

3.	The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Regular Army 
commissioned officer in the rank of colonel (COL).

4.	On 13 July 2009, as a major and a battalion executive officer (XO), the 
applicant appealed her center of mass OER for the period 18 March 2007 
through 9 August 2007. She asserted the appeal was "time sensitive in order to 
meet the August 2009 board file suspense dates required to compete on the next 
Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Force Sustainment Command Selection Board 
scheduled to meet in September 2009.

   a.	She stated, "The senior rater had the ability to provide an above center of 
mass rating based on his senior rater profile at the time the report was submitted. 
[This] contested OER was given as reprisal and retribution IAW AR 600-20 (Army 
Command Policy), Chapter 7 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment), paragraph
7-6a (Types of Sexual Harassment), Quid Pro Quo, for refusing a demand for 
sexual favors. It was also given as reprisal and retribution IAW the Military 
Whistle Blowers Act for perceived disloyalty to the unit for providing official 
statements in an informal AR 15-6 Investigation on my 209th Aviation Support 
Battalion chain of command in the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade."

   b.	On 20 August 2009, the ASRB reviewed the applicant's case 
AR20090013130. The Record of Proceedings show in the "Consideration of 
Evidence" section:

*	Paragraph 5, "[t]he appellant provides a copy of an AR 15-6 …findings 
and recommendation, dated 10 April 2007." It shows the AR 15-6 IO 
interviewed the (XO) [the applicant], the battalion commander, 
command sergeant major (CSM), all company commanders and first




sergeants, and some previous commanders, staff officers, and NCOs. 
"The IO also noted the XO [applicant] and battalion commander did not 
speak to one another for at least two months and the XO [applicant] 
and CSM did not speak to each other for four (4) months."

*	Paragraph 6, "[t]he IO recommended relief for cause for the CSM and 
the battalion commander. He also recommended a change in the 
command team and other administrative changes. He [the IO] finally 
recommended an investigation be initiated to determine the actions of 
the XO [the applicant] concerning her use of foul and abusive 
language, undermining authority of the battalion commander, and 
disrespect towards the battalion commander and other commissioned 
officers."

   c.	The ASRB denied the applicant's appeal finding no error in her OER, 
directed the decision memorandum be filed in the applicant's OMPF beside the 
OER and the appeal documentation be filed in the restricted section of her 
OMPF.

5.	The applicant was promoted to COL effective 1 September 2014.

6.	A Change of Rater OER, for the period from 4 May 2016 through
2 November 2016, shows the applicant was serving as Director, Commander's 
Action Group (Dir, CAG), and Admiral CEH, CG, USSTRATCOM, was both the 
applicant's rater and senior rater. His rating shows, in pertinent part, "Promote to 
BG" [compared with eleven (11) total ratings of officers senior rated in same 
grade] and, in pertinent part, the comment, "number1 of 74 O-6s in STRATCOM 
and her performance and potential surpasses her peers."  The Commander, 
Army Element, USSTRATCOM, MG JHD, reviewed the OER.

7.	An Annual OER, for the period 3 November 2016 through 2 November 2017, 
shows the applicant was serving as Dir, CAG, and GEN H, CG, USSTRATCOM, 
was both the applicant's rater and senior rater. His rating shows, in pertinent 
part, "Multi-Star Potential" [compared with six (6) total ratings of officers senior 
rated in same grade] and, in pertinent part, the comment, "Number 1 of 71 O-6s 
in STRATCOM, to include commanders and principal staff positions; Top 1% of 
all O-6's I have seen in my 36 years of service." The Commander, Army 
Element, USSTRATCOM, MG JHD, reviewed the OER.

8.	RADM F recorded the following three interactions he had with the applicant in 
late 2017. Other similar events that occurred in 2017 were testified to by other 
witnesses in the Preliminary Inquiry and the AR 15-6 Investigation.




   a.	During a J3 lead brief to the GEN H in the J5 conference room, as the 
brief was ending and GEN H was departing, the applicant as she was leaving 
loudly announced, “that brief was a piece of shit!" The applicant later apologized 
to RADM F after she was talked to by the Deputy J3, BG B.

   b.	A few months later, the J3 was presenting a new operational concept to 
the GEN H in Commander's Situation Room. The briefer struggled in conveying 
the intent of the operational concept to the GEN H. GEN H directed some follow- 
on actions and told the briefer that his efforts were good, just not on target, so 
check fire and re-acquire. The RADM F was discussing with the briefing officer 
what he wanted him to do when the applicant barged in and yelled "you are a 
fucking embarrassment as an Army officer," to the briefer who was an Army 
officer.  The RADM F reacted quickly and told the applicant equally as loud that 
he owned the briefing and it was being corrected. The applicant continued to 
attempt to berate the briefing officer until the RDAM F told her the conversation 
was over, at which time she just walked away.

   c.	During an exercise on the Battle Deck at the very end of a training 
session, there was a discussion with the GEN H about ensuring all participants 
world-wide work in Zulu time as there had been some confusion during the 
conference about times. Several Flag Officers and Senior Executive Service 
personnel were present and involved in the exercise.  As the GEN H had given 
his final observations and directions on how to improve, the applicant blurted out, 
“remember people, we only work in Zulu time, we should all know that.” Her 
delivery and tone were simply unprofessional.

PRELIMINARY INQUIRY (PI), 22 November 2017 through 10 January 2018

9.	On 22 November 2017, MG K, Chief of Staff, USSTRATCOM, appointed 
BG C, Deputy Director, Nuclear Operations, USSTRATCOM, to conduct a 
Preliminary Inquiry (PI) into the workplace climate of the JOCC (CG’s Office –
GEN H), JOCD (Deputy CG’s Office – Vice Admiral RAC), JOCS (Chief of Staff – 
MG K), JO10 (Secretary of the Joint Staff), and JO04 (Commander’s Action 
Group). On 7 December 2017, direction was given to expand the PI to all of the 
joint staff adding JOCCC (Command Senior Enlisted Leader), J003 (Washington 
DC Liaison Office), JOOS (Inspector General), J006 (Staff Judge Advocate), 
J007 (Foreign Policy Advisor), J012 (Command Historian), J020 (Public Affairs), 
J030 (Strategic Advisory Group), J040 (Command Chaplain), J050 (Command 
Security), J060 (Command Protocol), and J080 (Command Surgeon).	BG C 
was directed to:

a . Assess the overall workplace climate in each of the named divisions,




   b.	Identify any areas of concern as to workplace climate expressed by 
members of named divisions,

   c.	Assess the effectiveness of coordination/collaboration between and among 
the named divisions, and

d.	Provide any recommendations as appropriate.

10.	On 22 December 2017, BG C published his PI report into the Joint Staff (JO) 
Workplace Climate.  He had interviewed 40 out of the 97 in the JO including
5 out of the 8 personnel in the applicant’s division, the CAG. He reported finding 
generally positive work climate in all the Joint Staff divisions except in J004 
(CAG), the JO10 (SJS) and JO60 (Protocol). With respect to the CAG, the PI 
found the following:

    a.	“From the CAG Director's perspective, the internal workplace climate and 
morale of the CAG are both "pretty good" and that "everybody likes working 
there." With respect to work relationships with other JO divisions, she stated that 
the "general theme is the CAG are second class citizens ... supposed to be part 
of the front office ... materiel issues have been fixed, but the us/them persists" 
and that the front office is "demanding vice asking" and "we do all the work, they 
get all the credit." With respect to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration, 
she observed that the "front office shares absolutely nothing with us and we 
share everything." When asked if there was an environment of human respect 
and dignity within the CAO, she responded "definitely" but also cited 
unprofessional behavior from JOCC front office personnel as their "thin skins" 
and "blame game" creates an uncomfortable working environment for everyone 
else.  She also remarked "I've stopped going to the front office for things I need 
to do my job" due to "endless gossip." When asked 'what climate issue does this 
unit most need to improve?,' her response was "don't think we need to improve ... 
any better and we'd be hanging out together on weekends." She assesses that 
the JOCC front office is "too Air Force-centric" and "dysfunctional" and that there 
are roles and responsibilities issues and a "power struggle," but agreed that the 
mission is getting done in spite of the "gossip, drama, and hurt feelings" over the 
reassignment of certain trip planning duties. She acknowledged that it was "no 
secret that people in the military sometimes use the F-bomb … .I have 
occasionally, but far less than my male counterparts. If someone complained 
about me, the boss mentioned it to me and I stopped." She believes someone 
complained to the Chaplain, the JG, the Chief of Staff, and to the Commander 
and said "people have issues with directness. I can't stand cowards who do stuff 
behind people's back."  She said the Commander addressed her language with
    



her approximately 3 months ago and that complaints were likely motivated by 
other objectives stemming from workplace issues.”

   b.	“Several interviewees acknowledged how intelligent the CAG Director is, 
that she "knows how to negotiate" and that she is a "great staff officer, but rough 
around the edges." Several also noted that she has made important 
advancements for the CAO, citing the acquisition of standup desks, improving 
the use of sharepoint, "cleaning house" and new furniture for a more professional 
workspace, and "putting the hammer down on the front office" which was 
"brilliant." However, in spite of these statements of praise, the overall consensus 
among those interviewed was that the CAO Director's behavior is negatively 
impacting the workplace climate and morale in 1004 and work relationships with 
other JO offices, particularly the JOCC front office.”

11.	On 10 January 2018, GEN H had a meeting with the applicant and 
MG K, USSTRATCOM Chief of Staff and Commander of the U. S. Army
Element. The purpose of the meetings was for GEN H to inform the applicant 
that the PI into the Joint Staff Workplace Climate resulted in allegations of 
adverse information against the applicant. As a result GEN H was directing that 
an AR 15-6 investigation be conducted. MG K wrote a memorandum for record 
of what then transpired:

   a.	“[The applicant], upon receiving the information that an AR 15-6 was 
being initiated, abruptly stood up, said "I quit," and walked to the office door. 
Before she could exit, I told her to stop and return to her seat, as General H had 
not yet dismissed her. She then returned to her seat. At no time did she use the 
word "Sir," ask permission to be dismissed or excused from the meeting, or 
express a desire to remove herself to gain her composure. My single thought at 
that time was how unbelievably angry I was at her for her total disrespect shown 
to a 4-star general, COCOM, and a very decent man. On top of that, she is his 
CAG, one of his topmost trusted advisors.”

   b.	“During the meeting, GEN H attempted to explain that he was bound by 
the regulation to initiate the AR 15-6, as [the applicant] was a field grade officer. 
[The applicant] became highly agitated, stating that she "hated STRATCOM” and 
she "was bored here." She also stated that the AR 15-6 was a "witch hunt" and a 
"fishing expedition". [The applicant] added that nobody in the command cared 
about her, and in a direct statement to GEN H, said, "You're trying to get rid of 
me." She later clarified that she meant "the command" was trying to get rid of 
her.”
   



   c.	“While I found it understandable that receiving the news of an AR 15-6 
being initiated would lead to some level of stress and emotion, the insubordinate 
behavior that [the applicant] demonstrated was embarrassing to me as a senior 
Army officer. Multiple times she raised her voice at GEN H, used profanity, and 
seldom referred to him as "Sir."

   d.	“It was arranged that after the meeting, I would take [the applicant] back to 
my office so she could vent her frustrations.  She sat down at my table, silent for 
a moment, then asked, "What do you want me to say?" I told her she didn't need 
to say anything to me, but that she owed an apology to GEN H for her conduct. I 
told her that he is a very good man, but when you left his office, you made him 
feel like he did something wrong. I added that she owed him an apology for 
making him feel that way.  [The applicant] did go and see GEN H and 
apologized.”

   e.	“Later that afternoon, I followed-up with GEN H. …He told me that if I 
hadn't stopped her from walking out of the meeting after she said, "I quit," he 
would have had no choice but to fire her.”

AR 15-6 INVESTIGATION, 11 January 2018 to 26 February 2018

12.	On 11 January 2018, MG K, Commander, Army Element, USSTRATCOM, 
appointed BG B, Deputy Director, Global Operations (J3), USSTRATCOM, as IO 
to conduct an AR 15-6 Investigation into the facts and circumstances concerning 
allegations of bullying, toxic leadership, and a hostile work environment within the 
CAG. He was directed to conduct an investigation into allegations discovered 
during the PI conducted by BG C, specifically, the allegations of toxic leadership, 
hostile work environment, and bullying by the applicant. He was directed to 
determine whether CAG working conditions impacted operations within this 
headquarters, either positively and negatively, and whether any personnel should 
be held accountable for any shortcomings or failures. He was also to address 
allegations of travel impropriety as discovered in the preliminary inquiry. He was 
instructed to interview the Joint Staff Directors and the Commander's Front Office 
personnel in order to determine whether and how the working conditions within 
the CAG have affected, both positively and negatively, operations within the 
headquarters. The appointing authority identified, at a minimum, six specific 
issues to investigate:

   a.	Is there a hostile work environment within the CAG? If so, determine the 
nature and scope of such an environment. Also, determine the source of the 
hostile work environment.
   



   b.	Has there been bullying within the CAG? If so, determine the scope and 
source of the bullying.

   c.	Has [the applicant] displayed signs of toxic leadership? If so, what are 
they? How has her leadership style affected the CAG operations and working 
environment?

   d.	Has the CAG working environment affected interaction(s) and operations 
with the other J-Directors within this command?  If so, how and to what extent?

   e.	Has [the applicant] had a positive impact on CAG operations? If so, in 
what manner and ways?

   f.	Has [the applicant] conducted any improper or unauthorized official travel 
or conducted any personal travel while on official orders/travel?

13.	During January and February 2018, the IO interviewed the personnel in the 
joint staff (officers, NCOs, government civilian employees, and contractor 
personnel) to include BG C who conducted the PI. A review of the sworn 
statements shows they contained comments pertaining to the applicant that 
indicated, in pertinent part:

Witness	Significant Statements Describing/Related to the Applicant

O-6 T	Had not witnessed any conduct unbecoming; witnessed her 
interrupt a two-star General more than once, without a 
corresponding apology.
SES M	Courteous professional relationship; direct and demanding in 
the execution of duties; noted occasions where interrupting 
senior leaders in meetings.
O-6 H	Professional relationship; expressed awareness of members 
of CAG staff engaging Chaplain/IG about toxic leadership.
SES K	Observed extremely unprofessional behavior; recalled one 
meeting where she used multiple expletives.
E-6 H	Described a particular incident where applicant lashed out at 
the travel team.
O-8 F	[IO's immediate supervisor, Director, J3] described how she 
[the applicant] loudly announced, "that brief was a piece of 
sh--" while leaving a briefing and described applicant's 
subsequent unprofessional, profanity-laced incidents.




SES H	Uncomfortable with her professional bearing in meetings; 
routinely interrupting and providing counter-arguments to 
senior staff.
Mr. C	Witnessed unprofessional behavior on numerous occasions; 
has a characteristic of dismissing others' ideas before being 
fully presented.
Ms. G	Unprofessional, unpredictable, and often toxic behavior and 
leadership style; common profanity, public beratings, and 
backstabbing.
GS14 Z	Publicly reprimanded [witness] in front of 20 co-workers; 
several CAG members voiced concerns of harsh treatment.
GS14 W	Offended by abrasive leadership style and her language. 
O-7 C	Not mean-spirited; negative description: disrespectful,
interrupts, blunt-spoken, and derogatory comments about 
senior leaders.
O-8 A	Effective with advice; also witnessed unprofessional 
behavior in a few different venues.
O-6 D	Results driven; methods lead to a toxic environment, 
including public shaming; inflated sense of self.
Dr. S	Unprofessional behavior has a negative impact; highly 
disrespectful, critical, and demanding; controlling, 
suspicious, and threatening; self-aggrandizing and 
dishonest.
O-5	B	Command climate – bi-polar and toxic at times; episodes of 
yelling and expletive-laden outbursts; bullying – described a 
public personal confrontation during a meeting.
O-6	C	Routinely observed her reprimanding staff; she understands 
"mission first," but falls short in "troop welfare-always."
O-5 KK	Actions sometimes insolent and arrogant; behavior 
negatively impacted the working environment (offered 
several examples).
O-5 CK	Witnessed consistent unprofessional behavior (foul 
language, public beratings, caustic leadership, and micro- 
management).
O-4 L	Consistently displayed toxic and narcissistic leadership 
qualifies, including foul language.
GS12 M	Reported toxic behavior, foul/offensive language, bullying 
and disrespectful attitude; offered several examples.
GS11 M	Described every Sunday night dreading to go into work at 
the office for fear of being told what she "messed up this 
time."




O-4 S	Frequently uses her rank and proximity to the CG to behave 
disruptively, deceitfully, and to control subordinates with fear; 
offered several examples, including public outbursts.
O-6 S	Described instances of applicant losing her temper and 
mistreatment of office staff; observations on leadership style 
and professional behavior – impatient and aggressive, 
speaks negatively about others, and is dismissive.
O-4	A	Results driven leadership style.
O-5	B	Most interactions primarily positive; a little abrasive at times, 
sometimes taken aback by her language choice (swearing). 
O-5 "DLL" Hostile work environment does not exist in the 
CAG.

E-9 M	Candid, direct and frank in her deliberations and interactions; 
elevated thinker; evaluates items from a strategic level.
O-5 PR	Never witnessed her degrade, belittle, or intimidate anyone 
in the CAG; direct and to the point, regularly uses profanity.
O-4	LK	Did not feel hostile work environment existed; [witness] was 
aggressively notified several times (by applicant) that his 
work was subpar; described an incident after a meeting with 
8 people where applicant "went a little over the top."
O-5	JF	No personal issues with applicant; described an incident of 
aggressive attitude toward J5 and that she displayed a lack 
of respect and did not use "Sir" or "General."
O-5 B	Did not witness toxic, unacceptable, or unprofessional 
behavior; described verbally aggressive encounters in his 
branch; saw a decrease in her aggressiveness and profanity.

14.	On 12 January 2018, the applicant sent an email message to the IO that 
forwarded email messages and counseling documents (November –December 
2017) pertaining to several individuals under her supervision in the CAG.

   a.	On 25 January 2018, the applicant forwarded an article from the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan Management Review (Summary 
2009 Research Feature), "Are Your Subordinates Setting You Up to Fail?" via 
email to the "STRATCOM Offutt Air Force Base [Distribution] List J004 Users." 
The applicant indicated in her forwarding email, in pertinent part, "[w]e may have 
elements of that here."

   d. On 25 January 2018, witness O-4 "RRL" forwarded the applicant’s email to 
the IO with the statement, "[a]nother clear example of the toxic/narcissistic
   



leadership I described in my statement. She thinks that we're the problem…not 
her."

15.	On 5 February 2018, the IO obtained the sworn statement of BG F,
U.S. Army, Retired, former Deputy Director of G3-5. The general officer 
acknowledged the applicant's competency, recalled her expressing past OER 
ratings that were less than optimal (for personal and gender reasons), and 
protesting that the Army allowed her to branch transfer. BG F added that the 
applicant is extremely off-putting, had a reputation for causing friction, and 
blames everyone else for her problems.

16.	On 9 February 2018, the IO published his Findings and Recommendations 
for the AR 15-6 Investigation into allegations of bullying, toxic leadership, and a 
hostile work environment by the Director of the CAG (the applicant).  In 
summary, the IO found that there was a hostile work environment within the 
CAG; however, the environment had been trending in a positive direction over 
the past several months. The applicant had bullied her subordinates and others 
within the headquarters. While the environment in the CAG had suffered, the 
officers working there remain dedicated and continue to deliver positive support 
to the Commander. The applicant’s behavior and mannerisms had created 
significant friction between the CAG and other offices within the headquarters, 
most notably the Combatant Commander's (CC's) front office. The applicant had 
displayed a pattern of behavior that was consistent with both an "insensitive 
driven achiever" and a "toxic self-centered abuser" as described in AR 600-100 
paragraphs 1-11 e(3) and ( 4 ).  Further, her behavior was in violation of 
Strategic Instruction (SI) 400-06, paragraph 3.9. The applicant should be held 
accountable for the items above. Finally, the allegations of travel impropriety by 
the applicant were not substantiated, and no action was recommended on that 
allegation.

   a.	The IO found the evidence regarding her level of toxic leadership and her 
negative impact on the people who serve (both under and with her) very 
convincing. He noted the applicant adamantly denied any wrongdoing and 
asserted that she had never been accused of anything like this before in her 
career; however, the sworn statement of BG F (Retired) contradicted the 
applicant’s sworn statement.

b.	The IO found by a preponderance of the evidence that:
*	"The applicant has fostered a hostile work environment within the 
CAG, but it has been improving over the past several months."
*	"The applicant has bullied people junior to her in the CAG and other 
offices."




*	"The applicant does display the attributes of a toxic leader and has 
a destructive leadership style IAW AR 600-100 and is in violation of 
SI 400-06; her leadership style has negatively impacted operations 
within the CAG."
*	"The working environment within the CAG, particularly the 
applicant's behavior and leadership style, had a negative effect on 
the CAG's ability to effectively work with other J-Directors and 
Headquarters J-0 elements."
*	"The applicant has had a positive impact on CAG performance and 
the CAG's support to the Commander has been generally positive. 
However, this positive impact has come at great expense of the 
CAG working environment and staff and how the people there and 
elsewhere on the staff are treated."
*	"The applicant had not conducted improper or unauthorized travel, 
or conducted any personal travel while on official orders."

c.	The IO recommended that the applicant should:
*	Receive a GOMOR for her toxic leadership style, bullying, and the 
command climate she fostered in the CAG.
*	Be removed as the CAG Director and receive a Relief for Cause 
OER.
*	Consider seeking professional medical care to ascertain if there is 
an underlying medical condition causing her behavior.

   d.	The evidence of record fails to show the IO found that the conduct or 
performance of duty of a person senior to him required investigation by another 
more senior IO.

17.	On 12 February 2018, the IO referred the AR 15-6 Investigation Report of 
Investigation to the applicant for comment prior to final action by the approving 
authority. She was notified that she had until 26 February 2018 to provide 
additional material she wished for the approval authority to consider before acting 
upon the investigation. There is no evidence that the applicant responded to the 
IO by the established date.

18.	On 20 February 2018, applicant and her counsel, MAJ W, Senior Defense 
Counsel, United States Army Trail Defense Service (TDS), Fort Leavenworth, 
each submitted a rebuttal to the AR 15-6 Investigation to the appointing authority, 
MG K. The applicant rebutted that the findings and sworn statements made in a 
very one sided investigation that did not explore the facts and relied upon opinion 
and hearsay to draw erroneous conclusions about my actions, integrity, and 
character. She contended that the personnel interviewed could not provide




specifics to back up their accusations and in some cases their motivations were 
questionable. What followed contained supportable and verifiable facts that 
counteract the IO findings.  The sworn statements used by the IO also indicate 
that a significant number of subordinates also implicated the senior leadership 
within USSTRATCOM to include the Commander, GEN H; the Command Senior 
Enlisted leader, Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) M; and the Chief of Staff, MG K, 
who are accused by a number of subordinates, including general and flag officers 
and members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), of dereliction of duty to 
correct problems, complicity, undue familiar relationships, and a range of other 
smaller issues.  If these sworn statements were deemed credible by the IO to 
base his findings about the applicant then they must be deemed credible for 
further investigation by the Department of Defense Inspector General into the 
conduct of the Commander, the Chief of Staff, the Command Senior Enlisted 
leader, and lastly, the senior accusing officers themselves for their own failures to 
act. For the record the applicant did not accuse GEN H or Chief M of anything; 
their professionalism is unquestioned.  The applicant was concerned about
MG K's role in many of the sworn statements, his handling of this investigation, 
how it was scoped and carried out, as well as his likely role in pointing the IO to a 
retired general officer to make a statement that had no bearing on the facts of 
this investigation.  The fact that he and the command also initially refused to 
assist [the applicant] in obtaining legal counsel which resulted in a heated 
argument is also problematic. It had the appearance of deliberately trying to 
hinder due process and a fair investigation. She contended that she was 
threatened by the IO to submit to an interview before the command could 
arrange for appropriate TDS legal counsel for the applicant.

19.	The applicant further stated that she had not been treated fairly or treated 
with any level of dignity or respect and she was constantly embarrassed and 
humiliated by the incessant and repeated revisiting of long gone events that were 
immediately corrected.  She clearly admitted she made mistakes and 
immediately fixed them but won't admit to things she did not do. There is a huge 
double standard in this command. It can be seen from the IO witness statements 
it was seriously biased toward digging for negative details and very few specifics 
were offered or corroborated. The applicant stated that she corrected every 
known issue she was counseled on in a timely manner which is corroborated in 
witness statements. The applicant also stated that there was also clear evidence 
that the morale and performance in the CAG improved in the last three to four 
months under her leadership. A long drawn out series of investigations was 
started based on hurt feelings and clear differences in service culture vice actual 
facts for how people were treated.




20.	In the rebuttal, the applicant cited 23 of the IO witness statements in which 
she contended there were inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and misstatement of 
facts by witnesses. She summarized that the preponderance of the evidence did 
NOT substantiate the allegations that her leadership style met the definition of 
toxic as described in AR 600-100. She contended that there was not a hostile 
work environment within the CAG and had not been for many months based on 
nearly every interview conducted. The fact that almost none of the allegations 
were in any sort of context with a time when they allegedly occurred also 
invalidates much of the IO's so called evidence. Conversely, the outstanding 
performance of the CAG has positively impacted the relationship between the 
CAG and other offices within the USSTRATCOM Headquarters and with the 
components. The applicant contended that the preponderance of the evidence 
did not support the allegation that she bullied some of her subordinates in the 
CAG or people outside of the CAG that were of lower military rank than the 
applicant. She categorically denied bullying or treating people in a demeaning 
way.

21.	The applicant contended that the work environment in the CAG was not 
hostile and toxic, that she did not demean people, use vulgar language, or bully 
anyone. She stated she had been counseled for using profanity but had ceased 
swearing.	She contended that there was no factual evidence that supported the 
IO's conclusion that the applicant was an insensitive driven achiever or a toxic 
self-centered abuser. She contended that she was not arrogant, abusive, 
intemperate, distrusting, or irascible as the IO stated. She stated that she did get 
annoyed and frustrated sometimes like everyone else but it was not beyond the 
bounds of proper and acceptable behavior.

22.	The applicant concluded that the preponderance of the evidence established 
that:

   a.	The IO's investigation did not support the allegation that she fostered a 
hostile work environment but supported the fact that she made every effort to 
improve the environment.

   b.	There was no substantive evidence that she bullied anyone junior to her in 
the CAG or any other offices.  There was clear evidence that points to the fact 
that the investigation was a fishing expedition and that she had been mistreated.

   c.	She did not display the attributes of a toxic leader nor did she have a 
destructive leadership style IAW AR 600-100 and she was not in violation of
   



SI 400-06. The evidence is not in any way conclusive or fact based. Her 
leadership style clearly turned the CAG into a high performance organization 
along with many other teammate's contributions.

   d.	The working environment within the CAG and her behavior did not have a 
negative effect on the CAG's ability to effectively work with other J-Directors and 
Headquarters Joint Staff elements. Any such negative effect can be attributed to 
less than optimal work performance and integration during a period of a changing 
culture, levels of immaturity by junior personnel, and substantive disagreements 
surrounding roles and responsibilities.

   e.	The positive support to the command and the commander came about 
because of hard work and was not at great expense to the CAG working 
environment which has never been better. It is better because people are 
treated well.

   f.	The IO did not use a fair or balanced approach in his investigation but 
rather used open ended questions that elicited opinions not facts; in other words, 
a fishing expedition. These negative statements and opinions were not 
substantiated by facts.

23.	On 20 January 2018, the applicant’s counsel submitted a memorandum of 
rebuttal along with a 20-page rebuttal memorandum from the applicant to the 
Commander, Army Element, USSTRATCOM, MG K, the AR 15-6 Investigation 
approving authority, addressing alleged legal issues with the AR 15-6 
Investigation, essentially the same legal issues the applicant and her counsel 
present in their current application to this Board as outlined in the “Counsel’s 
Request” section of this record of proceedings.

24.	On 23 February 2018, the USSTRATCOM, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), 
COL H, published a legal review of the AR 15-6 Investigation and rebuttals 
provided by the applicant and her counsel. He made the following 
determinations:

   a.	The proceedings complied with legal requirements, including the 
requirements established in the appointing memorandum. The applicant and her 
counsel have raised several issues with respect to the process that that the SJA 
addressed.

      (1)	Right to counsel. In her response, the applicant alleged the command 
"refused to assist [her] in obtaining legal counsel" and that she was "threatened 
by the IO to submit to an interview ... before the command could arrange for
      



appropriate Trial Defense Service (TDS) for [the applicant] to consult. ... "No 
information, facts, or further allegation was made regarding any alleged "threat" 
by the IO to provide a statement. Nevertheless, AR 15-6, paragraph 3-4a, is 
clear: "[o]nly a respondent in a board is entitled to be represented by counsel. 
A subject of an investigation is not automatically entitled to representation by 
counsel..." That said, Soldiers must be afforded Article 31, UCMJ, right to 
counsel before making a statement to the IO if "suspected of committing an 
offense." Regardless, the decision to consult counsel and the selection of such 
counsel is not within the purview of the command; rather, that decision lies with 
the subject. TDS counsel is provided by the government pursuant to Army 
regulations and TDS policy. The command's only responsibility, which was met 
here, was to advise a subject of their Article 31 rights and to allow a Soldier 
reasonable time to consult counsel before submitting to an interview or 
submitting a response to adverse findings as they see fit. The applicant’s 
allegation that the command failed to arrange counsel for her is without merit, 
and the DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) was 
properly executed. [NOTE:  see legal review]

      (2)	BG B as IO. Both the applicant and her counsel alleged that the 
Appointing Authority (AA), MG K, should not have appointed BG B to be the IO 
because of his previous encounter with the applicant, which is referenced in 
exhibit 13 of BG B's report. In this encounter, the applicant allegedly made 
statements about a J3 briefing officer in public at the conclusion of the briefing 
being given to the J3, RADM F, which he found unprofessional and inaccurate. 
BG B subsequently spoke to the applicant and she apologized to RADM F for the 
comments. RADM F was discussing the briefing with the briefing officer when, 
according to the testimony of RADM F, the applicant barged in and yelled, “you 
are a fucking embarrassment as an Army officer” to the briefer. RADM F 
responded that he owned the briefing and it was being corrected. The applicant 
continued to interrupt and berate the briefing officer until RADM F told the 
applicant the conversation was over. Following this incident, BG B, Deputy J3, 
spoke with the applicant about the incident and she apologized to RADM F. 
There was no further interaction between BG B and the applicant.

      (3)	AR 15-6, paragraph 3-3, states that "[a]n IO using investigative 
procedures is not subject to challenge." It goes on to state "[a]ny person who is 
aware of facts indicating a lack of impartiality or other disqualification on the part 
of an IO or board member will present the facts to the appointing authority." The 
applicant presumably knew of her encounter with BG B from the start of the 
investigation on 11 January 2018 yet did not report to MG K any "facts indicating 
a lack of impartiality or other disqualification" on the part of BG B. As such, any 
right to complain about BG B’s appointment as IO was effectively waived.
      



Regardless, it is unreasonable to require the appointment of an IO that has no 
prior interaction with a Soldier who is the subject of an AR 15-6 Investigation. 
Disagreements among senior leaders will inevitably arise in a command such as 
USSTRATCOM. They are often dealt with, and the parties move on. The 
evidence in this case reflects this reality. There was no recurring pattern of 
conflict between the applicant and BG B. In fact, BG B’s actions are the exact 
type the applicant, in her rebuttal, criticized other witnesses for not doing, telling 
her when something was wrong.  In eight instances in her response, the 
applicant highlighted the fact that eight general officers, flag offices, and senior 
executive service members "had a professional obligation to say something or 
correct anything" and "[they] never did." To require a standard where an IO must 
never have corrected a member who subsequently is the subject of an AR 15-6 
Investigation is unreasonable, especially when all involved are senior officers.

      (4)	Notwithstanding the above, AR 15-6, paragraph 1-8, states "{i]t is the 
duty of the IO ... to thoroughly and impartially ascertain and consider the 
evidence on all sides of each issue .... " Contrary to defense counsel arguments, 
the IO did indeed address all sides of the issues presented, to wit, the positive 
aspects of the applicant’s CAG leadership as well as the negative.  He 
specifically noted, several times, that the CAG environment was trending in a 
positive direction. In fact, he even entitled a section of his report as "Positive 
impact on CAG operations" wherein he noted the applicant’s successes.  The 
IO's report and investigation complied with paragraph 1-8.	In the SJA’s opinion, 
any allegation that the IO was disqualified from serving as the IO in the 
investigation is unsupported by the facts.

   b.	MG K as the Appointing Authority (AA). Both the applicant and her TDS 
counsel raised the allegation that MG K was disqualified from serving as the AA 
due to a conflict of interest and bias. This allegation was not supported by fact or 
regulation:

      (1)	AR 15-6, paragraph 2-1(f), establishes the threshold necessary to 
substantiate an allegation of AA bias. It states, in relevant part: An individual 
who is reasonably likely to become a witness to an ... investigation ... may not 
appoint an ... investigation.... Similarly, an individual who has an actual or 
perceived bias for or against a potential subject of the investigation, or an actual 
or perceived conflict of interest in the outcome of the investigation, should not 
appoint an ... investigation.... Instead, the potential appointing authority shall 
forward the matter to the next superior commander or appointing authority, who 
will determine whether to investigate the matter further and, if so, which 
proceeding ... investigation, or board, to use.
      



      (2)	A potential appointing authority may have an actual or perceived bias 
for or against a potential subject of an investigation if the potential subject of the 
investigation is on the potential appointing authority's principal, special, or 
personal staff.

      (3)	MG K was not "likely to become a witness," nor did he in fact become 
a witness. MG K's input was not necessary for the investigation. His previous 
discussions and interactions with the applicant did not disqualify him from serving 
as AA. To hold otherwise would dictate that nearly every commander would be 
disqualified from a variety of administrative and UCMJ roles if they exercised any 
leadership in addressing deficiencies before initiating an investigation. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever of actual or perceived bias for or 
against the applicant or in the outcome of the investigation. Additionally, the 
applicant was not on MG K’s (the AA's) personal staff, nor was there any 
indication that the investigation would examine any of the AA's policies or 
decisions.

      (4)	Bullying. In her 20 page rebuttal, at paragraph 5, the applicant argues 
that the evidence does not support the finding that she bullied subordinates, as 
defined in AR 600-20, paragraph 4-19a(2). The rebuttal does not, however, 
include the entire definition of bullying IAW AR 600-20, specifically, "[b]ullying 
may include an abuse of authority. Bullying tactics include, but are not limited to, 
making threats ... and attacking someone ... verbally ... "  Given the entirety of 
the verbiage in the AR 600-20, paragraph 4-19a(2), the IO discovered sufficient 
evidence to substantiate the allegation that she had engaged in bullying.

25.	In accordance with AR 15-6, paragraph 2-7c, the evidence presented by the 
IO did not support any additional relevant findings, or suggest that additional 
investigation was appropriate to address additional concerns. However, the 
memorandum submitted by the applicant’s TDS counsel, in addition to her 
rebuttal and subsequent email on 21 February 2018, alleged misconduct by 
multiple general officers which must be addressed.

   a.	The applicant stated that GEN H was legally required to take over as the 
AA and is likewise legally required to unsubstantiate any findings made by the 
IO. Further, she alleged that MG K was required to recuse himself as the AA and 
that he wrongfully appointed BG B as the IO. Based on the SJA review detailed 
above, these actions contended by the applicant were not warranted.

   b.	As identified above, the applicant also alleged that BG B threatened her 
"to submit to an interview at the time and place of his choosing .... "
   



   c.	Finally, the applicant in her rebuttal memorandum alleged that the 
evidence accuses numerous field grade officers, "GEN H, CMSgt M, and MG K 
of dereliction of duty ... complicity, undue familiar relationships, and a range of 
smaller issues."

   d.	Accordingly, the SJA forwarded these allegations to the USSTRATCOM 
Inspector General for action IAW paragraph 15 of Strategic Instruction 919-04 
regarding allegations against senior officials.  He recommend that a copy of 
AR 15-6 Investigation report be provided to the USSTRATCOM IG office for 
review. The USSTRATCOM IG referred the applicant to the DODIG to report 
these allegations. These allegations resulted in two complaints: 20180321- 
050298 made in March 2018, and 20180626-052248 made in June 2018.

   (1)	Complaint 20180321-050298 resulted in an IG Whistleblower 
investigation. The DAIG concluded an investigation of the allegations that the 
applicant made against MG K, Chief of Staff and Army Element Commander, 
US Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, NE. The allegation that MG K 
issued the applicant two GOMORs and removed her as the Director, CAG, in 
reprisal for the applicant’s protected communications to the chain of 
command, was not substantiated. MG K’s actions were based on a 
substantiated administrative AR 15-6 investigation and independent of tehe 
applicant’s protected communications. The allegation that MG K restricted the 
applicant from lawfully communicating with an IG was not substantiated. The 
DAIG found no credible evidence to indicate MG K attempted to restrict the 
applicant from communicating with an IG.

(2)	Complaint 20180626-052248 created five cases:

   •	CASE-01: Closed. Referred to DoD OIG Intelligence and Special 
Program Assessments (ISPA) office to address any allegations of security 
violations. On June 27, 2018, ISPA declined to open an investigation.

   •	CASE-02: Closed. Referred to DoD OIG Defense Criminal 
Investigative Services (DCIS) to address any criminal matters. On July 17, 
2018, DCIS declined to open an investigation.

   •	CASE-03: Closed. Referred the DoD OIG Investigations of Senior 
Officials (ISO) to address misconduct allegations against senior officials. 
On June 26, 2018, ISO declined to open an investigation pending a 
decision on criminal matters by DCIS (see CASE-02).
   



   •	CASE-04: Closed Unsubstantiated. This applicant’s allegations that 
the applicant was referred for a mental health evaluation and did not 
receive an expected level of retirement award in reprisal were referred to 
DODIG Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations for reprisal analysis. The 
allegation, that VADM R recommended, and Gen H approved, a lesser 
retirement award, in reprisal for numerous protected communications you 
made was analyzed. The DAIG found that insufficient evidence existed to 
warrant investigation of VADM R's or Gen H' s involvement in the approval 
of the applicant’s lesser retirement award. The available evidence did not 
support an inference that VADM R recommended, and Gen H approved, a 
lesser retirement award as a reprisal for the applicant’s protected 
communications. ather, the evidence demonstrated documented conduct 
issues and no indication of retaliatory motive on the part of VADM R or 
Gen H. The DODIG reviewed the findings of this investigation and 
concurred with its conclusion. Accordingly, on 20 July 2018, the applicant 
was notified by letter that case was closed as unsubstantiated.

   •	CASE-05: Closed. Referred to DoD OIG ISO to address four 
misconduct allegations against a senior official after DCIS declined to 
open an investigation under CASE-02. On March 15, 2019, ISO closed its 
investigation that did not substantiate the allegations.


26.	The AR 15-6 Investigation AA, MG K, Commander, Army Element, 
USSTRATCOM, reviewed the entire body of evidence presented to him by the 
IO in the AR 15-6 Investigation, including allegations raised by the applicant and 
her counsel that the investigation was legally defective and biased, and the 
command SJA legal review of the investigation.

27.	On 26 February 2018, the AR 15-6 Investigation AA, MG K, determined that:

*	The applicant had fostered a hostile work environment within the CAG, 
but it had been improving over the past several months. – 
Approved

*	“The applicant did display the attributes of a toxic leader and had a 
destructive leadership style IAW AR 600-100 and was in violation of 
SI 400-06; her leadership style has negatively impacted operations 
within the CAG," modified as follows: "The applicant did display the 
attributes of a toxic leader and had a destructive leadership style 
IAW AR 600-100 and was in violation of SI 400-06.”




*	The working environment within the CAG, particularly the applicant's 
behavior and leadership style, had a negative effect on the CAG's 
ability to effectively work with other J-Directors and Headquarters 
J-0 elements. – Approved"

*	"The applicant had a positive impact on CAG performance and the 
CAG's support to the Commander had been generally positive. 
However, this positive impact had come at great expense of the 
CAG working environment and how the people there and 
elsewhere on the staff were treated," modified as follows: "The 
applicant is a talented officer who has had a positive impact on 
CAG performance and the CAG's support to the Commander has 
been generally positive. However, this positive impact has come at 
great expense of the CAG working environment and how the 
people there and elsewhere on the staff are treated."

*	The applicant had bullied people junior to her in the CAG and other 
offices. – Disapproved and Deleted

*	"The applicant had not conducted improper or unauthorized travel, or 
conducted any personal travel while on official orders. - Approved"

*	"[The applicant] should receive a GOMOR for her toxic leadership 
style, bullying, and the command climate she fostered in the CAG, 
modified to read as follows, "[The applicant] should receive a 
GOMOR for her toxic leadership style and the command climate 
she fostered in the CAG."

*	"[The applicant] should be removed as the CAG Director and receive a 
relief for cause OER." Comment: "I [MG K] concur with this 
recommendation and have briefed the findings and 
recommendations to GEN H. He has approved this 
recommendation in whole."

*	"[The applicant] should consider seeking professional medical care to 
ascertain if there is an underlying medical condition causing her 
behavior," modified to read as follows, "[The applicant] should 
consider using an executive coach to improve on her interpersonal 
skills."

*	The evidence showed that the IO interviewed the Director, J3,




RADM F, IAW instructions provided by the appointing authority. 
The fact that the RADM F was the IO's immediate supervisor did 
not establish bias. In addition, the fact that the IO had previously 
spoken to the applicant "soldier-to-soldier" about a particular 
incident did not establish bias on the part of the IO in the AR 15-6 
Investigation he conducted. In fact, it seemed to demonstrate that 
the IO had a sincere interest in assisting the applicant in furthering 
her career; not a bias against her. It provided (corroborating) 
evidence that an incident involving unprofessional behavior on the 
part of the applicant did occur.

*	The evidence of record fails to show the approving authority found 
prejudice to exist, or that he determined the conduct or 
performance of duty of a person senior to the IO required 
investigation by another more senior IO.

28.	The evidence of record shows the applicant acknowledged she was familiar 
with AR 600-100 and the Army leadership competencies discussed therein. She 
also expressed awareness of the characteristics of toxic leaders and creating a 
hostile work environment, and that the demonstration of those characteristics 
may be addressed through administrative actions and punitive actions.  The 
DAIG investigation report of investigation reported:

   a.	A majority of the witnesses interviewed during the AR 15-6 investigation 
testified as to the applicant's toxic leadership, her use of foul language, and the 
hostile work environment that she caused in the CAG. In addition, the evidence 
of record shows the applicant has a history of characteristics of a toxic leader 
(i.e., using foul and abusive language).

   b.	The evidence of record shows the demonstration of those characteristics 
by the applicant were addressed through administrative actions in this case.

   c.	The evidence of record fails to support counsel's argument that the 
findings and recommendations of the AR 15-6 Investigations pertaining to the 
applicant's professional conduct are legally defective because of the absence of 
a punitive provision of an Army regulation or policy.

      (1)	The IO did not recommend nor did the approving authority impose 
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, or any other punitive measure.
      



      (2)	The AR 15-6 Investigation found violations of Army regulatory policy. 
The approved findings and recommendations resulted in administrative actions 
and the applicant was afforded due process in each instance.

GOMOR, 26 February 2018

29.	On 26 February 2018, the applicant received a GOMOR from MG K,
U.	S. Army Element Commander, USSTRATCOM.  It stated, in pertinent part:

   a.	"A recently completed AR 15-6 Investigation found that you engaged in 
toxic leadership and that you fostered a negative command climate in the CAG. 
Specifically, the investigation found that, during your tenure as the CAG Director, 
you displayed the attributes of a toxic leader and that you have a destructive 
leadership style IAW AR 600-100 (Army Profession and Leadership Policy) and 
SI 400-6.”

   b.	“In addition, on 10 January 2018, you were ordered to GEN H's office to 
inform you that an AR 15-6 Investigation was being initiated against you. When 
GEN H informed you, you abruptly stood up, said, 'I quit' and began to exit GEN 
H's office. Upon me reminding you that you were not dismissed and you should 
remain in the office, you returned to your seat and GEN H continued the meeting. 
In accordance with AR 27-10 (Military Justice), paragraph 3-3b (Reprimands and 
admonitions), and AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), you are hereby 
reprimanded."

   c.	The reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure under the 
provisions of AR 600-37, paragraph 3-4, and not as punishment under Article 15, 
UCMJ. The purpose of the GOMOR was to instruct the applicant to maintain a 
professional bearing, to comport herself so as to be an example to others to 
follow at all times, and to notify her that any further incidences of a similar nature 
may result in more serious action being taken against her.

   d.	The issuing authority advised, "I am considering whether to direct this 
reprimand be filed permanently in your OMPF.  Prior to making my filing decision, 
I will consider any matters you submit in extenuation, mitigation, or rebuttal. You 
will immediately acknowledge receipt of this reprimand in writing.  You will 
forward any matter you wish for me to consider through the U.S. Army Element 
Staff Judge Advocate within ten (10) calendar days."

30.	On 26 February 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR 
and indicated she would submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or rebuttal 
within 10 calendar days.




31.	COL B, J-1, Director of Human Capital at USSTRATCOM, testified to the 
AR 15-6 IO that on 26 February 2018 the following occurred: “[the applicant]… 
sent an email to the Senior Command Master Sergeant M and GEN H, and it 
read like a suicide note. I mean, I can't put it any other way. I've seen them 
before. I've dealt with it. It was a good bye, and it was the language was pretty 
strong and there was no doubt in my mind that she was going to hurt herself. So 
we went to the Chief, and the Chief grabbed his keys, and the Chief and I and 
the Senior Master Sergeant took off to her apartment, and I we were trying to call 
her. We were trying to do everything we could to get a hold of her because there 
was no doubt in any of our minds, based upon, what is that, 60 plus years of 
military experience between the three of us, that she was going to hurt herself. 
Then later on that night, we didn't find her for hours and hours and hours. She 
made a phone call to GEN H, and, based upon what he told me she said, she 
told him that she was going to kill herself and she told him that maybe he would 
speak at her funeral. And she yelled at him and was extremely outside of any 
bounds of communication between a four star general and a colonel, and it 
scared GEN H. It really shook him up. So he called MG K, and then I got a call 
about 2200 that night that the police had found her. … We were in panic mode. 
We were trying to find her, and the police found her and escorted her to the local 
emergency room for fear of her safety.”

32.	GEN H recorded the following after having received a phone call from the 
applicant: “She answered with "Hello". I said, "…Where are you?" She said 
"Omaha." I said "Where in Omaha?" She said "Just Omaha." I said "… we are 
worried about you, please tell us where you are?" She then said nobody was 
worried about her and she started to get angry. I worked to calm her down and 
get her to think clearly.... She then rambled a bit but mentioned that she could 
see her apartment and there were cops there so she wasn't going back there. 
She asked why we were worried. And I said her goodbye e-mail looked like a 
permanent good bye. She said it was. I said that was why we were worried, we 
didn't want her to hurt herself and the note looked like a "suicide note."  She said 
if she had a gun it would already be done, but her guns were not there so she 
couldn't figure out how to do it. I emphasized that life is always worth living. I 
asked her if she was safe right then. She said she would be safe through the 
night (but only because she couldn't figure out how to do it). I asked her not to 
think that way, that she still had a bright future ahead.  She said she had no 
future. "28 years thrown away for something she didn't do."  She then accused 
me of not "fixing it." She said I should have removed MG K and BG B and all the 
people in the office that bullied her. She said she had told me 6 times she had 
been bullied. I told her that she had never mentioned the term bullying by 
anybody in any conversation ever. She said I should have seen it. She told me 
about her problems with the front office, being treated like a second-class citizen,

30




and that should have removed them ... and I need to remove them now. She said 
I told her I would if the investigation proved they lied. I told her I had confidence 
my commanders and staff and that I did not believe that [his commanders and 
staff lied] is what the investigation showed. She said that BG B and MG K were 
biased against her and could not be fair. She said I could have fixed it last week 
when she told me and Chief M I needed to stop the whole 15-6 process because 
it was ridiculous and all made up. That she had never done anything that she 
was accused of.  She said this would be on my conscience for the rest of my life. 
I told her that she just needed to be safe. Everything else was unimportant. I 
asked her to call Chief M, call COL B, call somebody and just get to a safe place. 
She said that was impossible. She then got angry again ... screaming at me, 
saying over and over again that I could have fixed it but now it was too late. She 
then closed by saying I would have to live with this and I could think about it at 
her funeral.  Then she hung up.  I then called back to Offutt to inform the Chief 
and others about the phone call. I was very relieved when they found her later 
that evening…”

33.	During the period 27 February to 1 March 2018, the applicant wrote a letter 
of apology to the CG, USSTRATCOM, and she sent email messages of apology 
to several individuals who had provided sworn statements to the IO during the 
AR 15-6 Investigation.

34.	On 4 March 2018, the applicant’s counsel submitted a memorandum to the 
GOMOR issuing authority requesting specific legal issues be taken into 
consideration before deciding how to file the GOMOR. Counsel noted, "We 
submit that [the applicant] had an unblemished career to this point, still has 
plenty left to offer the Army, and should be allowed a chance to prove that with a 
local filing."  The letter also showed, in pertinent part:

*	"Up until her assignment to STRATCOM, her record was unmarked by 
any sort of problems of leadership or performance or questions about 
her fitness for continued service."  (Also see paragraph 4b above.)
*	"The reality is the [the applicant] did not intend to offend or hurt anyone 
by her actions and, in fact, the CAG's work performance has improved 
on her watch, as noted by the IO."
*	"Despite the fact this action's purpose is stated as administrative in 
nature, the reality is that anything but a local filing will have a punitive 
effect on [the applicant's] career."

35.	On 5 March 2018, the applicant prepared a 6-page MFR, subject: Response 
to Decisions on Findings and Recommendations of AR 15-6 Investigation – 
Allegations of Bullying, Toxic Leadership, and Creation of a Hostile Work




Environment.  She requested leniency, reinstatement as the CAG Director, a 
local filing of the GOMOR, and the opportunity to continue serving with honor and 
distinction based on demonstrated performance and potential through her
28-year career. She submitted matters of extenuation and mitigation. In the 
MFR, she did not allege bias or partiality on the part of the IO, approving 
authority, or commander concerning the AR 15-6 Investigation.

36.	On 8 March 2018, MG K, indicated, "I have carefully considered the 
enclosed reprimand of [the applicant], …, the circumstances of the misconduct, 
and all matters submitted by the Soldier in defense, extenuation or mitigation.
I hereby direct this reprimand be: [initials] placed permanently in the Soldier's 
OMPF. All enclosures [i.e., 1. AR 15-6 Investigation, 2. GOMOR with Rebuttal] 
will be forwarded with the reprimand for filing as appropriate." The GOMOR, 
applicant's acknowledgment, counsel's memorandum, and the filing directive, 
along with the identified enclosures (a total of 85 pages) are filed in the 
performance folder of the applicant's OMPF.

APPLICATION TO THE DA SUITABILITY BOARD (DASEB), 18 March 2018

37.	On 18 March 2018, the applicant submitted a request to the DASEB for 
removal of the AR 15-6 Investigation (an enclosure to the GOMOR) from her 
OMPF or transfer of the AR 15-6 Investigation to the restricted portion of her 
OMPF for the reasons listed in her appeal for the Adverse Information Pilot 
Program (i.e., the investigation is untrue and unjust).

38.	On 15 August 2018, the Deputy/Operations Officer, MRB, notified the 
applicant the DASEB is not authorized to modify or remove an AR 15-6 
Investigation from the OMPF and informed her that the ABCMR is the proper 
authority to remove the contested document.

39.	The contention raised by counsel (i.e., with respect to removing a GOMOR 
from the OMPF) that the "burden of proof" of providing "clear and convincing 
evidence" that the administrative action taken is "untrue or unjust" "is essentially 
impossible to meet" is noted. The Board also notes the DASEB and the ABCMR 
have granted relief to an innumerable number of Soldiers and Veterans by 
removing untrue or unjust GOMORs from (their) official records, which offers 
abundant evidence refuting counsel's contention that it is impossible to provide 
clear and convincing evidence to justify correction of a record.  In accordance 
with AR 600-37, in order to remove a document from the OMPF, there must be 
evidence of a compelling nature to show that the GOMOR that is filed in the 
OMPF is untrue, in error, or unjust.




40.	On 2 October 2018, by email from the applicant she waived her rights to any 
further consideration by the DASEB on these issues and elected to have the 
ABCMR for consideration and decide these issues with this case.

GOMOR, 16 April 2018

41.	On 16 April 2018, the applicant received a second GOMOR from MG K. It 
stated, “On Friday, 2 March 2018, the US Strategic Command Deputy 
Commander, Vice Admiral R, issued you a direct order, both verbally and 
through a follow-up email, to "immediately cease all direct contact with General 
H." This order specifically encompassed communication via telephone, email, 
text, and in person: Further, you were informed that "failure on your part to follow 
this order would violate Article 92, UCMJ and will be handled accordingly." In 
spite of this direct and lawful order, you directly contacted General H on 
Tuesday, 27 March 2018 via email. In short, you violated a direct order from the 
3-star Deputy Commander of a Combatant Command. On 29 March 2018, your 
attorney was notified, via email, of this violation and was told "this order is still in 
effect and will be enforced." Despite this, on 13 April 2018, you again violated 
VADM R's order and directly contacted General H via email. As a result of your 
conscious and repeated decisions to violate a lawful order, and in accordance 
with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-3b, and AR 600-37, you are hereby 
reprimanded.” The applicant was given opportunity to submit matters of 
extenuation, mitigation, or rebuttal.

42.	On 16 April 2018, the applicant submit an email of matters of extenuation, 
mitigation, or rebuttal to her 17 April 2017 GOMOR. MG K considered the 
applicants submission. On 20 April 2018, MG K directed that this GOMOR be 
placed in the applicant’s temporary Soldier’s local unit file.

43.	COL B, J-1, Director of Human Capital at USSTRATCOM, testified that to 
the AR 15-6 IO that on 26 February 2018 the following occurred: “[the 
applicant]… sent an email to the Senior Command Master Sergeant M and 
GEN H, and it read like a suicide note. I mean, I can't put it any other way. I've 
seen them before. I've dealt with it. It was a good bye, and it was the language 
was pretty strong and there was no doubt in my mind that she was going to hurt 
herself. So we went to the Chief, and the Chief grabbed his keys, and the Chief 
and I and the Senior Master Sergeant took off to her apartment, and I we were 
trying to call her. We were trying to do everything we could to get a hold of her 
because there was no doubt in any of our minds, based upon, what is that, 60 
plus years of military experience between the three of us, that she was going to 
hurt herself. Then later on that night, we didn't find her for hours and hours and 
hours.  She made a phone call to GEN H, and, based upon what he told me she




said, she told him that she was going to kill herself and she told him that maybe 
he would speak at her funeral. And she yelled at him and was extremely outside 
of any bounds of communication between a four star general and a colonel, and 
it scared GEN H. It really shook him up. So he called MG K, and then I got a call 
about 2200 that night that the police had found her. … We were in panic mode. 
We were trying to find her, and the police found her and escorted her to the local 
emergency room for fear of her safety.”

44.	GEN H recorded the following after having received a phone call from the 
applicant: “She answered with "Hello". I said, "…Where are you?" She said 
"Omaha." I said "Where in Omaha?" She said "Just Omaha." I said "… we are 
worried about you, please tell us where you are?" She then said nobody was 
worried about her and she started to get angry. I worked to calm her down and 
get her to think clearly.... She then rambled a bit but mentioned that she could 
see her apartment and there were cops there so she wasn't going back there. 
She asked why we were worried. And I said her goodbye e-mail looked like a 
permanent good bye. She said it was. I said that was why we were worried, we 
didn't want her to hurt herself and the note looked like a "suicide note."  She said 
if she had a gun it would already be done, but her guns were not there so she 
couldn't figure out how to do it. I emphasized that life is always worth living. I 
asked her if she was safe right then. She said she would be safe through the 
night (but only because she couldn't figure out how to do it). I asked her not to 
think that way, that she still had a bright future ahead.  She said she had no 
future. "28 years thrown away for something she didn't do."  She then accused 
me of not "fixing it."  She said I should have removed MG Kr and BH B and all 
the people in the office that bullied her.  She said she had told me 6 times she 
had been bullied. I told her that she had never mentioned the term bullying by 
anybody in any conversation ever. She said I should have seen it. She told me 
about her problems with the front office, being treated like a second-class citizen, 
and that should have removed them ... and I need to remove them now. She said 
I told her I would if the investigation proved they lied. I told her I had confidence 
my commanders and staff and that I did not believe that [his commanders and 
staff lied] is what the investigation showed. She said that BG B and MG K were 
biased against her and could not be fair. She said I could have fixed it last week 
when she told me and Chief M I needed to stop the whole 15-6 process because 
it was ridiculous and all made up. That she had never done anything that she 
was accused of.  She said this would be on my conscience for the rest of my life. 
I told her that she just needed to be safe. Everything else was unimportant. I 
asked her to call Chief M, call COL B, call somebody and just get to a safe place. 
She said that was impossible. She then got angry again ... screaming at me, 
saying over and over again that I could have fixed it but now it was too late. She 
then closed by saying I would have to live with this and I could think about it at




her funeral. Then she hung up. I then called back to Offutt to inform the Chief 
and others about the phone call. I was very relieved when they found her later 
that evening…”

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT REQUEST

45.	On 8 March 2018, the applicant submitted a memorandum through the 
Commander, USSTRATCOM, to Headquarters, Department of the Army 
(HQDA), Colonel Management Office, requesting voluntary retirement on
30 June 2018. The applicant was qualified to retire. By memorandum, MG K 
recommended approval. On 19 March 2018, the Office of the Chief of Staff, 
Colonel’s Management Office submitted a request to the Army Grade 
Determination Review Board (AGDRB) to determine the highest grade in which 
the applicant served satisfactorily for retirement purposes.

46.	On 20 April 2018, the applicant changed her retirement date to 31 July 2018.

47.	On 26 June 2018, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review 
Boards) notified the applicant by letter that she determined that the applicant’s 
service in the grade of COL was satisfactory and that if retirement was approved, 
the applicant would be placed on the retired list in the grade of COL.

48.	On 25 June 2018, the applicant withdrew her retirement request.

RELIEF FOR CAUSE OFFICER EVALUATON REORT (RFC OER), 
20 July 2018

49.	On 20 July 2018, GEN H referred a Relief for Cause (RFC) OER to the 
applicant by memorandum acknowledgement and comments, if desired. The 
RFC OER was for the period 3 November 2017 through 12 March 2018. The 
OER showed the applicant was serving as Dir, CAG, and that GEN H, CG, 
USSTRATCOM, was the applicant's rater and senior rater. The rater noted the 
applicant was relieved of her duties as Dir, CAG, on 12 March 2018. The RFC 
OER showed the rater's/senior rater's assessments of the applicant as:

*	Character (Adherence to Army Values): "Failed to show dignity and 
respect. On three occasions, [applicant] was directly disrespectful to 
me. Her actions showed a considerable lack of dignity and respect, 
not only from a Colonel to a 4-Star General, but from an officer who  
I considered a trusted member of my senior staff."




*	Performance: "Her performance is best described by AR 600-100's 
destructive leadership style: 'toxic, self-centered abuser, bright and 
energetic, as well as goal-oriented and boss-focused. Capable of 
producing spectacular, short-term results, but are arrogant, abusive, 
intemperate, distrusting, and irascible.' She frequently exhibited this 
behavior and was removed from position. I personally observed her 
lack of professional military bearing/decorum. Her negative leadership 
style was revealed through a preliminary inquiry and validated after 
a[n] AR 15-6 Investigation. The CAG performed well, but at great 
expense.  Officer did not submit a DA Form 67-10-IA [Officer 
Evaluation Support Form]."

*	Comments on Potential: "If she successfully addresses the reasons 
behind her behavior, she has the potential to be a valued Army officer."

*	Potential [Senior Rater]:

*	"Rated Soldier refuses to sign. [Applicant] has the potential to 
provide valuable service to the Army. However, she must first 
address the reasons behind her pattern of unprofessional behavior, 
best described in AR 600-100 as a 'destructive leadership style'.
I first-hand witnessed her lack of professionalism on multiple 
occasions."
*	"Retain as Colonel" [compared with eight (8) total ratings of officers 
senior rated in same grade, that included 2 ratings of the applicant]

50.	A Memorandum for Record by GEN H, dated 11 July 2018, stated that he 
relieved the applicant from her position on 12 March 2018, based in part on the 
results of an AR 15-6 Investigation as documented in the RFC OER. GEN H 
also documented three distinct instances of disrespect by the applicant that 
contributed to her RFC OER:

*	“On 10 January 2018, I met with [the applicant] and MG K in my office 
in order to inform her that, based on the results of a Preliminary Inquiry 
indicating adverse information on [the applicant], an AR 15-6 
Administrative Investigation would be initiated. Upon hearing this, [the 
applicant] immediately and abruptly stood up and said, ''I quit" and 
began walking towards the door. During this meeting, she was very 
agitated and informed me that she "hated STRATCOM, '' "was bored 
here," raised her voice to me, used profanity, and accused the 
command of trying to get rid of her.”




*	“On or about the week of 19 February 2018, I informed [the applicant] 
that she would not be traveling to Washington. D.C. with me, pending 
completion of the AR 15-6 investigation. She aggressively entered my 
office and began screaming at me about not being allowed to travel, to 
the extent that my PSD [personal security detail] grew concerned for my 
safety.”

*	“Finally, on or about 26 February 2018, after being notified by MG K of 
the adverse information contained in the AR 15-6, [the applicant] called 
me and again began yelling at me. This time, she accused me of 
causing the adverse findings and said if she had a gun “it would be 
done,” referring to harming herself. She concluded this tirade by saying 
I could ''think about this at my funeral," again referring to self-harm, and 
then hung up the phone.”

51.	The evidence of record shows that during her interview with the JSIG IO on 
and while under oath, the applicant acknowledged that she discussed matters 
with Chief M specifically after counseling by MG K and GEN H.

52.	On 27 July 2018, the applicant provided comments in response to the 
referred OER. She requested the period of the report be treated as nonrated 
time.  She asserted arguments of:

*	Fundamental Fairness: "She was never notified, much less counseled, 
on any alleged behavior or given any opportunity to address any 
alleged issues that are identified in the RFC OER."

*	Prohibited Statements:

*	She offered comments in rebuttal of the three incidents specified in 
the GEN H’s MFR, dated 11 July 2018, stating the negative 
comments are inaccurate, unverified, and not corroborated. She 
asserted, "I never intentionally disrespected GEN H or expressed 
any intent to harm myself."

*	She also offered comments in rebuttal of "destructive leadership 
style" and "lack of professional military bearing/decorum." She 
asserted "the investigation against me was both substantively and 
procedurally legally insufficient."

*	"The negative comments and ratings are also prohibited because 
they relate to protected communications she made."





*	"Such comments could be perceived as a retaliatory action."

*	Failure to Conduct Required Supplemental Review: There was no 
supplemental (uniformed Army) reviewer identified on the RFC OER.

53.	On 30 July 2018, the applicant submitted a request for CI into the contested 
OER to the Secretary of Defense (see paragraph X10 below).

54.	On 16 August 2018, the senior rater digitally signed the OER. (There is no 
evidence that shows the senior rater was aware of the applicant's request for CI.)

55.	An email message, dated 16 August 2018, shows that HRC Evaluation 
Office returned the RFC OER to GEN H for correction of administrative errors.

      (1)	For the Part II, box f1 to show an "X" indicating "Supplementary 
Review Required" and in box f2 to show "HQDA/HRC SUPP REV."

(2)	The RFC OER does not state who directed the RFC.

56.	On 16 August 2018, the requested administrative corrections were made 
and the rater/senior rater’s 11 July 2018 MFR stating that he directed the RFC 
was attached to the RFC OER.

57.	On 18 August 2018, the RFC OER with enclosures listed above was filed in 
the applicant’s OMPF.

RFC OER COMMANDER’S INQUIRY (CI), 31 July 2018 to 27 March 2019

58.	On 31 July 2018, the Office of the SECDEF received a request from the 
applicant to initiate a CI on her RFC OER. Concurrently, the applicant also 
contacted the DAIG and requested the DAIG submit her request for a CI on her 
RFC OER to the SECDEF. The DAIG discussed her request with the DODIG 
and it was not deemed to be IG appropriate and did not act on the request.

   a.	On 19 August 2018, the applicant again requested DAIG assistance in 
communicating actions by USSTRATCOM leadership that she felt were illegal to 
the SECDEF.  She claimed that the command improperly placed her RFC OER 
in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) prior to the SECDEF's response to 
her request for a CI and requested that it be removed.  The DAIG determined 
that Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1034 did not stop or suspend
   



ongoing actions on a Soldier, and that her request was not IG appropriate, as 
she had other means of redress; therefore, the DAIG did not act on the request.

   b.	On 20 August 2018, the USSTRACOM SJA forwarded a request to the 
DODIG and the DAIG from the applicant requesting a CI on her RFC OER. The 
SJA included a memorandum for record (MFR) from Gen H, dated 13 August 
2018, outlining the inaccuracies of the applicant’s request for a CI.

*	The applicant contended that her RFC OER contained inaccurate and 
unverified information not corroborated by an independent 
investigation. However, the applicant participated in both a preliminary 
investigation and an AR 15-6 investigation involving a large number of 
staff witness testimonies. Both investigations substantiated that she 
engaged in toxic leadership and fostered a negative command climate. 
The applicant also received a GOMOR based on these investigations 
and the circumstances they recorded and for blatant disrespect to
Gen H. Simply put, she earned the RFC OER and the subsequent 
GOMOR and the information in them was accurate and verified by a 
robust investigation, witness statements, and GEN H’s own 
observations.

*	The applicant contended that she was never intentionally disrespectful 
to Gen H or expressed any intent to harm herself as a result of the 
RFC OER. However, Gen H documented three specific events in 
February and March 2018 of significant disrespect toward Gen H 
demonstrated by the applicant. He also documented her statements 
and circumstances, and had witnesses concerning her intent to harm 
herself as a result of receiving the RFC OER.

*	The applicant contended that she discussed her significant combat and 
service-related trauma and a mild TBI. However, in her rebuttal to her 
AR 15-6 investigation, she specifically stated she never disclosed any 
alleged trauma or TBI to anyone.

*	The applicant contended that the AR 15-6 Investigation was legally 
insufficient. However, the AR 15-6 was reviewed by significant legal 
authority and was found to be lawfully and procedurally correct. Her 
conduct as verified by witness, evidence, and investigation violated 
Strategic Instruction 400-06 and AR 600-100, paragraph 1-11. 
Sufficient evidence was found to conclude that in contravention of AR 
600-100, paragraph 1-11, the applicant was an “insensitive driven 
achiever”, a “toxic self-centered abuser” in that she is capable of




producing spectacular short-term results, but is arrogant, abusive, 
intemperate, distrusting, and irascible; a distrusting micro-manager 
never burdened buy introspection.

*	The RFC OER made no mention of any protected communications.

*	The applicant contended that there was no supplementary review of 
the RFC OER conducted as required by regulation. However, this 
review is conducted by HRC in accordance with regulation.

*	The applicant contended that she did not violate an order not to 
contact Gen H. However, she stated to the J1 she knew the order was 
still in effect when she violated it.

*	Based on evidence of record and testimony, the applicant made many 
false assertions and lied about many facts to the point that she lost all 
credibility.

   c.	On 21 August 2018, the applicant requested The Inspector General (TIG) 
and Commanding General (CG), HRC, to intervene by removing her RFC OER 
from her OMPF until completion of the CI she requested from the SECDEF. She 
also requested the removal of her following draft change of rater OER from the 
Evaluation Entry System (EES), removal of the GOMOR filed in her OMPF 
because she alleged that USSTRATCOM submitted incorrect and incomplete 
documentation, and that HQDA and HRC suspend any further personnel actions 
until the completion of her requested investigations and inquiries. The applicant 
further contended that USSTRATCOM did not take appropriate actions with 
regard to her case, and that her leadership's actions were retaliatory. The DAIG 
responded on behalf of TIG on 23 August 2018, and informed the applicant that 
she had to exhaust all available means of redress.  The DAIG determined that 
her requests were not IG appropriate, and informed her again of her available 
means of redress.

59.	The SECDEF forwarded the CI request to the Director of the Army Staff 
(DAS) for action. On 15 November 2018, the DAS forwarded the CI request 
through the HQDA, G-1, to the Commander, HRC, directing that a CI be 
conducted and report the findings to the DAS. The HRC Commander, MG E, 
conducted the CI and reported the following findings in response to the 
applicant’s contentions in her request for a CI;

   a.	The subject OER does not contain unproven derogatory information or 
prohibited comments.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-19 (Unproven
   



Derogatory Information) details parameters and defines unproven information. 
Further, AR 623-3, paragraph 3-20 (Prohibited Comments) defines prohibited 
comments. Based upon my review, the evaluation does not include unproven 
derogatory information or prohibited comments.

   b.	The comments within the subject OER are adequately supported by 
attachments attached to the evaluation. A substantiated AR 15-6 Investigation 
against the rated party may be an appropriate basis for a relief for cause OER.

c.	The OER was processed in accordance with the requirements of
AR 623-3. In accordance with paragraph 1-4a(2), Commanding General, HRC 
will, "exercise final review authority on all evaluation reports received at 
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HODA). This includes the following: (a) 
Determining that a report is correct, as submitted, and needs no further action.
(b) Correcting, or returning to rating officials for correction, reports that may be in 
error, may violate provisions of this regulation, or would result in an injustice to a 
Soldier or a disservice to the Army." In this case, the OER was referred, 
reviewed, processed, and filed administratively correct and in accordance with 
AR 623-3.

d.	Insufficient information available to determine if the provisions of
AR 623-3, paragraph 1-8c(2)(a) [counseling], were correctly followed, but I find 
this would not require corrective action. In all cases, rating officials are required 
to ensure effective performance counseling through communication and 
professional development. However, provisions in paragraph 1-8e require 
counseling "on an as needed basis" for field grade and senior officers. Only 
initial counseling is mandatory in accordance with AR 623·3, paragraph 1-8d. It 
is unclear if the rater/senior rater conducted initial counseling, but there is no 
obligation to annotate counseling dates in the rater or senior rater comments.
When viewed independently, the failure to complete initial counseling for an 
Officer is not grounds for an OER appeal. Based upon my review of the OER 
and attached documents, the rater/senior rater met with rated Officer on
10 January 2018 to inform her that he was initiating an AR 15-6 Investigation 
based upon the results of a completed Preliminary Inquiry. This meeting which 
highlighted concerns about the rated officer's leadership occurred only two 
months into the rating period. This rating period was ultimately cut short by a 
relief for cause based upon a substantiated AR 15-6 Investigation. Whether 
counseling was completed or not, " ... the choice of what to enter on the OER is 
ultimately up to the rater and senior rater" (paragraphs 3-7a(3) and 3-9 a(3)(b)7) 
so long as not prohibited by AR 623-3.




   f.	The rater/senior rater complied with supplemental review requirements. 
During the preparation of this OER, the OER initially had an Army officer in the 
appropriate grade as the supplementary reviewer. The rater/senior rater's 
command contacted HRC on 11 July 2018 and again on 13 July 2018 via email 
requesting information and for HQDA to conduct a supplemental review upon 
submission. On 16 July 2018, HRC, Chief, Evaluation Processing Branch 
responded informing steps required to finalize the OER. The evaluation was first 
submitted to HQDA on 15 August 2018. On 16 August 2018, a HQDA examiner 
returned the OER to the rating official because it lacked an entered 
supplementary reviewer. On the same day, the rater/senior rater's command 
contacted HRC via email to request HQDA complete the supplementary review. 
After that request, HQDA, Chief Evaluation Processing, completed the 
supplemental review for this OER. Typically, a supplemental review request 
would require a memorandum accompany the submitted evaluation, but HQDA 
completed the supplemental review based on the previous email exchange and 
request in accordance with AR 623-3, paragraph 2·17c(4).

   g.	The supplemental review of the OER was completed properly by HQDA 
and determined the OER contained no administrative or regulatory errors. In 
accordance with AR 623-3, paragraph 2-17c(4), "If there is not an Army officer or 
Uniformed Army Advisor in the chain of command or supervision above the 
person directing the relief, the OER or NCOER will be forwarded to HQDA for 
review." Upon request from the rater/senior rater, HQDA conducted the review, 
found the OER compliant with all relevant policy, and processed the evaluation 
into the Soldier's official record on 16 August 2018.
h.	No additional corrective action was required.

60.	On 18 December 2018, the HRC Staff Judge Advocate published a legal 
review of the CI report. The SJA concluded that CI was complete and legally 
sufficient. It was determined that there was no legal violation of AR 623-3 
requiring an corrective action.

61.	On 27 March 2019, the DAS published a memorandum showing the findings 
of the CI.

   a.	Pursuant to AR 623-3, the purpose of a CI after an evaluation has been 
accepted at HQDA is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or 
injustices contained within the evaluation. A CI is not the appropriate forum to 
question the legal sufficiency of an approved AR15-6 Investigation, as that 
regulation contains its own due process protections and appeals rights. 
Consequently, the scope of the requested inquiry was limited to the applicant’s 
RFC OER (# 2251744) to determine if a serious irregularity or error undermined
   



the integrity of the rating process or if there were any indications of a lack of 
objectivity and fairness on the part of your rater/senior rater which would 
constitute an error or injustice.

   b.	Generally, the rater/senior rater did not deviate from the intent of the policy 
and guidance contained in AR 623-3, and complied with the procedural 
processes required by AR 623-3. While the evaluation contains minor technical 
errors, correction is not required as the noted errors do not undermine the 
integrity of the rating process or impact the due process due to the applicant, the 
rated officer. The OER was determined to be referred, reviewed, processed, and 
filed administratively correctly and in accordance with AR 623-3. Therefore, no 
corrective action is necessary to the subject evaluation report.

c.	Concerns of Inaccurate, Untrue, or otherwise Prohibited Statements:
The inquiry revealed that the OER does not contain any unproven derogatory 
information or prohibited comments. The comments contained in the evaluation 
were adequately supported by the attachments to the report itself, which included 
an AR 15-6 Investigation substantiating misconduct against you. The allegations 
substantiated in an AR15-6 Investigation are a proper basis for a relief for cause 
OER.  As a technical matter, a Commander's Inquiry cannot review the process 
by which an AR 15-6 investigation is conducted or approved. The AR15-6 
Investigation receives a legal review and approval of the findings prior to 
notification of an affected Soldier. It is presumed that the investigation is 
procedurally accurate. Further, Army Regulation 5-6 contains due process 
protections and outlines the rights of a Soldier in that process.

d.	Concerns of a Lack of Objectivity or Fairness by Rating Officials:
As no requirement exists to annotate counseling dates in either the rater or 
senior rater comments, the inquiry lacked information to determine if initial 
counseling occurred.  The inquiry determined from the OER and attachments 
that your rater/senior rater met with you on 10 January 2018, approximately two 
months into the rating period, to notify you that an AR15-6 investigation into your 
leadership style was being initiated based on the results of a preliminary inquiry. 
The rating period was eventually shortened due to the results of the AR15-6 
Investigation itself. Independently, the absence of a documented counseling 
does not constitute sufficient error to appeal the validity of the evaluation.
Though an officer might desire more, AR 623-3, paragraph 1-8e, only requires 
counseling "on an as-needed basis" for field grade and senior officers.

   e.	The CI revealed a supplemental review of the OER was properly 
completed by HQDA in August of 2018 which determined that the OER did not 
contain administrative errors and was compliant with all relevant policy.  As that
   



review determined the OER was compliant with all relevant policy, the OER was 
processed into your official record.

   f.	The rater/senior rater's command contacted HRC via email in July of 2018 
to request HQDA complete the required supplementary review, noting there was 
no one available in the Chain of Command to do so. Typically such requests are 
submitted via a memorandum accompanying the submitted evaluation. Based 
upon the email request from the chain of command, the HQDA, Chief, Evaluation 
Processing, properly conducted the requested supplemental review. The failure 
to use a recommended memorandum format to request a supplementary review 
does not invalidate that review, nor does it detract from the due process afforded 
to you, as the rated officer.

g.	The DAS consider the CI closed without any further action required.

RFC OER APPEAL TO ARMY SPECIAL REVIEW BOARD (ASRB),
29 August 2018 to 2 October 2018

62.	On 29 August 2018, the applicant appealed the contested OER to the 
Appeals and Corrections Branch (ACB), HRC. On 6 September 2018, the ACB, 
HRC, forwarded the appeal to the Army Special Review Board (ASRB), ARBA, 
for appeal decision. In support of the applicant's request, counsel also provided 
the following additional documents:

   a.	Email message, dated 22 June 2018, from LTC C, DA Staff, responding to 
the applicant's request for an update. He replied, "You can withdraw your 
voluntary retirement request."

   b.	Email messages (September 2018), that show the FY19 BG Active 
Component Category PSB will convene on 14 November 2018. They also show 
the "MyBoard" file window opened on 15 September 2018 and will close on
7 November 2018.

63.	On 2 October 2018, by email from the applicant she waived her rights to an 
ASRB appeal and requested that her OER appeal be transferred to the ABCMR 
for consideration and decision with this case.




DODIG WHISTLEBLOWER REPRISAL GOMORs and RELIEF FOR CAUSE 
INVESTIGATION, Case 20180321-050298, 20 March 2018 to 19 February 
2019

64.	On 20 March 2018, the applicant submitted a DODIG Whistleblower 
Reprisal complaint alleging that MG K, Chief of Staff, and Army Element 
Commander, US Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska:

   a.	Issued her two GOMORs and removed her as the Director, CAG, in 
reprisal for her protected communications to the chain of command; and

b.	Restricted her from lawfully communicating with an Inspector General 
(IG).

65.	On 29 May 2018, the applicant submitted to the IG answers to an a IG 
questionnaire. The answers contain information pertaining to 15 protected 
communications (PCs) the applicant made during the period 30 November 2016 
to 12 March 2018; the action(s) taken as a result of each of the protected 
communications; the unfavorable personnel actions alleged taken against her as 
a result of the protected communications; why she believes the responsible 
management official(s) (RMO(s)) who initiated, took, withheld, or threatened 
each action knew about the protected communication(s); and why she believes 
that the RMO(s), who initiated, took, withheld, or threatened each action, were 
motivated by reprisal because she made the protected communication(s), and 
they were not motivated by the reasons given to her by the RMO(s) verbally or in 
writing.

66.	The DODIG tasked the Inspector General Joint Staff ((JSIG) to conduct an 
investigation (20180321-050298-Case-02) into the Whistleblower Reprisal 
(WBR) allegations made by the applicant. The JSIG concluded the investigation 
on 4 February 2019 and submitted it to the DODIG for review. The JSIG 
thoroughly considered all of the applicant’s contentions and evidence to include 
the contended 16 protected communications. The DODIG reviewed the 58-page 
report of investigation along with its 1050 pages of 63 evidentiary documents, 
and 7 testimonies and witness statements. The DODIG approved the JSIG 
investigation and findings that the applicant’s WBR allegations against MG K 
were unsubstantiated.   On 19 February 2019, the DAIG informed the applicant 
by letter that the allegation that MG K issued her two GOMORs and removed her 
as the Director, CAG, in reprisal for her protected communications to the chain of 
command, were not substantiated. The DAIG stated that MG K’s actions were 
based on a substantiated administrative AR 15-6 investigation and independent 
of the applicant’s PCs.  The allegation that MG K restricted the applicant from




lawfully communicating with an IG was not substantiated. No credible evidence 
was found to indicate MG K attempted to restrict the applicant or restricted the 
applicant from communicating with an IG.

DODIG WHISTLEBLOWER RETIREMENT AWARD DOWNGRADE 
INVESTIGATION,  11 JUNE 2018 TO 19 JULY 2018

67.	On 11 June 2018, the applicant made a Whistleblower complaint to the 
DODIG alleging that VADM R recommended and GEN H approved a lesser 
retirement award in reprisal for numerous protected communications made by 
the applicant. On 19 July 2018, the DODIG notified the applicant by letter that 
they had analyzed the allegation under Title 10, United States Code, Section 
1034, "Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions," 
implemented by DOD Directive 7050.06, "Military Whistleblower Protection." 
The DODIG found that insufficient evidence existed to warrant investigation of
VADM R’s or GEN H's involvement in the approval of her lesser retirement award 
(Defense Meritorious Serve Medal (DMSM) vs. Defense Superior Service Medal 
(DSSM)). The available evidence did not support an inference that VADM R 
recommended and GEN H approved a lesser retirement award as reprisal for the 
applicant’s protected communications. Rather, the evidence demonstrated 
documented conduct issues on the part of the applicant and no indication of 
retaliatory motive on the part of VADM R or GEN H. Accordingly, the case was 
closed.

68.	The principal issues to be addressed in this case are:

a.	Is a personal appearance warranted in this case?

b.	Does an error or injustice exist in this case warranting removal or 
amendment of the 2018 AR 15-6 Investigation pertaining to the applicant?

c.	Does an error or injustice exist in this case warranting removal or 
amendment of the 26 February 2018 General Officer Memorandum of 
Reprimand pertaining to the applicant?

d.	Does an error or injustice exist in this case warranting removal or 
amendment of an Officer Evaluation Report (20171103 – 20180312) 
pertaining to the applicant?




BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.	The Board carefully considered the applicant’s requests, supporting 
documents and the evidence in the records.

a.	The Board reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation and the subsequent legal 
reviews and considered the applicant’s and counsel’s contentions 
regarding the investigation being legally defective, having a biased 
investigator, appointing/reviewing authority and commander and the 
statement that retaliatory action took place as a result. The Board did not 
find the counsel’s claim that the investigation was defective because it 
was not based on a violation of an article of the UCMJ valid. The 
applicant’s counsel cites to no authority that prohibits or dissuades making 
derogatory conclusions in an AR 15-6 investigation that are unmoored to a 
UCMJ punitive article or to a punitive regulation. To require, as counsel 
suggests, that an AR 15-6 investigation is invalid unless the focus of its 
inquiry involves violations of UCMJ punitive articles (or punitive 
regulations) implies that every AR 15-6 investigation must, at some level, 
be a criminal investigation. But AR 15-6 (the regulation itself) makes clear 
that the regulation “does not prescribe procedures for criminal 
investigations.” See AR 15-6, para. 1-5, 1 April 2016. The primary function 
of an AR 15-6 investigation is to “ascertain facts, document and preserve 
evidence and then report the facts and evidence to the approval authority.” 
See AR 15-6, para. 1-8, 1 April 2016. Furthermore, AR 15-6 investigations 
may address “larger issues, such as … leadership.” Inasmuch as there is 
no criminal statute that punishes, per se, poor leadership, counsel’s 
assertion that the AR 15-6 investigation was invalid because it failed to tie 
the applicant’s allegedly “toxic” or “destructive” leadership to a punitive 
UCMJ article or to a punitive regulation is not persuasive. Furthermore, 
and based on a review of all associated documents and a review of how 
the investigation was executed, the Board found insufficient evidence that 
the investigation was legally objectionable or that the applicant’s due 
process rights were violated. Nor was the Board persuaded that the AR
15-6 Investigating Officer was too biased, too prejudiced, or somehow too 
conflicted to act as in impartial Investigating Officer. The tenor and tone of 
the Investigating Officer’s report is balanced and tempered. Indeed, the 
Investigating Officer discusses at some length the applicant’s intelligence 
and strong work ethic and the fact that the Command Action Group was, 
in some areas, improving. As to whether the Appointing Authority should 
have been disqualified, the Board did not find by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Appointing Authority was tainted by actual or perceived 
bias.  Nor did the Board find that the Appointing Authority was a witness




“the IO should have interviewed.” The Board found that the Appointing 
Authority’s input into the applicant’s case as a witness was not necessary. 
Furthermore, counsel has not demonstrated that the Appointing Authority 
possesses evidence that might in any way have been dispositive.
The Board determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a 
preponderance of evidence that removal of the investigation from the 
applicant’s record was warranted.

b.	The Board reviewed the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand 
(GOMOR) that the applicant asked to be removed. As discussed above, 
the Board considered the statements in the AR 15-6 investigation and the 
documents provided by the applicant through counsel, to include the 
statements of those present at the time of the behaviors and the 
applicant’s rebuttal. A review of the AR 15-6 investigation discloses ample 
evidence that the applicant’s leadership behavior, supervisory behavior, 
and professional interpersonal behavior during the time in question can 
fairly be described as “toxic” and “destructive.”  The Board also found 
ample evidence in the AR 15-6 investigation to support the assessment 
that the applicant “fostered a negative command climate in the 
Commander’s Action Group.”  The Board did not find the contentions of 
the applicant or counsel sufficient to call the content of the document into 
question. The Board concluded that the applicant was not denied due 
process in response to the directed placement of the GOMOR in her 
OMPF. The Board agreed with the unsubstantiated findings of the 
Inspector General and concluded that the GOMOR was not in error.

c.	The Board reviewed the contested OER, the applicant’s appeal, the 
outcome of the Commander’s Inquiry and the conclusions of the IG and 
determined that the applicant was afforded the required due process. The 
Board found no evidence of substantive error in the processing or content 
of the OER or that it was issued to the applicant in retaliation. The Board 
concurred with the outcomes of the CI and the IG investigation and found 
no error or injustice that would require removal or modification of the OER.

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.



6/19/2019

 X	
CHAIRPERSON
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.	AR 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) 
establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative 
investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established 
by other regulations or directives.

*	There is no requirement that an AR 15-6 investigation be predicated on 
violation of an Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or a 
punitive provision of any Army regulation or policy.

*	Chapter 1 (Introduction), paragraph 1-8 (Function of preliminary inquiry, 
administrative investigation, and board of officers), the primary function of 
any preliminary inquiry, administrative investigation, or board of officers is 
to ascertain facts, document and preserve evidence, and, then report the 
facts and evidence to the approval authority. It is the duty of the IO or 
board to thoroughly and impartially ascertain and consider the evidence 
on all sides of each issue – to comply with the instructions of the 
appointing authority, to make findings that are warranted by the evidence, 
and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to the approval 
authority that are consistent with the findings.  In addition to addressing 
the questions specified by the appointing authority in the appointment 
memorandum, the IO or board should address larger issues, such as 
policies, procedures, doctrine, training, resourcing, and leadership, 
whenever the IO or board determines that those issues are relevant to the 
matters or conduct under investigation.

*	Chapter 2 (Responsibilities – Investigations and Boards), Section I 
(Appointing Authority) –

*	Paragraph 2-1 (Appointment authority), the following individuals may 
appoint boards of officers to inquire into matters within their areas of 
responsibility –
*	any general court-martial convening authority or special court- 
martial convening authority, including those who exercise that 
authority for administrative purposes only
*	any general/flag officer
*	any commander, deputy commander, or special, personal, or 
principal staff officer in the rank of colonel (lieutenant colonel may 
appoint if assigned to a slot authorized a colonel) or above at




Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), the installation, 
activity, or unit level.

*	Paragraph 2-3 (Who may be appointed), IOs and board members will 
be those persons who, in the opinion of the appointing authority, are 
best qualified for the duty by reason of their education, training, 
experience, length of service, demonstrated sound judgment, and 
temperament. IOs and board members must be impartial, unbiased, 
objective, and have the ability to complete the investigation in a timely 
manner. If an appointing authority determines that a person with the 
required experience and expertise is not available within his or her 
organization, he or she may request assistance from a superior in his 
or her chain of command or supervision, or coordinate with a 
counterpart to obtain an IO or board member with the required 
education, training, experience, and expertise to conduct the 
investigation or board.

*	An IO or voting member of a board who, during the proceedings, 
discovers that the completion of the investigation or board requires 
examining the conduct or performance of duty of, or may result in 
findings or recommendations adverse to, a person senior to him or 
her, will report this fact as soon as possible to the board president 
or the appointing authority. The appointing authority will then 
appoint another person, senior to the person affected, who will 
either replace the IO or member, or conduct a separate inquiry into 
the matters pertaining to that person. When necessary, the new IO 
or board may be furnished any evidence properly considered by the 
previous IO or board. The appointing authority may direct the 
previous IO to assist the newly appointed IO for the duration of the 
investigation.
*	If the appointing authority determines that military exigencies make 
these alternatives impracticable, the appointing authority may direct 
the IO or member to continue. This direction will be written and will 
be included as an enclosure to the report of proceedings. If the 
appointing authority determines that proceeding with the same IO 
or member will result in specific prejudice, the appointing authority 
will request assistance in obtaining a more senior IO from superiors 
in the chain-of-command or supervision. If the appointing authority 
does not become aware of the problem until the results of the 
investigation or board are presented for review and action, the case 
will be returned for new or supplemental investigation only where 
specific prejudice is found to exist.





*	Paragraph 2-9 (Request for reconsideration), a subject, suspect, or 
respondent (such as an officer against whom an adverse finding was 
made) may request reconsideration of the findings of an inquiry or 
investigation upon the discovery of new evidence, mistake of law, 
mistake of fact, or administrative error. New evidence is that 
information that was not considered during the course of the initial 
investigation and that was not reasonably available for consideration. 
New evidence neither includes character letters nor information that, 
while not considered at the time of the original investigation, the 
subject of the investigation could have provided during the course of 
the investigation.

*	A request for reconsideration is not permitted when the 
investigation resulted in administrative, nonjudicial, or judicial 
action, or any action having its own due process procedural 
safeguards.
*	Requests for reconsideration must be submitted to the approval 
authority within 1 year of the approval authority's approval of the 
investigation. The approval authority may entertain a request 
outside of 1 year for good cause. While not exhaustive, good 
cause is the discovery of new relevant evidence beyond the
1-year time limitation, which the requester could not have 
discovered through reasonable diligence, or the requester was 
unable to submit, because duty unreasonably interfered with his or 
her opportunity to submit a request. The approval authority's 
determination of good cause is final.
*	A request for reconsideration will only be considered if the material 
presented impacts a finding concerning the requester.

2.	AR 600-100 (Army Profession and Leadership Policy) prescribes Army 
Profession and leadership policy and sets forth responsibilities for all aspects of 
Army Profession and leadership doctrine, training, and research. Chapter 1 
(General), paragraph 1-11 (Core leader competencies, "toxic" leadership, and 
destructive leadership styles) shows to produce an Army of trusted professionals 
in cohesive teams who adapt and win in a complex world, the Army has identified 
core leader competencies that pertain to all levels of leadership, both military and 
civilian. Core leader competencies are related leader behaviors that lead to 
successful performance, are common throughout the organization, and are 
consistent with the organizational mission and the Army Ethic. Core leader 
competencies support the executive core competencies that Army Civilians are 
expected to master as they advance in their careers.





*	Destructive leadership styles can compromise organizational effectiveness 
and discourage subordinates from continuing their Army service. In a 
variety of ways, they undermine mutual trust and impede mission 
accomplishment. In senior leaders, destructive styles are particularly 
damaging. These types of leaders must be developed to change their 
destructive leadership style if possible or, if not able to change, be 
removed from the Army profession.  Five destructive leadership styles are:

*	Incompetent managers. They possess inadequate cognitive or 
emotional fitness or have inadequate prior experience to function at 
their level. They cannot move from the tactical to the strategic level 
when so required.  They cannot make sound decisions on time.
*	Affable non-participant. These leaders are interpersonally skilled, and 
intellectually sound, but incapable of taking charge, making decisions, 
providing timely guidance, and holding subordinates accountable. 
They provide minimal guidance, avoid decisions, are fond of 
committees, meetings, visitors, and often lack passion or creativity.
*	Insensitive driven achiever. These leaders are usually bright and 
energetic and consumed by need for unit accomplishment and its 
attendant recognition. They often provide impressive short-term 
results, but create a frenzied, micro-managed climate. They are 
frequently inattentive to the morale of their organization.
*	Toxic self-centered abuser. These leaders are also usually bright and 
energetic, as well as goal-oriented and boss-focused. Capable of 
producing spectacular short-term results, but are arrogant, abusive, 
intemperate, distrusting, and irascible. They are typically distrusting 
micro-managers never burdened by introspection.
*	Criminal. These individuals may be energetic, bright, and sometimes 
charismatic.  However, they cheat, lie, steal, defraud, and assault.

3.	AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) 
prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, 
and disposition of the OMPF. The OMPF includes, but is not limited to, the 
OMPF, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed 
necessary to store by the Army. Depending on the purpose, documents will be 
filed in the OMPF in one (or more) of six folders: performance, service, 
restricted, flight, medical, and/or state/territory. The Authorized Documents 
Table provides guidance for filing the following documents in the Performance 
folder/portion of the OMPF:





*	DA Form 67-10-3 (OER)
*	Letters of reprimand, censure, or admonition (based on command 
directive endorsement or addendum to the letter).	If it is desired to file the 
allied documents with the letter, these documents must have been 
referred to the recipient for comment.

4.	AR 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.

*	Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files), paragraph 
3-4 (Filing of nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, 
or censure in official personnel files), provides guidance for filing in the 
OMPF. A letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the 
OMPF only upon the order of a general officer (to include one frocked to 
the rank of BG) senior to the recipient or by direction of an officer having 
general court-martial jurisdiction over the individual. Letters filed in the 
OMPF will be filed in the performance portion.  The direction for filing in 
the OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comment.

*	Chapter 7 (Appeals) provides the policies and procedures for appeals and 
petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF.

*	Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and standards) shows an officer who directed 
the filing in the OMPF of an administrative memorandum of reprimand, 
admonition, or censure, may request its revision, alteration, or removal 
if later investigation determines such information is untrue/unjust in 
whole or in part. The basis for such determination must be provided to 
the DASEB in sufficient detail so as to justify the request. The officer 
who directed the filing of such a letter in the OMPF may not initiate an 
appeal on the basis that the memorandum has served its intended 
purpose. However, a memorandum of support may be submitted with 
the recipient's appeal.





*	Applicability –
*	Appeals for removal: applies to appeals for the removal of 
memoranda of reprimand, admonition, or censure, already filed 
in the recipient's OMPF.
*	Appeals for transfer: applies to appeals for the transfer of 
memoranda of reprimand, admonition, or censure from the 
performance to the restricted file of recipient's OMPF.
*	Appeals involving documents with regulatory appeal authority. 
This regulation does not apply to documents that have their own 
regulatory appeal authority, such as evaluation reports or 
records of courts-martial.

*	Burden of proof and level of evidence required –
*	Once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, 
it is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been 
filed pursuant to an objective decision by a competent authority.

*	Removals –
*	There is no time restriction for submitting an appeal for 
removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF.
*	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 DASEB will not consider appeals that merely allege an 
injustice or error without supporting evidence or a compelling 
argument. Appeals such as these will be returned without 
action.
*	The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review 
Boards) (DASA (RB)) is the final decision authority for 
removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF. 
This authority will not be further delegated.




*	The transfer of an unfavorable document to the restricted 
portion of the OMPF will not normally serve as the sole basis for 
promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB), 
unless approved as an exception to policy granted by the 
Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1 (based on the DASEB's 
recommendation and the DASA (RB's) concurrence).

*	Paragraph 7-7 (Correction of military records – ABCMR), applications 
should be sent to the ABCMR to correct an error or remove an injustice 
only after all other means of administrative appeal have been 
exhausted, including available appeal actions provided in this 
regulation.

5.	AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy and tasks for 
the Army's Evaluation Reporting System, including officer, NCO, and academic 
evaluation reports (AERs) focused on the assessment of performance and 
potential.

*	Chapter 3 (Army Evaluation Principles) –

*	Paragraph 3-19 (Unproven derogatory information) –
*	No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or 
informal) concerning a Soldier.
*	References will be made only to actions or investigations that have 
been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action 
taken before submitting the evaluation to HQDA. If the rated 
individual is absolved, comments about the incident will not be 
included in the evaluation.
*	This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory 
information from being included in evaluation reports. It will also 
prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently 
included in a Soldier's OMPF, such as –
*	charges that are later dropped
*	charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be 
absolved
*	Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an 
evaluation report. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under 
investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated 
individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an 
evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not 
preclude the rating chain's use of verified derogatory information. 
For example, when an interim report with verified information is




made available to a commander, the verified information may be 
included in an OER, NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER), or AER. 
For all reports, if previously reported information later proves to be 
incorrect or erroneous, the Soldier will be notified and advised of 
the right to appeal the report in accordance with (IAW) Chapter 4 
(Evaluation Report Redress Program).

*	Paragraph 3-27 states if a Soldier signs the OER, supportive 
documentation is not required. But Soldier’s signature is not on the 
report, proof that the report was referred to Soldier must be furnished 
with the OER. These documents are usually in the form of a 
memorandum by the Senior Rater with reference attachments.

*	Paragraph 3-28 (4) d., Part II block d. If the officer does not wish to 
make comments, then the “No” box should be checked. If the rated 
officer wished to make comments, then mark the “Yes” box.

*	Paragraph 3-54 ("Relief for Cause" report), an OER is required when 
an officer or warrant officer is relieved for cause regardless of the 
rating period involved. Relief for cause is defined as an early release 
of an officer from a specific duty or assignment directed by superior 
authority and based on a decision that the officer has failed in his/her 
performance of duty. In this regard, duty performance will consist of 
the completion of assigned tasks in a competent manner and 
compliance at all times with the accepted professional officer 
standards consisting of attributes and competencies as part of the 
Leadership Requirements Model. These standards will apply to 
conduct both on and off duty.
*	If, for whatever reasons, the relief does not occur on the date the 
officer is removed from duty position responsibilities, the period of 
time between the removal and the relief will be non-rated time 
included in the period of the relief report.
*	Cases where the rated officer has been suspended from duties 
pending an investigation will be resolved by the chain of command 
as expeditiously as possible to reduce the amount of potential non- 
rated time involved. Every effort will be made to retain the 
established rating chain, with the officer performing alternate duties 
under that rating chain until the investigation is resolved.  If the 
rated officer is suspended and subsequently relieved, the period of 
suspension is non-rated time. If the rated officer is suspended and 
subsequently placed back to duty (not relieved), the period of 
suspension is recorded as evaluated time on the next OER.




*	If a relief for cause is contemplated on the basis of an informal 
AR 15-6 Investigation, referral procedures contained in that
regulation will be followed before the act of initiating or directing the 
relief.

*	Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) –
*	Section II (Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry), paragraph 4-3 
(Applicability), commanders (OER and NCOER) or commandants 
(AER) are required to look into alleged errors, injustices, and 
illegalities in evaluation reports. This section does not pertain to AERs 
or other evaluation reports provided by civilian educational, medical, 
or industrial institutions because there is no military command 
structure available. (Note: Upon receipt of a request for a 
Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry, the commander or 
commandant receiving the request will verify the status of the OER, 
NCOER, or AER in question.  If the evaluation has been submitted 
and received at HQDA for processing, but has not been filed in the 
Soldier's OMPF, the commander or commandant will notify the 
Evaluations Appeals Office via email with a request to have the 
evaluation placed in a temporarily administrative hold status until 
completion of the inquiry.)

*	Section III (Evaluation Appeals) –
*	Paragraph 4-7 (Policies): An evaluation report accepted for 
inclusion in the rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to –
*	be administratively correct
*	have been prepared by the proper rating officials
*	represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the 
rating officials at the time of preparation -
*	The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry 
under Chapter 1 (General), Section III (Special 
Circumstances), paragraph 1-11 (Commander's or 
Commandant's Inquiry), do not constitute an appeal. They 
may be used, however, in support of an appeal.
*	An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. An 
appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, 
inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will 
not be considered.  The determination regarding adequacy 
of evidence may be made by, in pertinent part, HQDA, 
Evaluation Appeals Branch.




*	Alleged bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, or any 
matter other than administrative error are substantive in 
nature and will be adjudicated by the ASRB.
*	After resolution of the appeal, the appropriate reviewing 
agency (HQDA for Regular Army) amends the rated 
Soldier's records, if appropriate. If the rated Soldier has 
been non-selected for promotion, the ASRB will also 
determine if promotion reconsideration is warranted as a 
result of the change to the evaluation report.

*	Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of proof and type of evidence), the burden 
of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or 
amendment of a report, the appellant 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
*	Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and 
compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of 
administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the adjudication 
authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all 
of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been 
met with regard to those assertions.

6.	AR 20-1 (IG Activities and Procedures) prescribes policy and procedures 
concerning the mission and duties of The Inspector General (TIG). It also 
prescribes duties, missions, standards, and requirements for IGs throughout the 
Army. Responsibilities are prescribed for commanders; State Adjutants General; 
and heads of agencies, activities, centers, and installations for the support of IG 
activities. Chapter 7 (TIG Investigations Function), paragraph 7-1 (IG 
investigations: purpose and procedures), shows investigation is the IG function 
that provides the commander or directing authority another means through which 
to resolve allegations of impropriety. IGs may investigate violations of policy, 
regulation, or law; mismanagement; unethical behavior; fraud; or misconduct. 
Commanders may opt for an IG investigation or investigative inquiry when 
extreme discretion is necessary, or the allegation requires preliminary fact-finding 
before deciding to resolve the alleged impropriety in command, IG, or other 
channels. The primary purpose of IG investigations and investigative inquiries is 
to resolve allegations of impropriety; to preserve confidence in the chain of 
command; and, if allegations are not substantiated, to protect the good name of 
the subject or suspect.  IGs who conduct investigations or investigative inquiries




obtain evidence to determine if the allegations are "substantiated" or "not 
substantiated" and if any issues associated with the allegation(s) are "founded" 
or "unfounded." The preponderance of credible evidence is the standard of proof 
IGs use to substantiate or not substantiate allegations.  Preponderance is 
defined as superiority of weight and indicates that the alleged impropriety 
probably occurred. Within the investigations function, IGs have two fact-finding 
methodologies they may use in the IG Action Process – investigative inquiries 
and investigations.  The definitions of these two methodologies are as follows –

*	Investigation. A formal fact-finding examination into allegations, issues, or 
adverse conditions of a serious nature that provides the directing authority 
a sound basis for making decisions and taking action. IG investigations 
involve the systematic collection and examination of evidence that 
consists of testimony recorded under oath; documents; and, in some 
cases, physical evidence. Only the directing authority can authorize IG 
investigations using a written and signed directive. IGs normally do not 
resolve allegations using this methodology but instead rely on the 
investigative inquiry defined below. IGs report the conclusions of their 
investigations using a Report of Investigation.

*	Investigative inquiry. An informal fact-finding examination into allegations, 
issues, or adverse conditions that are not significant in nature – as 
deemed by the command IG or the directing authority – and when the 
potential for serious consequences (such as potential harm to a Soldier or 
negative impact on the Army's image) are not foreseen. The IG 
investigative inquiries involve the collection and examination of evidence 
that consists of testimony or written statements; documents; and, in some 
cases, physical evidence. Command IGs direct investigative inquiries and 
provide recommendations to the directing authority or subordinate 
commanders as appropriate. The directing authority reserves the right to 
direct an investigative inquiry if he or she feels an investigation is not 
appropriate. IGs resolve most allegations using this methodology and 
report their conclusions using a Report of Investigative Inquiry.

7.	AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes policies and procedures for correction of 
military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.

*	Paragraph 2-2 (ABCMR functions): The ABCMR considers individual 
applications that are properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it 
directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or 
injustice. When an applicant has suffered reprisal under 10 USC 1034 
(Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions)




and DoD Directive (DoDD) 7050.6 (Military Whistleblower Protection), the 
ABCMR may recommend to the Secretary of the Army that disciplinary or 
administrative action be taken against any Army official who committed an 
act of reprisal against the applicant. The ABCMR will decide cases on the 
evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.  The ABCMR may, in 
its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary 
hearing or an administrative hearing in 10 USC 1034 and DoDD 7050.6) 
or request additional evidence or opinions.

*	Paragraph 2-5 (Administrative remedies): The ABCMR will not consider 
an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative 
remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice.

*	Paragraph 2-9 (Burden of proof): 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.

*	Paragraph 2-11 (ABCMR hearings): Applicants do not have a right to a 
hearing before the ABCMR. The Director of the ABCMR or the chair of an 
ABCMR panel may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.