ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 23 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016385 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 January 2016, and the accompanying documentation, a total of 266 pages, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * Memorandum, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA, dated 20 November 2015, subject: No Contact Order * DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 23 November 2015, 2 December 2015, and 11 December 2015 * Memorandum, Headquarters Company, U.S. Army, Fort Myer, VA, dated 1 December 2015, subject: Appointment of Investigating Officer (IO) * DA Form 3881 (Right Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), dated 2 December 2015 * Picture, Applicant * Memorandum, Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, Pentagon, Washington, DC, dated 10 December 2015, subject: Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for IOs and Boards of Officers) Investigation Findings and Recommendations (Applicant) * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by IO/Board of Officers), dated 11 December 2015 * Memorandum, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort McNair, DC, dated 21 December 2015, subject: Legal Review, Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation (Applicant) * Memorandum, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort McNair, DC, dated 7 January 2016, subject: GOMOR * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 11 January 2016, subject: Request for Local Filing of Reprimand (Applicant) * Memorandum, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort McNair, DC, dated 18 February 2016, subject: GOMOR Filing Determination for (Applicant) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) FACTS: 1. The applicant states: * keeping the GOMOR a part of his OMPF creates undue bias against him when seeking continued employment beyond his military service * he maintains he did not have a relationship to the extent suggested by the person named in the investigation * he freely admits that he did know and spend time with her, her husband, and their extended family, as he was separated from his wife * keeping the GOMOR in his permanent records brings continued undue hardship upon him and his family * he requests removal of the GOMOR so that his otherwise 27 years of honorable service will not be further tarnished by this incident 2. The applicant was serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of command sergeant major/E-9 assigned to the Office of the Chief Staff, Army, at the time of the incident. 4. On 10 December 2015, the IO completed an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation wherein he stated he believed the applicant and Mrs. L____ S____ had an improper relationship based on a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that over 7,000 text messages were sent between the two individuals, the cards, and the photographs, including one with Mrs. S____ kissing the applicant, shows the relationship extended beyond professional or friendship boundaries. In addition, the content of the text messages, including nude pictures and references to averting an investigation, show the relationship was inappropriate. The IO recommended the command take the appropriate level of administrative or judicial action. 5. On 21 December 2015, a U.S. Army Military District of Washington administrative law attorney conducted a legal review of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation concerning allegations the applicant had an inappropriate relationship with another. He concluded the evidence supported the findings of fact and the recommendations were consistent with the findings of fact. 6. On 7 January 2016, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, reprimanded the applicant in writing for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a civilian. The Commanding General stated: a. Throughout the duration of the applicant's inappropriate relationship with the woman, he was married. He sent this woman multiple cards through the mail, as well as various obscene photographs of himself nude or partially nude. Notably, he was wearing his Army service uniform jacket in at least one of the photographs with his genitals exposed. b. As a senior leader, he was required to maintain the highest standards of professional and personal conduct. His actions demonstrated poor judgment and placed his selfish desires ahead of his service and responsibilities. c. The reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15 (Nonjudicial Punishment) of the Uniform Code Military Justice. 7. The applicant responded to the GOMOR on 11 January 2016, requesting filing the GOMOR in his local file so as to avoid any further negative impacts – both in and outside of the service – that could impact his family. He took responsibility for engaging in an inappropriate relationship and stated he was deeply regretful and ashamed for his actions and failure of judgment. He was within months of retirement and pledged to continue to serve honorably and perform with dignity and respect. 9. On 18 February 2016 after having carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances, the chain of command recommendations, and the applicant's rebuttal, the imposing commander directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 10. The GOMOR and the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation with adverse findings are currently filed in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF. 11. He retired on 31 August 2016. He completed 27 years, 2 months, and 6 days of active service. His service was characterized as honorable. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Legion of Merit (2nd Award) * Bronze Star Medal (2nd Award) * Meritorious Service Medal (4th Award) * Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device * Army Commendation Medal (7th Award) * Army Achievement Medal (5th Award) * Meritorious Unit Commendation (2nd Award) * Valorous Unit Award * Army Superior Unit Award (2nd Award) * Army Good Conduct Medal (8th Award) * National Defense Service Medal (2nd Award) * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2nd Award) * Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze service stars * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Armed Forces Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with one campaign star * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (4th Award) * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon (3rd Award) * North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal * Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia) * Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait) * Combat Action Badge * Parachutist Badge * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar * Army Staff Identification Badge BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The board considered the applicant’s statement, his record and length of service, the contents and results of the investigation, the GOMOR and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the legal review, the applicant’s statement at the time and the filing decision by the Commanding General. The Board considered the applicant’s stated remorse, but found insufficient evidence to mitigate the misconduct or to support removal of the documents from the records. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the board determined that the retention of the GOMOR and associated documents in the applicant’s OMPF was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. ? BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): not applicable. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed from an individual's AMHRR. a. An administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. b. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 (Appeals). c. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) provides that 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 competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. d. Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the OMPF. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180016385 5 1