ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 23 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190000015 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 21 November 2006, 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) * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), period ending 28 June 2007 * DA Form 1059 covering the period 18 March 2010 through 12 May 2010 * American Military University Degree, dated 15 November 2011 * U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, dated 14 February 2013 * DA Form 1059 covering the period 8 January 2013 through 22 February 2013 * Liberty University Degree, dated 10 May 2014 * U.S. Army Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Platoon Sergeant Course Certificate for the period 18 August 2014 to 28 August 2014 * Memorandum from The U.S. Army Drill Sergeant Academy, dated 28 August 2014, subject: Letter of Commendation * DA Form 1059 covering the period 17 August 2014 through 29 August 2014 * DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 16 June 2014 through 12 October 2014 * DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 13 October 2013 through 12 October 2015 * DA Form 2166-9-2 NCOER ((SSG-1SG/MSG)) covering the period 13 October 2015 through 15 September 2016 * DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 16 September 2016 through 9 December 2017 * Liberty University Degree, dated 29 March 2018 * Enlisted Record Brief FACTS: 1. The applicant states he was sent the information about removing derogatory records from a previous proponent sergeant major. He understands the process and he is trying to see if anything can be done about his specific case. a. In 2006, he was citied at Fort Lewis, WA, for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. There is no excuse for it and he admits they were justified in the arrest and subsequent actions. b. His chain of command deliberated on the issue and filed a GOMOR in his permanent folder. In 2012, he petitioned the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF or transferred to his restricted folder. He was granted partial relief, as the DASEB did move it to his restricted folder. c. The purpose of this application is to remove the GOMOR completely from his records. This is not an appeal in defiance of anything because he committed the crime, his command was justified in filing the GOMOR, and he is a much better person because of it. He has never again touched alcohol since the day it happened on 24 September 2006. d. When the legal issues of the case were presented to the, Court, he was offered a deferred prosecution option. He took it, which meant the charges would be dropped if he completed all legal requirements during a lengthy probationary period. It took almost a decade, but he eventually completed the terms. e. He admitted the mistake was egregious. He just wants to show the aftermath of it and show the fire it created inside of him. He was selected for promotion to master sergeant/E-8 in 13 years and has never had an NCOER rating below "1" of "1." f. He has been on the Commandant's List of every NCO Academy and was the Honor Graduate of the AIT Platoon Sergeant Course. He completed a bachelor's degree, a master of business administration, and an education specialist degree. He is currently finishing his Doctor of Education Degree and should have it completed by next summer. g. He has served in numerous positions from S-2 (Intelligence) Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, AIT Platoon Sergeant, to Chemical Reconnaissance Detachment Sergeant, and has spent about 8 years in the 1st and 10th Special Forces Groups. He has married since then and has four beautiful children. The incident in question really saved his life and he has felt intensely compelled to overachieve in every way just to stay competitive for promotions. He would love to be selected for promotion to sergeant major/E-9 at some point in the future as he serves the Army for years to come. 2. He was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 effective 1 July 2006. 3. Military Police Report Number 02993-2006-MPC016, dated 24 September 2006, states: a. On 24 September 2006 at 1925 hours while on routine patrol, the military police observed the applicant driving his vehicle with the stereo too loud, causing a disturbance from over two blocks away. A traffic stop was initiated and an odor of alcoholic beverage was detected emitting from him. He voluntarily submitted to standardized field sobriety tests, which showed signs of impairment. He voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test with the result of .212 percent blood alcohol content (BAC). He was apprehended and transported to the station. He waived his rights and submitted to a BAC test with results of .181 percent BAC and .179 percent BAC). He was issued an installation driving revocation letter and released to his unit. His vehicle was towed. 4. On 21 November 2006, Brigadier General (BG) W____ J. T____ Deputy Commanding General, Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, reprimanded the applicant in writing, wherein he stated: a. On or about 24 September 2006, the applicant was apprehended by military law enforcement officials on Fort Lewis, WA, for suspicion of DUI of alcohol. A breathalyzer test was administered and resulted in a finding of .179 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. b. The applicant was advised that his conduct would not be tolerated at I Corps and Fort Lewis. There was no excuse for his complete disregard for the law and policies of the State of Washington and the U.S. Army. NCOs are entrusted with some of the most important duties in today's Army and must be relied upon to exhibit sound judgement. His conduct failed to meet the standards expected of their NCOs. His chain of command would monitor his future conduct to ensure it conforms to the standards expected of members of the U.S. Army. c. The applicant was given 72 hours to submit matters in his own behalf for consideration before a filing decision was made. 5. On 9 January 2007, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the Commander, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), concerning the GOMOR wherein he stated: a. He apologized and regretted having to write a letter of this nature. He has no excuse, no reason and no one to blame but himself. He made a serious mistake that has had some far reaching effects and consequences which he is fully willing to face. He will deal with every aspect and eventually overcome this incident. b. He learned some very important lessons during this experience. He learned that personal choices can have a direct effect on all those around him, either positive or negative. He learned that being entrusted with leadership demands that he place his personal wants and desires aside in order to effectively mentor, lead, and set examples for those around him. c. He in no way condoned his actions and could not justify his decision in this incident. He hoped he was given the chance to move past it and serve his detachment, the group, and the Army for years to come. He requested favorable consideration concerning filing the GOMOR in his local file to allow him the opportunity to prove his dedication to the Army. 6. On 9 January 2007, Master Sergeant M____ T. C____, Detachment Sergeant, 112th Chemical Reconnaissance Detachment, Company A, 1st Group Support Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), submitted a letter of support for the applicant to the Commander, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), wherein he stated: a. The applicant's duty performance was exemplary and in keeping with the highest standards of honor and professionalism. He was awarded the combative championship in his weight class while serving at his last unit, 23rd Chemical Battalion. The applicant was near the top of the list of candidates for assignment to his detachment. b. The applicant's professionalism and selfless service gained the respect of his chain of command, leaders, and peers. He never had to question the applicant's integrity nor his Army Values, skills, or actions. The applicant no longer consumed alcohol and was completely focused on his performance in his detachment. The applicant dedicated the next 4 months to completing the schools required in preparation for his annual training at the end of the year. c. He did not condone the applicant's actions, but he believed the applicant was truly remorseful and ashamed of his conduct. He requested consideration with respect to the applicant's past performance, current dedication to his detachment, and potential to the Army while directing the filing instructions for the GOMOR. 7. On 11 January 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and indicated he understood the unfavorable information presented against him. 8. On 11 January 2007, the applicant's company commander stated the applicant had made a dramatic improvement in his performance, appearance, and attitude since the incident. He recommended filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 9. On 19 January 2007, the applicant's battalion commander stated the applicant knew what he did was wrong well before he decided to drink and drive. He recommended filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 10. On 19 January 2007, the applicant's group commander stated the applicant was still a good Soldier, but he committed the DUI of alcohol offense, he knew what he was doing was wrong, and there were no mitigating circumstances to the DUI of alcohol offense. He recommended filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 11. On 6 February 2007, BG W____ J. T____, Deputy Commanding General, Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, stated he considered the circumstances surrounding the GOMOR, the applicant's statement, and the recommendations of the applicant's chain of command. He directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. 12. On 14 February 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, dismissed the charges against the applicant effective 13 February 2013 after his successful completion of a deferred prosecution program. 13. On 6 June 2013 in response to the applicant's petition to remove the GOMOR from his AMHRR or transfer it to the restricted folder, the DASEB granted partial relief. a. The DASEB determined the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence showing the GOMOR was untrue or unjust. b. The DASEB determined the applicant provided sufficient evidence showing the GOMOR had served its intended purpose. c. The DASEB directed transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. 14. The applicant provided 13 documents attesting to his accomplishments subsequent to receipt of the GOMOR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the nature of his misconduct, the placement of the GOMOR, the transfer by the DASEB and his outstanding duty performance and selections for promotion since the incident resulting in the GOMOR. The Board found that the GOMOR was not untrue, but that its purpose had been served and continued retention of the document in the applicant’s records would be unjust. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that removal of the GOMOR was appropriate. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the General Officer Letter of Reprimand dated 21 November 2006 from the applicant’s AMHRR. 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 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), in effect at the time, set 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 Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Paragraph 3-4(4)b stated a letter, regardless of the issuing authority, may be filed in the OMPF kept by Military Personnel Center, Army Reserve Personnel Center, or the proper State Adjutant General (for Army National Guard personnel) 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 contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter. A letter to be included in a Soldier's OMPF will be referred to the recipient concerned for comments are to be attached. b. Paragraph 7-2 stated that once an official document had been properly filed in the OMPF, it was 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 was untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. c. Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder. Normally, such appeals will be considered only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers. In addition to the cases cited above, such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management Records), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies and mandated operating tasks for the Military Personnel Information Management/Records Program of the Military Personnel System. Paragraph 2-4 provided that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from a fiche (now known as folder) or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by the ABCMR, DASEB, or other specified authority. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), currently in effect, prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR, DASEB, or other specified authority. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190000015 9 1