ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190002827 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: a. removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 8 June 2015, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); b. removal of the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 9 June 2014 through 8 June 2015 from his OMPF and: (1) declaration of the rating period as non-rated, and (2) placement of a non-prejudicial statement in his OMPF explaining the gap in his rating period as a result of the Board's decision; c. consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by a special selection board (SSB) based on standards and guidance in place on his original eligibility date of 8 June 2015 and (1) back pay and allowances based on his original promotion eligibility date if selected for promotion to LTC, (2) the opportunity to compete for battalion command if selected for promotion to LTC, and (3) the opportunity to compete for attendance at the War College via distance learning if selected for promotion to LTC; d. a fair and reasonable opportunity to remain in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR); e. extension of his mandatory retirement date; and f. rescission and removal of the Selective Continuation (SELCON)/Retention Officer letter, dated 19 September 2018, from his 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) with attached Brief in support of application, dated 14 Mar 2019 * Exhibit 1 – DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), signed 11 July 2012 * Exhibit 2 – National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 337 (Oaths of Office), dated 28 July 1998 * Exhibit 3 – Permanent Orders 18-3455, Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, dated 18 January 2007 * Exhibit 4 – Permanent Orders 296-2833, Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning , GA, dated 23 October 2003 * Exhibit 5 – Permanent Orders 243-121, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, VA, dated 30 August 1996 * Exhibit 6 – Permanent Order 260-51, Headquarters, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Schofield Barracks, HI, dated 17 September 2009 * Exhibit 7 – Memorandum, 451st Civil Affairs Battalion, Houston, TX, dated 15 September 2014, subject: Appointment as Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigating Officer * Exhibit 8 – DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), dated 29 May 2015 * Exhibit 9 – Memorandum, Headquarters, 321st Civil Affairs Brigade, San Antonio, TX, dated 23 April 2015, subject: Request to Supplement the Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegation that (Applicant) Misused a Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC) * Exhibit 10 – Memorandum, 360th Civil Affairs Command, Pensacola, FL, dated 8 June 2015, subject: GOMOR * Exhibit 11 – Memorandum, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 451st Civil Affairs Battalion (Tactical), Houston, TX, dated 31 July 2015, subject: GOMOR Response Reference: Alleged Misuse of Government Charge Card * Exhibit 12 – Memorandum, 350th Civil Affairs Command, Pensacola, FL, dated 19 March 2015, subject: (Applicant's) Appeal of the Army Regulation 15-6 Equal Opportunity Complaint Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 17 January 2015 * Exhibit 13 – Letter, Army Review Boards Agency, Arlington, VA, dated 4 April 2017 * Exhibit 14 – Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Record of Proceedings, dated 4 April 2017 * Exhibit 15 – DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) OER, signed by senior rater 22 October 2015 * Exhibit 16 – Memorandum, HHC, 451st Civil Affairs Battalion, Houston, TX, dated 6 November 2015, subject: Rebuttal to OER (Applicant) * Exhibit 17 – Memorandum, 321st Civil Affairs Brigade, San Antonio, TX, dated 22 December 2015, subject: Referred OER (9 June 2014 through 8 June 2015) * Exhibit 18 – Memorandum, HHC, 5th Armor Brigade, Fort Bliss, TX, dated 11 October 2016, subject: Petition to Remove OER * Exhibit 19 – DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard), dated 3 May 2015, with attached standards for each event * Exhibit 20 – Memorandum, Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, Investigations and Resolutions Directorate, dated 6 November 2015, subject: Discrimination Complaint of C____ F____, Agency Number: ARUSAR14OCTXXXX * Exhibit 21 – Memorandum, 451st Civil Affairs Battalion, Houston, TX, dated 17 April 2014, subject: Grade Waiver Request for Applicant * Exhibit 22 – DA Form 67-10-2, signed by Applicant on 18 July 2016 * Exhibit 23 – Certificates (3) given for achievements, transcript from U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated 10 January 2018 * Exhibit 24 – DA Form 67-10-2, senior rater signed 18 September 2014, and DA Form 67-9 (OER), applicant signed 6 September 2009 * Exhibit 25 – Memorandum, Headquarters, 88th Readiness Division, Fort McCoy, WI, dated 30 July 2018, subject: Prior and Current Selective Continuation (SELCON) on the Reserve Active Status List FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant served with honor and distinction throughout his career, achieving the rank of major on 1 July 2011. He received numerous awards and decorations as shown at exhibit 1. b. On 15 September 2014, the applicant's commander, LTC J____ H____, appointed an IO to conduct an informal Army Regulation 15-6 investigation into alleged GTCC abuse. A thorough investigation involving three IOs was completed and supplemented. c. The IO found no evidence that the applicant had been trained the use of a GTCC or signed a GTCC "Statement of Understanding/Use," no evidence of loss to the government, no delinquencies or interest accruements reported by the creditor, and no evidence that any intentional purchases were made that would not have been authorized if the applicant had been on orders. d. The only misconduct in his entire military career was the use of a GTCC while not on orders, after he had just transitioned from active duty and had not been trained or briefed on GTCC use within the unit. This misconduct was used as the justification to issue a GOMOR, receipt of a negative OER, and end an otherwise highly successful career. e. Exhibits 10-14 show the applicant took the proper procedures by utilizing and exhausting all other available remedies for redress by providing a response to the GOMOR through appeal and then requesting removal of the GOMOR by the DASEB. f. Exhibits 15-17 show the applicant sought redress prior to filing this petition with the ABCMR by following the proper procedures for redress. This included the result of nonselection for promotion and continued service. g. The Secretary of the Army may correct any military record when it is "necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice." For relief to be granted, the applicant has the burden of providing sufficient evidence of the error or injustice. h. A request to correct a military record must be made within 3 years of the discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant received notice of denial from the DASEB on 4 April 2017; therefore, the applicant was within the period for timely review. i. The applicant has been prejudiced by several clear legal errors. They are: (1) It was in error to issue a GOMOR to a Soldier for misuse of a GTCC when the Soldier transitioned from the Active to the Reserve Component and was never informed or trained on updated GTCC policy or the difference in policy for the Reserve Component. (2) It was in error to issue a GOMOR to a Soldier when the unit failed to institute proper internal control procedures and ensure the Soldier received and signed a GTCC acceptable use statement of understanding. (3) The command made an error in discretion by permanently filing a GOMOR, in this case, based on the facts and circumstances of the alleged misconduct and the officer's prior service. (4) It was a legal error to issue a factually inaccurate and incomplete negative OER signed by a potentially biased rater. (5) The DASEB found there was not sufficient evidence to support removal of the GOMOR from the unrestricted folder and was in direct contradiction of the available evidence. (6) The issuance of the GOMOR and the filing of it as an unrestricted document in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) was in error when there was no finding of fraud or intent to commit fraud when the applicant was not provided proper training or guidance on the GTCC. This was also documented in the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. (7) If proper internal control procedures had been taken, the alleged misconduct could have been prevented. (8 The applicant's OER contained legal and factual errors that failed to accurately document his performance during the rating period. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) states the intent and purpose of the Army's evaluation process is to ensure that each Soldier receives a fair and honest assessment. (9) It was a legal error to include inaccurate information regarding the applicant's APFT; to fail to provide him with the rating scheme; to include brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases; to reference unproven allegations; and to allow a rater to issue an OER despite a conflict of interest. j. The factual errors were demonstrated by: (1) proof the applicant had a passing APFT (see enclosures 18 and 19); (2) the potential bias of the rater was not speculative given the findings and recommendations of the Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation; (3) LTC H____'s praise of the applicant in a grade waiver submitted prior to becoming an adverse witness; (4) the 2016 OER indicated he was a proficient officer and highly qualified for promotion (see enclosure 22); (5) the OER itself and the use of phrases, such as "questionable motive," demonstrates the improper use of superlatives and references an unproven allegation; and (6) the decision to allow the rater to continue in that role despite the applicant's participation as an adverse witness in an Equal Opportunity investigation violated the objectives of the Army rating system outlined in Army Regulation 623- 3. This set the rater up for allegations of reprisal and the applicant up for an unfair rating. k. The applicant's career was ended by the permanent and unrestricted filing of a GOMOR and a negative OER. l. The adverse actions resulted in his nonselection for promotion and nonselection for continued military service. m. When the facts and circumstances are viewed in light of the otherwise stellar career of a decorated combat veteran with an unblemished record, the actions of the command were unjust (see exhibits 21-24). n. The cascading series of career-ending consequences resulted from allegations and adverse actions inconsistent with the evidence and the recommendation of the Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation. o. Due to the permanent filing of the GOMOR and OER, the applicant was not promoted or permitted to continue his military service (see exhibit 25). p. In conclusion, counsel stated the applicant should: (1) be granted removal of the GOMOR and contested OER from his official personnel records; (2) the period covered by the contested OER should be declared a non-rated and a non-prejudicial statement should be placed in his records explaining the gap in his OERs; (3) his records should be considered for promotion to LTC by an SSB under his original eligibility date of 8 June 2015; (4) if selected for promotion, all possible steps should be taken to address the negative impact to the his career; and (5) he should be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to remain in the USAR, extension of his mandatory retirement date, and rescission and removal of the SELCON retention officer letter, dated 19 September 2018, from his military records. 3. On 1 October 2012, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. 4. A review of the applicant's GTCC purchase history revealed possible misuse dating back to March 2013. 5. On 15 September 2014, Army Regulation 15-6 investigating officer was appointed to conduct an informal investigation into the applicant's possible misuse of his GTCC. 6. On 14 March 2015, a report of the proceedings by the investigating officer was completed wherein he recommended: a. suspension of the applicant's GTCC privileges for 180 days; b. the applicant should update his home of record and contact information to ensure the appropriate travel address is identified in travel orders; c. retraining 41st Civil Affairs Battalion personnel on the proper method to turn off the GTCC when Soldiers are not on orders; d. after retraining, the applicant should teach a class on the approved usage and proper handling of the GTCC to the 451st Civil Affairs Battalion; e. The 451st Civil Affairs Battalion personnel should be trained on proper filing and safe storage systems in order to ensure all statements of understanding for the battalion can be produced in a timely manner by authorized personnel only; and f. the Agency Program Coordinator (APC) should be counseled regarding why the applicant's card was not inactivated when he was not on orders. 7. On 5 May 2015, the supplemental memorandum of findings for possible GTCC misuse by the applicant stated: a. all uses and maintenance of the GTCC are governed by the DOD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R (Financial Management Regulation, "Travel Policy"); Government Charge Card Abuse Act of 2012; and Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2784 (Management of Purchase Cards). b. the applicant initially opened his account with Citibank on 5 August 2008; and c. a written statement between the applicant, Ms. V____, and a Citibank representative indicated the applicant's credit card was reported lost on 12 September 2012 and he made telephonic payments to his account further showing he was responsible and showed knowledge of the charges made to his GTCC. 8. On 29 May 2015, the Commander, 321st Civil Affairs Brigade, approved the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation findings, except for the finding that the applicant did not violate other military or federal laws. Based on the facts, he found the applicant did, in fact, violate DOD travel policies. In addition, he recommended (see exhibit 8): * approve all recommendations, except for the recommendation that the applicant teach a class to the 451st Civil Affairs Battalion on the approved usage and proper handling of the GTCC * that applicant's privileges should be suspended in accordance with applicable travel regulations and issuing bank policies * the applicant's security clearance should be reviewed for suspension by the appropriate G-2 authority * the applicant will execute a statement of understanding/use and complete all required GTCC training * the applicant should receive a GOMOR filed in his OMPF 9. On 8 June 2015, the applicant was issued a GOMOR that stated an investigation was conducted and revealed his military GTCC contained 68 instances of unauthorized transactions between March 2013 and September 2014 that totaled $4,393.00. 10. On 31 July 2015, the applicant submitted a rebuttal, requesting judgement in the most favorable light of the Soldier as prescribed by regulation and careful consideration of the totality of the allegations. He further requested that if he deems necessary to issue the letter after careful consideration of the totality of the allegations, placement of the GOMOR in both the responsible accountable officials' records and in his restricted folder. 11. On 3 August 2015, the GOMOR issuing authority denied the applicant's appeal and directed permanent filing of the GOMOR in his AMHRR. 12. The applicant was issued an annual OER covering the period 9 May 2014 through 8 June 2015. a. Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes) contains the comments: * "[Applicant] failed to take a RECORD APFT administered by the unit within the 12 month period prior to the 'THRU' date of this OER" * "Officer needs improvement in taking individual responsibility to either take APFT during the reporting period or report it as required" * "[Applicant] was found by a [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation to have misused his Government Credit Card, contrary to the adherence to Army Values and discipline" b. Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) shows he was rated "Not Qualified" by his senior rater; and Part VIc (Comment on Potential) contains the comments: "Do not promote or retain. [Applicant's] misuse of his Government Travel Credit Card privileges substantiated in a [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation demonstrated a lack of judgment and deviation from the very cornerstone of the officer corps." 13. On 6 November 2015, the applicant submitted a rebuttal of his OER to the Commander, 321st Civil Affairs Brigade wherein he stated: a. He was administered an APFT during the rating period and he provided his APFT documents to his unit. The APFT scorecard was submitted to Ms. C____ F____ in the first week of May 2015. He was able to enroll in Phases 1 and 2 of intermediate level education and he would not have been able to do so without a current and valid APFT. b. He was not counseled on one single occasion about his rater's or senior rater's expectations, on what he was doing well, or on what he needed to improve. He believed the lack of comments in these sections evidenced the command's intentions to continue to sabotage him based on their prejudice towards him. c. He was never provided a rating scheme by my command to designate who his rater and senior rater were. He was never asked to complete a support form as l provided a notice of relocation from Houston to El Paso, TX, on 10 September 2014, nor was he counseled on the expectations of his rater and senior rater. d. There is no evidence to support the comment that he misused the GTCC with fraudulent intentions and any conclusion by his rater is mere conjecture without adequate support. e. The senior rater comments are inherently unfair and biased. These comments provide that his alleged misuse of the GTCC demonstrate "a lack of judgment and deviation from the very cornerstone of the officer corps." Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-18, provides that an OER must not contain "brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases." 14. On 22 December 2015, the Commander, 321st Civil Affairs Brigade, denied the applicant's appeal and stated no changes would be made to the evaluation. 15. On 4 April 2017, the DASEB denied his request for removal of the GOMOR and OER from his AMHRR or transfer to the restricted folder. The DASEB determined the evidence presented did not provide substantial evidence that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose or was untrue or unjust, or that transfer or removal of the documents in question would be in the best interest of the Army. 16. On 30 July 2018, he was notified that even though he was not selected for promotion, the SELCON Board recommended him for continuation on the Reserve Active Status List in his present grade and the Secretary of the Army approved the recommendation. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board discussed the applicant’s statement regarding his use of the GTCC, that he was not trained, the conclusions of the AR 15-6 Investigating Officer and the actions of the GOMOR issuing authority. The Board found that, based on the preponderance of evidence, the applicant had used the issued GTCC for numerous unauthorized transactions and demonstrated a lack of judgement that resulted in the GOMOR. The Board found that the GOMOR was neither untrue or unjust and due to the nature of the misconduct and the applicant’s grade it should remain in the applicant’s OMPF. The Board discussed the applicant’s request to remove the OER for the period 9 June 2014 thru 8 June 2015 and to declare the period as unrated. The Board considered the applicant’s statement regarding the APFT and noted comments pertaining to the AR 15- 6 investigation. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence supported the rater and senior rater comments on the OER and determined that evidence did not support removal of the OER. As such, the statement of non-rated time and the non- prejudicial statement in the OMPF is not warranted. Absent the removal of the above derogatory information from the applicant’s OMPF, the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to recommend consideration by a LTC SSB or to rescind or remove the SELCON letter in the applicant’s record. The Board further determined there was insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request to remain in the USAR or to extend his MRD, considering the 2018 SELCON decision to continue him on the RASL. 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 :DRA :CMM :RBC 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 135-155 (Army National Guard (ARNG) and USAR – Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of both the ARNG of the United States and USAR. The regulation also covers promotion eligibility and qualification requirements, board schedules and procedures, and procedures on processing selection board recommendations. Paragraph 3-19 (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) states officers who have either failed of selection for promotion or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a promotion advisory board or an SSB. These boards are convened to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error when reviewed by the mandatory selection board. a. Records of officers or former officers will be referred for SSB action when the Office of Promotions determines the ABCMR requests such referral. b. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command Office of Promotions may find that a "material error" caused the nonselection of an officer by a promotion board. The agency must first determine that there is a fair risk that one or more of the evaluation report seen by the board were later deleted from an officer's OMPF. 2. Army Regulation 140-10 (USAR – Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), in effect at the time, covered policy and procedures for assigning, attaching, removing, and transferring USAR Soldiers. This regulation applied to the Active Army, ARNG, and USAR. Captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels are removed after nonselection for promotion after the second consideration. Officers or warrant officers who have not completed their statutory service obligation will not be discharged or removed from active status by reason of nonselection for promotion to the next higher grade. 3. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that 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. a. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7. b. Paragraph 7-2 provides that once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR. c. Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the AMHRR. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 4. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 3-26 (Referred OERs) states OERs with any negative or derogatory comments will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before being submitted to Headquarters Department of the Army. b. Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) states the program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred. c. Paragraph 4-7 (Policies) states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. Alleged bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, or any other than administrative error are substantive in nature and will be adjudicated by the Army Suitability Review Board (ASRB). After resolution of the appeal, the appropriate reviewing agency amends the rated Soldier's records. If the rated Soldier has been nonselected for promotion, the ASRB will also determine if promotion reconsideration is warranted as a result of the change to the evaluation report. d. Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) provides that because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated individual that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an OER through date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time will require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR. The ASRB will not accept appeals that are over 3 years old or appeals from Soldiers who are no longer on active duty or part of the USAR or ARNG. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF. Appendix B (Documents Authorized for Filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) states OERs will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF. 6. DOD 7000.14-R (DOD Financial Management Regulation) prescribes the criteria for determining creditable service for military members; provides examples for computing valid creditable service; states periods of service that are not creditable for pay purposes; cites conditions for the payment of military pay entitlements; explains the computation of leave and conditions for leave accrual; and provides for situations where enlistments are not valid. 7. DOD Instruction 5154.31, Volume 4 (DOD GTCC Regulations), provides that the GTCC will be used by all DOD personnel (military or civilian) to pay for all costs related to official government travel (see section 0406 for exemptions to mandatory use). Official government travel is defined as travel under official orders while performing duties pertaining to official government assignments such as temporary duty and permanent change of station. The purpose of the GTCC is to serve as the primary payment method for official travel expenses incurred by DOD personnel (military or civilian). a. Paragraph 040103 (Compliance) provides that commanders or supervisors should ensure APCs regularly review cardholder transaction activity to identify travel card personal use, misuse, abuse, or fraud. Some examples of misuse uncovered by Inspector General audits include using the GTCC to pay for adult entertainment, gambling, any expenses for other than the cardholder (with the exception of authorized expenses for dependents when on permanent change of station or permanent duty- related travel), and excessive automated teller machine cash withdrawals for amounts exceeding authorized meals and incidental expense amounts. Particular attention should be focused on those cardholders with past history of previously reported personal use, misuse, abuse, or fraud. Supervisors/APCs should strongly consider deactivating both standard and restricted accounts when not in an official travel status for cardholders with a history of misuse (to include delinquency). APCs should immediately report any additional travel card personal use, misuse, abuse or fraud to the commander or supervisor. On a case by case basis, commanders or supervisors should consider whether available personnel assistance programs would be beneficial when travel card personal misuse, abuse, or fraud is identified related to gambling, financial, or other concerns. b. Paragraph 040501 (Use of the Travel Card) provides that unless otherwise exempt (see section 0406), all DOD personnel (military or civilian) are required to use the travel card for all authorized expenses relating to official government travel. Official government travel is defined as travel under official orders to meet mission requirements. c. Paragraph 040801 (Travel Card Training) provides that when an individual is appointed as a new APC, it is mandatory that the appointee complete the Travel Card Program Management (CPM) APC Course available on the Defense Travel Management Office's Travel Explorer (TraX). APCs will ensure a copy of the certification of completion is retained or can be found in TraX. Refresher training is required every 3 years and may be obtained from other sources, as approved by the CPM. A certificate of refresher training will be retained by the APC, either electronically or in hard copy. APCs are encouraged to attend training on the use of the Employee Authentication Service provided by the travel card vendor pursuant to its contract with the Government, to include the General Services Administration SmartPay Forum and web-based training. d. Paragraph 040802 provides that when an individual receives a travel card for the first time, it is mandatory that he or she completes the "Program and Policies – Travel Card 101" training course available in TraX. Cardholders will ensure a copy of the certificate of completion is retained by the APC or can be obtained from TraX. Refresher training (along with resigning the statement of understanding) is required every 3 years and may be completed using the "Program and Policies – Travel Card 101" course or other sources as approved by the applicable CPM. Refresher training and the updated statement of understanding will be documented and retained either electronically or in hard copy by the APC. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190002827 2 1