ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  13 July 2020

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190003574


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of her previous request for:

	a.  removal of the DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer 
Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 
from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) or

	b.  in the alternative, removal of the statement "As documented by a substantiated 
informal AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation, [Applicant] struggles with her 
intrapersonal skills and with that has difficulties maintaining a positive command 
climate" from her OER covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 and 
correction of the ratings for Overall Performance and Overall Potential to "Proficient" 
and "Highly Qualified," respectively.

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, Applicant, dated 5 April 2019, subject:  Referred OER 
Reconsideration Appeal, (Applicant)
*	Enclosure 1 – Memorandum from Army Review Boards Agency, dated 8 August 
2017, subject:  Army Special Review Board of California Army National Guard 
Incentive Cases – Staff Support Recognition, (Applicant)
*	Enclosure 2 – Email, Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management 
System (iPERMS), dated 14 December 2017, subject:  New AMHRR 
Document(s) in iPERMS
*	Enclosure 3 – Letter, Army Soldier Records Branch, dated 9 January 2018
*	Enclosure 4 – DD Form 149, dated 14 December 2017
*	Enclosure 5 – Memorandum, Army Review Boards Agency, dated 27 November 
2017, subject:  Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record 
of Proceedings for (Applicant), AR20170010418
*	Enclosure 6 – Memorandum, Counsel, dated 4 April 2019, subject:  Summary of 
Interview with Staff Sergeant (SSG) R____ for ABCMR Docket Number  
AR20170019322
*	Enclosure 7 – Memorandum, Sergeant Major (Retired) S____, dated 
16 November 2015, subject:  Character Statement on Behalf of (Applicant)

REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy and Procedures) prescribes the 
policies and responsibilities of command, which include the Army Ready and Resilient 
Campaign Plan, military discipline and conduct, the Army Equal Opportunity (EO) 
Program, and the Army Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention 
(SHARP) Program (formerly the Army Sexual Assault Victim Program).  Paragraph 6-11 
states when evaluating officers, enlisted Soldiers, or department of the Army civilian 
employees, rating officials will evaluate those individuals' commitment to the goals and 
objectives of the EO or Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program.  This includes 
the individuals' actions or non-actions toward the prevention and elimination of unlawful 
discrimination and/or sexual harassment.  Raters are required to document significant 
deviations from that commitment and identify instances of reprisal/retaliation taken by 
the rated individual in that evaluation report.  Substantiated EO complaints as a result of 
an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) 
investigation require a "No" in Part IVa(5) (Performance Evaluation Professionalism – 
Army Values – Respect) of the OER.  This documentation may include administering 
appropriate administrative, disciplinary, or legal action(s) to correct offensive behavior.  
(Note:  EO comments were entered in Part IVd.1 (Performance Evaluation – 
Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes – Character) and Part IVd.2 
(Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes – Character) 
of the version of the DA Form 67-10-2 in effect at the time of the applicant's rating.)

2.  Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers), 
in effect at the time, established procedures for investigations and boards of officers not 
specifically authorized by any other directive.

3.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, 
prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms 
that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 2-12d stated the rater will use support and counseling forms.  For 
officers, grades warrant officer one through colonel (COL), the DA Form 67-10-1A 
(Officer Evaluation Report Support Form) is mandatory for use throughout the rating 
period.

	b.  Paragraph 2-12f stated the rater will provide an honest assessment of the rated 
Soldier's performance and potential, using all reasonable means, including personal 
contact, records and reports, and the information provided by them on the applicable 
support or counseling form.


	c.  Paragraph 2-12g stated the rater will review the applicable support or counseling 
form at the end of the rating period and, as appropriate, provide more information about 
the job description or performance objectives to other rating officials for use in preparing 
their portions of the evaluation report.

	d.  Paragraph 2-12i stated the rater will provide an objective and comprehensive 
evaluation of the rated Soldier's performance and potential (as applicable) on the 
evaluation report.

	e.  Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) 
addressed requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed 
in a Soldier's AMHRR and reports that are being processed at Headquarters, 
Department of the Army (HQDA), prior to completion.

	f.  Paragraph 3-36a stated an evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in 
the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, have 
been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represent the considered 
opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	g.  Paragraph 3-36b stated requests for modifications to evaluation reports already 
posted to a Soldier's AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program.

	h.  Paragraph 3-36c stated requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a 
Soldier's AMHRR be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be 
honored if the request is based on the following:

*	statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier
*	statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated 
Soldier as they did
*	requests that ratings be revised
*	statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or 
typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, 
performance, or potential
*	statements from rating officials claiming OERs were improperly sequenced to 
HQDA by the unit or organization
*	a subsequent statement from a rating official that he or she rendered an 
inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier's performance or potential in order to 
preserve higher ratings for other officers (for example, those in a zone for 
consideration for promotion, command, or school selection)

	i.  Paragraph 3-36d stated for evaluation reports that have been completed and filed 
in a Soldier's AMHRR, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an 
evaluation report "THRU" date.  Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of 
the period of the evaluation report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in 
effect at the time evaluation reports were rendered.

	j.  Paragraph 3-36e stated an exception is granted for evaluation reports when 
information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is 
brought to light or verified, and this information is so significant that it would have 
resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier.  The following actions will be 
accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report:

*	if the report is an OER and the information would have resulted in a higher 
evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report and rating 
officials may provide input to support this point
*	if the report is an OER and the information would have resulted in a lower 
evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the OER

	k.  Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) stated 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.

	l.  Paragraph 4-8a (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for 
personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that 
an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible.  As time passes, people forget 
and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a 
successful appeal becomes more difficult.

	m.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of 
proof rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an 
evaluation report, the applicant 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

	n.  Paragraph 4-11d stated for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive 
type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other 
documents from official sources.  Third parties are persons other than the rated officer 
or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant's performance during the rating 
period.  Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served 
in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the applicant's 
performance as well as interactions with rating officials.  Statements from rating officials 
are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, 
or claims of bias.  To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details 
of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at 
the time the report was rendered.  The results of a commander's or commandant's 
inquiry may provide support for an appeal request.

4.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) 
prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management 
Program.  The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, 
finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to 
store by the Army.

	a.  Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the 
document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other 
authorized agency.

	b.  Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the AMHRR and/or iPERMS) 
contains the list of all documents approved by the Department of the Army and required 
for filing in the AMHRR and/or iPERMS and shows the DA Form 67-10-2 is filed in the 
performance folder.

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number  
AR20170019322 on 6 March 2018.

2.  The applicant states she submitted extensive evidence in her own behalf which 
proves the statement which rendered her OER referred is unjust.

	a.  Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 6-11a, states "substantiated EO complaints 
as a result of Army Regulation 15-6 investigation require a 'Does not support EO' on...or 
a 'No' in Part IV-Performance Evaluation Professionalism, A. Army Values, 5. Respect 
on the officer evaluation report."  The performance section of her evaluation (Part IVd.1 
(Character) states:  "fully supports Army standards for EO, EEO, and SHARP."  This 
statement directly contradicts the vague narrative statement which makes her OER 
referred:  "As documented by a substantiated informal AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 
investigation, [Applicant] struggles with her intrapersonal skills and with that has 
difficulties maintaining a positive command climate."

	b.  Her rater and senior rater rated her as incapable of maintaining a positive 
command climate, thereby leading the reader to believe she was a toxic leader after 
45 days of her transition with her predecessor.  It is clearly impossible to get an 
accurate assessment of a command's climate within 45 days of new leadership.  This is 
less than one quarter of an annual rating period.  She has been made a scapegoat 
based upon misconduct that occurred prior to her headquarters' arrival in theater.  The 
outgoing commander was not questioned or held responsible for any of it.  All of the 
major investigations into the misconduct began 2 days after their transition of authority 
on 8 July 2015 with the Financial Management Support Unit headquarters from 
Fort Campbell on 10 July 2015.

	c.  The referred OER is not a true reflection of her performance.  Her rater and 
senior rater did not inform her prior to her departure from theater that she would be 
rated as such.  They were not geographically separated and spoke almost daily due to 
battle rhythm events and official business.  They did not provide any counseling(s) for 
negative performance on her part which needed improvement, yet were fully able to 
give her an inaccurate report without any questions from anyone.  It is an injustice that 
she has had to provide volumes of evidence for almost 4 years while her leadership has 
been required to provide zero evidence to substantiate their ratings of her.

	d.  In her first appeal to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), one of the 
reasons for denial was that she had not provided them with the findings and 
recommendations from the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation into the initial Command 
Climate Survey they conducted within 45 days of her assuming responsibility.  She was 
never contacted at any time by the OSRB for any additional information.  She does not 
understand what makes her case different from anyone else in this regard.  For 
example, in the California Army National Guard bonus cases which received national 
media attention, service members were sought after and actively pursued for additional 
information on bonuses they had received up to a decade prior during the deliberation 
of their cases.  There was a diligent effort to contact these individuals as depicted in the 
media as "good news" stories.  She did not submit the findings and recommendations to 
the OSRB in her appeal from this non-credible investigating officer because it contained 
information on over 17 officers and noncommissioned officers from her unit with their 
names and recommended punishments.

	e.  In her initial petition to the ABCMR, she provided the aforementioned findings 
and recommendations memorandum from the investigating officer as previously 
requested and was then informed that the ABCMR is not an investigative body.  She 
does not understand why the Board requested the findings and recommendations from 
the investigation without the rest of it in order to put everything into context.  
Furthermore, she does not feel her case was presented in the most objective manner 
possible due to the following facts:

		(1)  Her OER appeal was not sent to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Review Boards) for review as was her previous appeal for removal of the general 
officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR).  She requested, but never received, any 
further information as to the difference in the process from one appeal packet to the 
next.

		(2)  In paragraphs 11 through 13 and 16 of her initial ABCMR Record of 
Proceedings (AR20170019322) for removal of the OER, the analyst made references to 
the GOMOR, which was a separate appeal and already adjudicated.  The GOMOR was 
already located in the restricted folder of her AMHRR at the time she filed her OER 
appeal.

		(a)  In paragraph 16 of the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (AR20170019322) for 
removal of the OER, the analyst wrote that the Board unanimously voted to deny her 
relief with respect to removing the GOMOR from her OMPF, but conveniently omitted 
the fact that she was granted full relief by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Review Boards).  The GOMOR with all allied documents were moved to her restricted 
folder as directed in the memorandum, dated 27 November 2017.

		(b)  In paragraph 17, the analyst simply wrote that she submitted articles of "a 
man."  The articles that she submitted with her previous OER appeal were not of just 
"any man," they were of the investigating officer who wrote the findings and 
recommendations for the Command Climate Survey investigation.  The articles show he 
is not a credible investigator.  For some reason the analyst does not make this clear to 
the Board or that the news articles were of the investigator, Lieutenant Colonel 
(LTC) H____.

		(c)  The last sentence of paragraph 6b in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings 
(AR20170019322) states:  "the comments by the rater were true then and remain true 
today.  They reflect the facts at the time."  She questions how the analyst would know 
this information without any of the information from the actual investigation.  The analyst 
was not there, so she questions how the analyst was able to write unequivocally, as a 
statement of fact, that the rater was telling the truth.  This statement alone leads the 
reader to then believe the applicant's statements must be contrary to the truth.  Her 
rater and senior rater, the investigating officer, and her predecessor – who was in 
command of the units involved in serious misconduct – have not had to provide any 
facts or truthful evidence to support the defamation of her character and destruction of 
her career.

		(3)  She provided her sworn statement along with the exhibits (written factual 
documentary evidence) from the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, but this 
information was not considered in her appeal to the Board, only the investigating 
officer's findings and recommendations.  The analyst should present a case or 
summarized report that is free of subjective opinions, misstatements, and conjecture.  
This only serves to sway the Board one way or the other instead of allowing the Board 
to objectively consider all of the evidence presented.


		(a)  Another example of conjecture can be seen in paragraph 6f of the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (AR20170019322) where the analyst wrote:  "counsel argues 
that the contested OER was not provided to the applicant until almost 90 days after its 
thru date.  Periodically, the tactical situation in theater and operational tempo delay the 
processing of administrative actions.  Nevertheless, completed OERs are generally 
transmitted to HQDA within 90 days of the thru date."  Although the OER was signed 
within the regulatory window on 21 January 2016, it prevented her from even being able 
to request a Commander's Inquiry into the matter.  She changed command with her 
successor on 27 October 2015 following the same sequence of events her predecessor 
used with her when they transitioned upon their arrival in theater.  She remained in 
Kuwait almost a full 30 days after her change of command before redeploying from 
theater on 24 November 2015.  Both her rater and senior rater had ample time and 
opportunity to inform her of this referred report, yet they chose not to.

		(b)  The tactical situation in Kuwait did not prevent her leadership from giving her 
this referred OER.  The analyst cannot make this statement about the tactical situation 
or signal/communications capability as a fact without substantive evidence.  She was 
there and this was not the case.  They were co-located with their leadership and 
attended daily battle rhythm events and meetings.  There was ample opportunity prior to 
her departure to inform her of any punitive actions, which is what this was.  This delay 
was an intentional effort to ensure that she did not receive due process.  By issuing this 
evaluation within 6 days of its due date to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command 
and exactly 2 hours after being served with the GOMOR on 21 January 2016, she was 
unable to conduct any inquiries into the matter.  This left her with exactly 7 days to 
respond to the GOMOR at Fort Drum, NY, and only 6 days to initiate and complete both 
a Commander's Inquiry and Inspector General complaint/investigation into the referred 
OER.  The Commander's Inquiry and Inspector General investigation were to be 
conducted by the former 1st Theater Sustainment Command Commander and Inspector 
General Office located in Kuwait.

	d.  Her rater and senior were provided her OER support form in December 2015.  As 
leaders, officers are charged with providing their subordinates every opportunity for 
improvement and due process.  If the subordinate is not made aware of any perceived 
deficiencies, even through the course of daily dialogue and interactions, it purposely 
puts the subordinate at a disadvantage.

	e.  Furthermore, the rater and senior rater, LTC K____ and COL C____, contacted 
her new chain of command at Fort Drum, LTC G____ and COL G____, prior to her 
departure from theater to inform them that she would be receiving a referred OER.  If 
they had the time and wherewithal to inform her home station command prior to her 
arrival, then they should at least have informed her.  She questions how her brigade 
commander at Fort Drum was aware that she would be receiving a referred OER prior 
to her redeployment, but she was not informed until almost 90 days after the through 
date of the rating period with no justification.

		(1)  When she redeployed and arrived at her unit on 25 November 2015, 
COL G____ was erroneously told that she had been relieved of command and received 
a referred OER, which would give them cause to eliminate her from the Army.  Neither 
of these were true.  She was not relieved of command and she had not received an 
evaluation yet.  She was informed on the very day that she redeployed, the day before 
Thanksgiving, that she was flagged for elimination from the Army based on noncriminal 
charges from the initial Command Climate Survey Army Regulation 15-6 investigation.

		(2)  At the time she was informed of her pending elimination, she had absolutely 
no derogatory information in her AMHRR.  She was unaware of LTC K____'s intent to 
ensure that she never got promoted again and lose her career possibly because she 
would not change her objective rating of a first lieutenant from "Capable" to "Proficient" 
as his rater.  This was not a referred report and this lieutenant was a finance officer 
assigned to her unit from Fort Drum.  She had worked with him and observed his 
performance for over a year at that point and was very well aware of the level of his 
performance in comparison with all of the other company-grade officers whom she 
rated.  In comparison with these officers across the board, his performance was not 
commensurate and he was rated as such.

	f.  This OER is unjust and has no merit.  No interviews, information, or sworn 
statements for this initial Command Climate Survey Army Regulation 15-6 investigation 
were taken from her home station command to substantiate any of the complaints that 
occurred outside of her rating period.  There were numerous references to dates and 
time periods that started about a month after she took command of the unit at Fort Drum 
in July 2014.  From the time she took command of the unit until the headquarters 
deployed to Kuwait, two Command Climate Surveys had already been conducted – an 
initial and a 6-month follow up survey per the EO guidance and regulation(s).  Both of 
these results were briefed to her battalion commander at the 10th Mountain Division 
(Light Infantry) Sustainment Brigade in conjunction with the EO representative for the 
brigade.  At no time were any issues brought forward with the command climate that 
would warrant such extreme disciplinary action resulting in a referred 4-month OER and 
subsequent elimination board.  The investigating officer never spoke with anyone from 
her chain of command or brigade at Fort Drum to investigate the allegations that 
referred to time frames which occurred prior to their deployment to Kuwait.

3.  The applicant's OER covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 
shows in:

	a.  Part IId (This is a Referred Report, Do You Wish to Make Comments?), she 
marked "Yes, Comments are Attached."


	b.  Part IVd.1 (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and 
Attributes – Character), her rater entered the comment: "Fully supports the Army 
standards for EO, EEO, and SHARP."

	c.  Part IVd2 (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and 
Attributes – Character), her rater entered the comments:  "[Applicant's] technical and 
tactical performance has been absolutely superb.  She masterfully developed feasible 
and sustainable COAs [courses of action] to provide world class financial management 
support to a broad AOR [area of operations] including operations Spartan Shield, 
Inherent Resolve, and Freedom's Sentinel.  In addition, she implemented processes 
that gained efficiencies and effectiveness when dealing with potential fraud and the 
payment of vendors.  As documented by a substantiated informal AR [Army Regulation]  
15-6 investigation, [Applicant] struggles with her intrapersonal skills and with that has 
difficulties maintaining a positive command climate."

	d.  Part IVe (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), her rater marked 
"Capable" and entered the comments:  "[Applicant's] performance as the disbursing 
officer within the FMSU [Financial Management Support Unit] was nothing short of 
stellar.  She flawlessly maintained accountability of over $15 million in government 
funds and consistently exceeded standards for DFAS [Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service] processing rates.  In addition, [Applicant] reduced the government's interest 
requirement by over $50 million and received 100% green ratings during the internal 
controls operational review."

	e.  Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), her 
senior rater marked "Qualified."

	f.  Part VIc (Comments on Potential), her senior rater entered the comments:  
"[Applicant's] technical and problem solving skills are exceptional.  She possesses 
unlimited potential to lead systems and processes.  Assign as a deputy G-8."

4.  The memorandum from Sergeant Major (Retired) S____, dated 16 November 2015, 
subject:  Character Statement on Behalf of (Applicant), states he worked with the 
applicant at the Baghdad International Airport in 2003.  He was the 1st Armored Division 
Retention Operations Noncommissioned Officer and the applicant was the Chief 
Disbursing Officer and Executive Officer of the 8th Finance Battalion.  The applicant 
was a key leader in ensuring the health and welfare of the Soldiers under her command.

5.  On 8 August 2017, the OSRB denied her request for removal of the  
DA Form 67-10-2 covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 from her 
AMHRR.  The OSRB determined the evidence presented did not establish clearly and 
convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the OER under 
consideration or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or 
injustice.

6.  The memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review 
Boards), dated 8 August 2017, subject:  Army Special Review Board of California Army 
National Guard Incentive Cases – Staff Support Recognition, (Applicant), recognized 
the applicant for her significant contributions to this mission.

7.  The Army Review Boards Agency memorandum, dated 27 November 2017, subject:  
ABCMR Record of Proceedings for (Applicant), AR20170010418, shows the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) directed transfer of the applicant's 
GOMOR, dated 5 January 2016, and all allied documents to the restricted folder of her 
AMHRR.

8.  The iPERMS-generated email, dated 14 December 2017, and the Army Soldier 
Records Branch letter, dated 9 January 2018, show the GOMOR was transferred to the 
restricted folder of her AMHRR effective 13 December 2017.

9.  On 6 March 2018, the ABCMR denied her request for removal of the  
DA Form 67-10-2 covering the period 1 July 2015 through 27 October 2015 from her 
AMHRR or removal of the statement "As documented by a substantiated informal AR 
[Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation, [Applicant] struggles with her intrapersonal skills 
and with that has difficulties maintaining a positive command climate" from her OER and 
correction of the ratings for Overall Performance and Overall Potential to "Proficient" 
and "Highly Qualified," respectively.  The ABCMR determined the evidence presented 
did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.

10.  The memorandum from her attorney, dated 4 April 2019, subject:  Summary of 
interview with SSG R____ for ABCMR AR20170019322, describes the interview 
conducted on 8 November 2018 and states:

	a.  When SSG R____ answered the telephone, he identified himself as SSG R____ 
(Retired) and he confirmed he worked with the applicant in Kuwait during the time frame 
in question.

	b.  SSG (Retired) R____ stated he worked with the applicant at Fort Drum, as well 
as when they deployed to Kuwait.  In total, he worked with the applicant for 
approximately 1 year.  She was his unit commander and he worked directly for her as 
an operations noncommissioned officer in her unit.  He was present in Kuwait at the 
time the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was conducted and he was familiar with the 
facts surrounding some of the complaints against the applicant.

	c.  SSG (Retired) R____ stated:  "Although I cannot speak to the unit climate before 
our arrival, I can relate what I observed during our time in Kuwait.  I do know that when 
we arrived, the prior commander had issues with gambling with subordinates and there 
was an alleged sexual assault in the unit prior to our arrival.  [Applicant] was left to try to 
deal with those situations.  I also know that when we arrived, [Applicant] took steps to 
improve the work environment.  She quickly set up a set work schedule for the unit, 
which resulted in a much less stressful environment.  I also know that she would make it 
a point to dine with her troops to learn the issues that were important to them."  He 
stated the garrison-style deployment area allowed for the applicant to allow Soldiers to 
work normal hours and have plenty of time off.  In the Fort Drum garrison environment, 
she would make sure to go out of her way to meet and learn about a Soldier's family.  
He stated:  "She is a great officer and deserved the benefit of being listened to after all 
the issues in Kuwait."

	d.  SSG (Retired) R____ stated:  "[Applicant] accepted full responsibility to handle 
the gambling issue, and the sexual assault was eventually taken care of by the JAG 
[Judge Advocate General] at Fort Drum with [Applicant] fully supporting the victim.  I 
had also heard of some complaints about her official photo[graph] in that she may have 
been wearing some unauthorized color of lip stick.  I saw that picture, and I did not think 
it was an unauthorized color.  I am not sure if she re-took the photo[graph], but I did not 
hear anything further about the issue."  In regard to an alleged misuse of a Government 
vehicle, SSG (Retired) R____ stated:  "I did not observe any issues.  I recall that 
[Applicant] made sure that the vehicle keys were signed for with the 1SG [first sergeant] 
or Executive Officer."

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, a majority of the Board 
found the requested relief is not warranted.

2.  A majority of the Board found insufficient new evidence to amend the previous 
decision to deny relief.  The majority agreed that "imperfect" processing of the OER in 
question, as described by the applicant, did not meet the standard of establishing 
clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to this 
OER or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  
The majority noted the statement in the OER the applicant takes issue with was 
supported by the findings of an investigation, and the majority found insufficient 
evidence to support a conclusion that the investigation or its findings were flawed.  
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, a majority of the Board determined the 
OER in question is not in error or unjust.

3.  The member in the minority found partial relief to be appropriate in this case.  The 
minority member found applicant's arguments compelling and noted the dissonance in 
the comments on her OER.  With the exception of the comment regarding her 
intrapersonal skills, the OER is entirely laudatory.  The minority member concluded that 
the findings of the investigation may well have misrepresented her true performance.  
As such, the minority member found a preponderance of the evidence supports the 
applicant's request to remove the statement "As documented by a substantiated 
informal AR 15-6 investigation, [Applicant] struggles with her intrapersonal skills and 
with that has difficulties maintaining a positive command climate" from the OER in 
question and correction her ratings for Overall Performance and Overall Potential to 
"proficient" and "highly qualified," respectively.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:		DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are 
insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 
AR20170019322, dated 6 March 2018.
	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190003574


13
1