ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005955 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 3 June 2016, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * a personal appearance hearing before the Board 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 attorney's brief in support of applicant, dated 24 January 2019 * Enclosure 1 – DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), dated 28 March 2016 * Enclosure 2 – Administrative Elimination Board Findings and Recommendations – (Applicant), dated 12 February 2018 * Enclosure 3 – Memorandum, Headquarters, 8th Army, Korea, dated 3 June 2016, subject: GOMOR * Enclosure 4 – Letter, dated 11 April 2016 * Enclosure 5 – Memorandum, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade, Korea, dated 19 March 2014, subject: Findings and Recommendations (Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigation) Regarding (Applicant) * Enclosure 6 – Copy of page 2 of 2, DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (04 through 05; CW3 through CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)), covering the period from 1 June 2014 through 14 July 2015 * Enclosure 7 – Excerpts from Command Climate Survey, dated 25 September 2014 * Enclosure 8 – Excerpts from Command Climate Survey, dated 23 May 2016 * Enclosure 9 – Memorandum, Headquarters, 311th Signal Command (Theater), Fort Shafter, HI, dated 25 April 2016, subject: Legal Review – Army Regulation 15-6 – (Applicant) * Enclosure 10 – Memorandum for Record, 6th Signal Center, Korea Theater Network Operations and Security Center, Korea, dated 24 September 2014, subject: Panel Selection (Competitive) for Operations Officer, GS-0301-12, Announcement * Enclosure 11 – Memorandum, U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force Base, IL, dated 25 October 2017, subject: Statement on Behalf of (Applicant) * Enclosure 12 – Letter, dated 13 June 2016 * Enclosure 13 – Department of the Army, Commander's Award for Civilian Service for dated 31 July 2017 * Enclosure 14 – DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), ated 5 April 2016 * Enclosure 15 – DA Form 2823, dated 4 April 2016 * Enclosure 16 – Email, 311th Signal Command, Colonel (COL) dated 13 April 2016, subject: DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) for (Applicant's) Signature * Enclosure 17 – * Letter, dated 16 November 2018, with Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Docket Number AR20170018008, dated 30 October 2018 * Memorandum, Army Review Boards Agency, 16 November 2018, subject: Resolution of Unfavorable Information for (Applicant) FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. The GOMOR and investigation leading up to the commander administering the GOMOR contained egregious mistakes, was unjust and untrue, and should be removed from the applicant's OMPF. b. Each allegation in the GOMOR was investigated by a Board of Inquiry (BOI) pursuant to Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraphs 4-2(b) and (c). The Army Regulation 15-6 Report of Investigation showed at enclosure 2, under findings, that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated and should be removed from his file per Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). c. The applicant appealed to the DASEB and the DASEB misinterpreted several pieces of evidence; specifically, in the "Summary of Relevant Evidence" and findings, which discussed a previous Army Regulation 15-6 investigation (see enclosure 17). Following that investigation (see enclosure 6), the applicant: * remained in command * was rated "Most Qualified" by his senior rater * was described by his senior rater as his top cyber leader * was within the top 10 percent of all lieutenant colonels (LTCs) rated by his senior rater d. The second investigation, not the one to which the DASEB referred, led to the applicant's GOMOR and inaccurate allegations, and it raised significant questions as to whether the DASEB thoroughly considered the applicant's evidence and application for relief. e. The following errors in the GOMOR of alleged allegations against the applicant are as follows: * he improperly hired a particular civilian * he showed improper favoritism toward certain employees * he acted improperly with regard to bonuses for civilians who worked for him * he berated and publicly humiliated employees, "creating a negative command climate" * he showed favoritism through cash bonuses made to the Regional Cyber Center – Korea (RCC-K) f. Major now LTC hired the civilian, as shown in enclosures 10 and 11. In addition, enclosure 11 showed that LTC further stated he was never interviewed by the investigating officer (IO) to let him know he hired the civilian. g. Neither the investigation nor the legal review shows how the applicant violated a particular law, regulation, or policy. (1) The investigation stated the applicant did not adhere to "the law" because he "used criteria other than performance, did not support civilian supervisors' recommendations, and did not support the performance appraisal ratings." It was not noted where in "the law" one could find the requirements, although the Brigade's Standard Operating Procedure was mentioned, it did not provide standards in any specificity. (2) The investigation did not mention that Army Korea Regulation 672-30 (Civilian Awards), paragraph 2-2e, showed "employees will not be automatically nominated for a performance award based on their performance rating. Performance awards should be used both to reward high quality past performance and to stimulate high level performance in the individuals and their peers." (3) The investigation did not mention the applicant checked with the Human Resource Specialist to see if he was bound by award recommendations provided to him. He was told he was not bound and, as the Director, he had the authority to make his own recommendations, but was cautioned about the appearance of favoritism (see enclosure 14). (4) The investigation did not mention that the applicant received input from his sergeant major and deputy director, and made recommendations based on observed performances, organizational accomplishments, and overall contributions. The recommendations were then forwarded for review, approval, and disbursement by the brigade commander. (5) The investigation alleged to show the applicant violated Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4505a, by increasing the civilian's bonus. This code does not say what the applicant did was illegal. The civilian was an excellent employee who was recognized for good performance. After the applicant left command, this civilian earned the 1st Signal Brigade Civilian Employee of the Year award (see enclosure 13). h. When the applicant was alleged as berating and publicly humiliating employees, creating a negative command climate, the IO: (1) appeared to have ignored evidence showing the RCC-K command climate surveys were negative before the applicant arrived to the unit, which was not shown in the investigation, legal review, or GOMOR; (2) did not show LTC statement (see enclosure 11) or the Command Climate Survey 2014 (see enclosure 7) as showing a negative command climate prior to the applicant taking command; (3) failed to acknowledge the Area IV Civilian Personnel Office memorandum that established allegations of a negative workplace environment in March 2014, 3 months prior to the applicant's arrival to the unit (see enclosure 12); (4) did not interview the applicant's predecessors so they could shed light on the command climate prior to the applicant's arrival; (5) did not show the difference between the military and the civilian employees' negative comments in the second command climate survey. Military personnel provided positive statements while the Department of the Army Civilian (DAC) employee statements remained the same as negative. It was never made clear how the applicant created a negative command climate and why complaints were not aired in the preceding 14 months; (6) did not address the statement provided by Captain that he testified on behalf of the applicant at the BOI, explaining that he did not take the instructions given by the applicant personally and was not embarrassed (see enclosure 15); and (7) showed in the investigation that exchanges between the applicant and the captains working for him were types of behaviors that were described as "bullying." The judge advocate who conducted the legal review determined the finding of bullying was legally insufficient; however, the GOMOR echoed the bullying theme. i. The GOMOR alleges the applicant showed favoritism through cash bonuses made to the RCC-K civilians through another civilian employee who illegally accessed records showing the bonuses his colleagues received. The complaint constituted an unlawful appeal of award amounts, in direct violation of Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4505A(b)(2). Weeks prior to alleging the applicant as showing favoritism, the applicant's rater and senior rater told attendees at a town hall meeting that they tried to remove the applicant from his leadership position but were "shampooed" by Lieutenant General (LTG) (see enclosure 4). The rater and senior rater encouraged complaints from the RCC-K employees, despite that there were no complaints against the applicant for 14 consecutive months prior to the personally identifiable information (PII) breach and disclosure of sensitive information. j. Based on what the rater and senior rated did at the town hall meeting, they were required to recuse themselves from the investigation per Army Regulation 15-6, as it states: "an individual who has an actual or perceived bias for or against a potential subject of the investigation, or an actual or perceived conflict of interest in the outcome of the investigation, should not appoint an inquiry, investigation, or board. Instead, the potential appointing authority shall forward the matter further to the next superior commander or appointing authority, who will determine whether to investigate the matter further...." Neither commanders should have had any involvement in the investigation, yet Major General initiated the investigation, approved the legal review, possibly helped prepare the GOMOR for LTG endorsement, and overlooked the key errors in the investigation. This included the IO's failure to read the applicant his rights under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. k. The allegations in the GOMOR were unsubstantiated because they were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. When the same allegations were reviewed by a BOI with neutral senior officers who heard from live witnesses and the applicant himself, and took the time to understand the investigative findings, they found each allegation to be unsubstantiated and they recommended the applicant's retention in the U.S. Army. 3. The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Army in the rank of LTC. 4. On 19 March 2014, the findings and recommendations of an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation regarding the RCC-K were as follows: * the RCC-K has a toxic leadership climate due to the actions of the applicant * the IO did not recommend judicial action, but recommended appropriate administrative action * recommended appointing a new director and noncommissioned officer in charge 5. On 24 September 2014, the Deputy Division Chief, 6th Signal Center, Korea Theater Network Operations and Security Center, issued a memorandum for record regarding the procedures of a panel selection (competitive) for an Operations Officer, GS-0301- 12. 6. On 25 September 2014, an excerpt of the Command Climate Survey 2014 was provided by the applicant through counsel that shows the results in comparison with the January 2015 results. 7. Page 2 of the applicant's OER, covering the period 1 June 2014 through 14 July 2015, shows he was rated "Most Qualified" in Part VI (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) by his senior rater who commented: "[Applicant] is my top cyber leader and is among the top 10% of all Lieutenant Colonels I currently senior rate. He is a strategic thinker with extraordinary technical expertise, dedication and commitment. [Applicant] has aggressively increased the UNC/CFC/USFK [United Nations Command/Combined Federal Campaign/U.S. Forces Korea] and 8A [Eighth Army] cyber readiness & defense posture. Limitless potential for greater responsibility. Select for SSC [Senior Service College] and promote to Colonel." 8. On 4 April 2016, CPT provided a sworn statement wherein he stated he did not take the comments made by the applicant personally. He stated he felt the applicant treated the civilian workforce fairly and equitably. had a close relationship with the applicant because he was his operations civilian, but they did not hang out together. 9. On 5 April 2016, Mr. provided a sworn statement wherein he described the hiring process within their organization and the difficulties working with the applicant. 10. On 11 April 2016, provided a written statement wherein he stated he was in attendance at a Department of the Army Town Hall Meeting on 11 December 2015 hosted by Brigadier General and COL who stated during the meeting that they tried to have the applicant removed from his leadership position but were overruled by 11. An email from COL dated 13 April 2016, asked the applicant to meet with her and sign a DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Statement). 12. The Army Regulation 15-6 Informal Investigation Report of Proceedings, dated 18 April 2016, shows the IO recommended: * the 1st Signal Brigade should review its annual civilian performance cash bonus program's standard operating procedures to ensure sufficient checks and balances * the senior civilian within the 1st Signal Brigade should be inserted into the civilian work force chain of command and be an intermediate rater at the minimum * the 1st Signal Brigade's Human Resource Office and Resource Manager develop a training program in accordance with the 1st Signal Brigade hiring standard operating procedures and 311th Theater Signal Command Policy on conducting hiring actions of DAC personnel to include recruitment and boards * the training program should be administered to individuals within the RCC-K who have a potential to participate in a civilian hiring board prior to conducting any further hiring actions at the RRC-K * all personnel in the RRC-K, both DAC and military, should undergo additional training on the Privacy Act and handling of private and PII within the 30 days * the deputy director and supervisors should be counseled for discussing PII * RCC-K certified supervisors should go through refresher training on supervision of DAC personnel prior to completion of the current rating period * the applicant should be removed immediately from the director position for the remainder of his tenure at the RCC-K * the deputy director should be assigned as the director until a director could be identified * the applicant should receive a GOMOR for violating the anti-bullying provisions of Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy) and the Eighth Army Blue Book 13. On 25 April 2016, the Headquarters, 311th Signal Command (Theater), Deputy Staff Judge Advocate conducted a legal review of the Army Regulation 15-6 informal investigation regarding allegations the applicant showed favoritism and did not process the Fiscal Year 2015 RCC-K civilian awards appropriately. He found the report of investigation, including the findings and recommendations, to be legally sufficient with the exception of the finding that the applicant violated the anti-bullying provision. 14. A copy of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Organizational Climate Survey, dated 23 May 2016, was provided by the applicant through counsel. 15. On 3 June 2016, LTG Commander, Headquarters, Eighth Army, issued the applicant a GOMOR, reprimanding him for his toxic leadership of the RCC-K. He stated the applicant failed to treat subordinates with dignity and respect by berating and publicly humiliating them. He displayed improper favoritism toward some employees and he showed bad judgement by often disregarding both brigade and subordinate level experts regarding the fair and proper treatment of civilian and contractor personnel. The applicant's poor leadership created a negative command climate. He informed the applicant that he was considering filing the GOMOR in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); however, he would consider any matters the applicant wished to present before making his decision. 16. On 13 June 2016, Ms. the Lead Human Resources Specialist, Area IV Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC), provided a written statement wherein she stated: * prior to the applicant's arrival in June 2014, Ms. met with civilian supervisors in the RCC-K in March 2014 regarding allegations of an unhealthy work environment * there were issues regarding overtime and disconnections between military and civilians, work hour violations, etc. * since August 2014 there were two grievances filed against the applicant that were not substantiated and one grievance that had nothing to do with the applicant * CPAC did not track metrics on reasons why employees left organizations * CPAC could not categorically qualify employee turnover * there were no grievances filed against the applicant in the last 14 months 17. A copy of the Department of the Army Commander's Award for Civilian Service Certificate for Mr. dated 31 July 2017, was provided by the applicant through counsel. 18. On 25 October 2017, LTC submitted a written statement on behalf of the applicant wherein he stated: * he served on at least four civilian selection boards as the chair and senior military member * he recommend Mr. for the civilian award * discussed the process for the civilian hiring process * there was tension between the previous Director, LTC and Mr. prior to the applicant arriving * were outwardly vocal about their dissatisfaction of the applicant's selection as the RCC-K Director and officers within the directorate * civilian employees were not leaving due to the applicant, but rather because of after attending a U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command Conference in Fort Huachuca, AZ, he suggested to the applicant that he begin processing these civilians for a Performance Improvement Program to address substandard or inappropriate work behaviors of civilian employees * the climate was very different for the command when COL took command, as he did not make the command visits like COL did * both he and the applicant were concerned for their OER ratings while under the command of COL they often attempted to meet with their senior rater to schedule OER counseling, which took over 2 months to get on his calendar for a 30-minute meeting * his assessment of the applicant was that he was a highly qualified and exceptional officer who wanted the best for his organization, using proven leadership principles and sound decisions to lead the unit to achieve its mission * he also saw a group of vindictive and immature senior civilian employees in the grades of GS-13 and GS-14 who actively undermined the director, his officers, and military authority * the unwritten rule at the RCC-K was don't make the civilians angry, which made it difficult for the applicant to fulfil his duties and for his officers to complete the assigned tasks * there was suspicion of undue command influence by COL when he appointed an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation in order to justify a poor OER and/or to obtain the applicant's relief * the investigation into the accusations and subsequent findings regarding the applicant making unilateral civilian hiring decisions was unfounded and likely a result of undue command influence 19. The applicant, through counsel, provided the Administrative Elimination Board findings and recommendations, dated 12 February 2018, that showed all allegations were not substantiated and the applicant was recommended for retention in the U.S Army. 20. On 30 October 2018, the DASEB denied his request for removal of the GOMOR from his AMHRR. The DASEB determined the overall merits of the case did not warrant relief. 21. On 16 November 2018, the DASEB directed filing the appeal correspondence and record of proceedings in the restricted folder of his AMHRR. 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 and that of his counsel, his record of service, the nature of the alleged misconduct, the completion and legal review of the 15-6 investigation, extracts of Command Climate Surveys, the contents of the GOMOR, and the filing of this administrative measure and the review and conclusions of the Administrative Elimination Board that recommended the applicant’s retention. The Board further considered his performance evaluations, the written statement submitted on behalf of the applicant, and the review and decision of the DASEB regarding the GOMOR and filing of the proceedings and supporting documents. The Board considered the purpose and authorities of the Elimination Board and counsel’s statements based on their determination. After reviewing all of the above, the Board found insufficient evidence to show that the GOMOR was untrue or that is should be removed or moved. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the retention of the GOMOR in the applicant’s records was not in error or unjust. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 3. 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. Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4505 (Performance-Based Cash Awards) provides that an agency may pay or grant an award under this subchapter notwithstanding the death or separation from the service of the employee concerned, if the suggestion, invention, superior accomplishment, other personal effort, or special act or service in the public interest for which the award is proposed was made or performed while the employee was in the employ of the Government. a. Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4505a states: (1) an employee whose most recent performance rating was at the fully successful level or higher (or the equivalent thereof) may be paid a cash award under this section and (2) a cash award under this section shall be equal to an amount determined appropriate by the head of the agency, but may not be more than 10 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the agency head may authorize a cash award equal to an amount exceeding 10 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay if the agency head determines that exceptional performance by the employee justifies such an award, but in no case may an award under this section exceed 20 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay. b. Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4505b, states: (1) a cash award under this section shall be paid as a lump sum, and may not be considered to be part of the basic pay of an employee; (2) the failure to pay a cash award under this section, or the amount of such an award, may not be appealed. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to extinguish or lessen any right or remedy under subchapter II of chapter 12, chapter 71, or any of the laws referred to in section 2302(d); and (c) the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe such regulations as it considers necessary for the administration of subsections (a) and (b). 2. Army in Korea Regulation 672-30 (Decorations, Awards, and Honors Eighth U.S. Army Civilian Awards Program) establishes policies and procedures for implementing Civilian Awards Program in Eighth Army and other activities. This regulation covers awards available to U.S. citizens and Korean national appropriated fund and non-appropriated fund employees of Eighth Army. It applies to organizations and employees serviced by the U.S. Army Civilian Personnel Advisory Center and Civilian Human Resources Agency, Far East Region. For employees covered by the Civilian Intelligence Personnel Management System, the provisions of Army Regulation 690-13 (Civilian Intelligence Personnel Management System) take precedence over the provisions of this regulation with respect to monetary awards. a. Paragraph 1-5a (Responsibilities) states activity commanders will: (1) provide leadership and direction for the incentive awards program, (2) ensure that supervisors are provided staff assistance so they are able to initiate appropriate, timely recognition actions for deserving employees, (3) ensure that sufficient funding is budgeted to support a viable incentive awards program, (4) establish an incentive awards committee to assist in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the program and to evaluate individual award nominations in accordance with prescribed criteria, (5) act on individual award recommendations made by the installation incentive awards committee, and (6) review and sign all award nomination packets to ensure that they meet the specified criteria prior to forwarding the nomination packet to the appropriate approval level for consideration. b. Paragraph 1-5b states the Directorate of Human Resources Management, Eighth Army, will exercise staff supervision over the Incentive Awards Program for the Commanding General Eighth Army, including program planning and evaluation and issuance of supplemental instructions and policy guidance. c. Paragraph 1-5c states the Civilian Personnel Advisory Centers will: (1) provide technical assistance to commanders, managers, and supervisors on the appropriate use of honorary and cash awards for U.S. Citizen and Korean National employees, advise incentive awards committees on proper procedures and requirements, and review honorary and monetary award nominations to ensure regulatory requirements are met; (2) publicize the program to the extent necessary to assure supervisors, managers and employees understand the program essentials; (3) provide training to supervisors as a part of the overall supervisory development effort; (4) review incentive award nominations when requested for regulatory compliance; and (5) ensure proper Equal Employment Opportunity review and documentation of awards in accordance with Army Regulation 672-20, chapter 2. d. Supervisors will: (1) nominate deserving employees for awards consistent with the level of achievement and (2) be aware of Equal Employment Opportunity implications when nominating employees for awards. (This applies only to U.S. civilian employees). Ensure, as with all other programs, that nominations for awards are based on merit, without regard to age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, marital status, genetic information, or physical or mental disability. e. Paragraph 2-2e (Eligibility for Awards) states employees will not be automatically nominated for a performance award based on their performance rating. Performance awards should be used both to reward high quality past performance and as an incentive to stimulate high level performance in the individuals and their peers. Organizational accomplishments, including the employees' overall contributions, should serve as the basis for all award nominations. An employee may not receive a performance award if the performance served as the basis for previous monetary recognition. 3. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive. 4. 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. 5. 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. Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance folder of the AMHRR unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (DASEB or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records). 6. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (continued) AR20190005955 12 1