IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 October 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210017699 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), 26 May 2016, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 14 June 2016, from his AMHRR * as an alternative, transfer of the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR to the restricted folder of his AMHRR * a personal appearance hearing before the Board via video or telephone 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) * Trial Defense Counsel Memorandum ((Applicant) Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Petition), 14 December 2021, with Table of Contents – * Exhibit 1 – Applicant's Memorandum, 13 December 2021 * Exhibit 2 – three Memoranda of Support for Removal * Exhibit 3 – Commanding General Approval Memorandum, 24 November 2021 with Board of Inquiry (BOI) Findings and Recommendations * Exhibit 4 – DA Form 1574-2 (Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers) and BOI Summary of Proceedings * Exhibit 5 – Officer Initiation of Elimination Packet Memorandum, 17 June 2021 * Exhibit 6 – DA Form 2627, 26 May 2016 * Exhibit 7 – GOMOR, 14 June 2016 * Exhibit 8 – Applicant's BOI Exhibits – * Officer Record Brief * Officer Evaluation Reports * Awards * Military Education Certificates * Letters of Support * Exhibit 9 – Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Record of Proceedings, 2 July 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant's trial defense counsel states he represents the applicant and encloses a binder containing the applicant's petition to the Board. 3. In a 13 December 2021 memorandum for the ABCMR, the applicant states: In accordance with Army Regulation 600-37 [Unfavorable Information] and Army Regulation 15-185 [Army Board for Correction of Military Records], I, [Applicant)], request the removal of the Article 15 [DA Form 2627], dated 26 May 2016, and punitive General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 14 June 2016, imposed by Major General from my Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). If the Board is not willing to remove the Article 15 [DA Form 2627] and punitive GOMOR completely from my AMHRR, then I respectfully request that the documents be transferred from the performance section to the restricted section of my AMHRR. On 26 May 2016, I was issued a General Officer level Article 15 [DA Form 2627]. My punishment was a GOMOR, which was issued on14 June 2016. I appealed the Article 15 [nonjudicial punishment (NJP)] to the Commanding General of United States Army Forces Command, but the appeal was denied. The Article 15 [DA Form 2627] and GOMOR were filed in the performance section of my AMHRR. On 17 June 2021, HQDA [Headquarters, Department of the Army] initiated elimination proceedings. On 5 October 2021, I appeared before a Board of Inquiry based on the Article 15 [DA Form 2627]. The Board made the following findings: The allegation that I had substantiated derogatory activity resulting in an Article 15 [DA Form 2627] dated 26 May 2016, a General Officer Letter of Reprimand dated 14 June 2016, and a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period of 19 May 2015-1 May 2016, as stated in the initiation of elimination, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The allegation that I committed conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated in the above-referenced items of derogatory information is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The findings do not warrant separation with respect to me. The board of inquiry recommended that I be retained in the Army. On 24 November 2021, the Commanding General of the Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Major General approved he Board's findings and recommendations. I maintain that I should not have been found guilty of violating a no contact order at the Article 15 proceeding. The Government found me guilty based on an unsworn, fabricated statement from and statements from my Chaplain Assistants. However, the statements from the Chaplain Assistants never said I contacted in violation of the no contact order; rather, they said that I called my wife to check on my family because my phone had no service while I was at JRTC [Joint Readiness Training Center]. I have enclosed recommendations from my chain of command to remove the Article 15 [DA Form 2627] from my AMHRR, as well as the full Board of Inquiry packet, which contains a transcript of the proceeding, my awards, evaluations, certificates, and letters of support. Based on the enclosures, I believe I meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence an error and injustice of the Article 15 [DA Form 2627] and punitive GOMOR staying in my AMHRR. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Board grant my petition. 4. Following prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the Chaplain Corps in the rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2 effective 2 January 2013. He completed the Chaplain Basic Officer Leader Course on 16 August 2013. He was promoted to captain/O-3 effective 18 April 2014. 5. He became the subject of an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation into the facts and circumstances of allegations of adultery against alleged misconduct on 21 January 2026. The Army Regulation 15-6 Report of Investigation, 28 April 2016, shows: a. An investigating officer (IO) was appointed as a result of the Fort Hood Installation Chaplain's email to the applicant's brigade commander on 14 January 2016, regarding allegations of adultery against the applicant and for an unknown amount of time at both local residences. b. After considering the evidence, the IO found that: (1) By a preponderance of evidence, the applicant had an adulterous relationship with knows where the applicant lives in. He purchased her big-ticket items, such as a cell phone, a lawnmower from the Post Exchange, and he also co-signed for a vehicle from Automax "to make her life more comfortable." This adulterous relationship is in violation of Article 134 (General Article), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Adultery. (2) By a preponderance of evidence, the applicant initiated and continued to make contact with after being formally counseled and ordered not to have contact with. This is a violation of Article 90 (Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer), UCMJ. (3) By a preponderance of evidence, the applicant obstructed justice by telling to delete all text messages, pressuring her to notify the command authorities not to proceed with the matter, and emphasized the issue by stating he would commit suicide. This is in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, Obstructing Justice. c. The IO recommended: (1) issuing a GOMOR to the applicant for the above-stated offenses; (2) issuing a letter of concern to the applicant for violation of Army Regulation 608-18 (The Army Family Advocacy Program), Military No-contact Order; (3) counseling the applicant on proper conduct as a senior leader; and (4) considering the applicant for separation from the U.S. Army. 6. The DA Form 2627, 26 May 2016, states: a. The applicant was considered for imposition of NJP on 10 May 2016 for misconduct, in that having received a lawful command from Lieutenant Colonel a superior commissioned officer, then known to him to be his superior commissioned officer, not to contact or communicate with by any means whatsoever, or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same in violation of Article 90, UCMJ, at or near Fort Hood, TX, and Fort Polk, LA, on divers occasions.? b. The applicant was afforded the right to consult with counsel. He declined trial by a court-martial and elected a closed hearing. He also indicated he would present maters in defense, extenuation, and/or mitigation. c. In a closed hearing and having considered all matters presented, the imposing commander found the applicant guilty of the specification. d. The punishment imposed was a written reprimand. e. The imposing commander directed filing the DA Form 2627 in the performance folder of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on 26 May 2016. f. The applicant elected to appeal and submit additional matters to the Commander, U.S. Army Forces Command, on 26 May 2016. Although his submitted matters are not available for review, the Commander, U.S. Army Forces Command, considered all matters in the appeal and denied the applicant's appeal on 18 July 2016. The applicant acknowledged the appeal result on 21 July 2016. 7. The applicant was reprimanded in writing by the Commanding General, Fort Hood, on 14 June 2016, wherein he stated: You are hereby reprimanded for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer in violation of Article 90, UCMJ. After your Battalion Commander explicitly ordered you not to contact a witness who had lodged a complaint against you, "by any means whatsoever," you persisted in doing so. The means you chose are especially troubling. You borrowed the personally owned cell phones of several junior ranking Soldiers while in a training environment and misled them about whom you were contacting. You implicated a Soldier you supervised, your own Chaplain's assistant, in your disobedience. Further, you lied in denying your actions. It is a matter of serious concern to me that you exercised such poor judgement. As a commissioned officer, you have a duty to act responsibly and display the utmost integrity in every situation. The United States Army reposed special trust and confidence in you when it bestowed upon you the privilege of being an officer in the Chaplain's [sic] Corps. You have abused that privilege by your actions and your conscious choice to lie about them. Any future misconduct could result in far more serious consequences. This reprimand is administered as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Further, I have directed that this reprimand be filed permanently in your Official Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) in accordance with AR [Army Regulation] 27-10 (Military Justice), para[graph] 3-6, 11 May 2016, because this record reflects "a lack of integrity,…evidence of a character deficiency [and] a substantial breach of military discipline." It will be filed with the original DA Form 2627 in accordance with AR [Army Regulation] 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), Chapter 3, 7 April 2014. 8. A review of the applicant's AMHRR shows the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR are filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. The allied documents associated with the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR are filed in the restricted folder of his OMPF. 9. The applicant petitioned the DASEB for removal of the DA Form 2627, 26 May 2016, with punitive GOMOR,14 June 2016, from his AMHRR or, in the alternative, transfer of the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR to the restricted folder of his AMHRR. On 2 July 2019 by majority vote in Docket Number AR20190003263, the DASEB determined the overall merits of the case did not warrant the requested relief for removal or transfer of the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR. 10. On 17 June 2021, the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, required him to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c, because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information. 11. On 12 July 2021, he acknowledged receipt and understanding of the notification of elimination. 12. On or about 9 September 2021, the Commander, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, OK, appointed a Board of Officers to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the service and, if so, to recommend the type of discharge he should receive. 13. On 5 October 2021, a Board of Officers was conducted and, having carefully considered the evidence before it, found the allegation of derogatory activity resulting in a DA Form 2627, 26 May 2016; a GOMOR, 14 June 2016; and a referred officer evaluation report covering the period 19 May 2015 through 1 May 2016; as stated in the initiation of elimination, was not supported by a preponderance of evidence. The allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer, as indicated by the above-referenced item, was not supported by a preponderance of evidence. The findings did not warrant the applicant's separation. The board recommended his retention in the U.S. Army. 14. On 24 November 2021, the Commander, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, OK, recommended approval of the board's findings and recommendations. 15. The applicant provided the following evidence, organized in exhibits, in addition to the aforementioned documents: a. Exhibit 2 contains three memoranda, identically written, supporting removal of the applicant's DA Form 2627 and GOMOR from his AMHRR (see attachments). These memoranda note the findings of the BOI and his retention in the Army; therefore, they recommend removal of those contested documents or, at a minimum, their transfer to the restricted folder of his AMHRR. b. Exhibit 8 contains the documents he submitted relating to his BOI. This exhibit contains his Officer Record Brief and seven OERs, including his referred OER covering the period 19 May 2015 through 1 May 2016, each OER either showing he was evaluated as a capable and qualified and/or highly qualified chaplain during those rating periods. It also contains numerous awards and military education certificates showing his accomplishments during his service. It further contains 13 letters of support/ character statements submitted during his BOI, attesting to his abilities as an officer and chaplain, and recommending his retention in the Army. 16. The applicant is currently serving in the rank/grade of captain/O-3 assigned to U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Benning, GA. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. 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. 2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant's contentions, his military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. a. The purpose of maintaining the OMPF/AMHRR is to protect the interests of both the Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods, and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and may not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority. b. As for the Article 15, the Board note that the applicant was a captain when he received his Article 15 for disobeying the contact order. The imposing commander ordered it filed in the performance section of his OMPF. The DA Form 2627 is appropriately filed in his OMPF, and he has provided no reason to remove it. The applicant had the opportunity to turn down this Article 15 and demand trial by court- martial at the time. He declined to do so. The Board determined that a commander's decision cannot or should not be reversed without compelling evidence that it was unlawful or egregiously unfair. The applicant has presented no such evidence. c. As for the GOMOR, the evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for misconduct and it was filed in his OMPF. He acknowledged he had read and understood the unfavorable information presented against him and submitted a statement in rebuttal. Subsequently, the GOMOR was referred by a general officer for filing in the performance section of his OMPF. The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and properly filed in performance section of his OMPF. There is no evidence of any violation of any of the applicant’s rights. He has provided insufficient evidence or argument to form a basis for removing or transferring the GOMOR from the performance section of his OMPF. d. The purpose of the board of officers was to give the applicant a fair and impartial hearing to determine if he should be retained in the Army. The board of officer’s recommendations were limited to either retention or elimination and its findings had no bearing on whether he was guilty of violating the no contact order as noted on the Article 15 and the resulted reprimand as noted on the GOMOR. ? 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. ? REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. 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; it is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of 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. 3. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established by other regulations or directives. Paragraph 5-2 states IOs may use whatever method they deem most efficient and effective for acquiring information. Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information may also be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means. 4. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts- Martial. It provides that a commander should use non-punitive administrative measures to the fullest extent to further the efficiency of the command before resorting to NJP under the UCMJ. Use of NJP is proper in all cases involving minor offenses in which non-punitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate. NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial. a. Paragraph 3-6a addresses filing of NJP and provides that a commander's decision whether to file a record of NJP in the performance folder of a Soldier's OMPF is as important as the decision relating to the imposition of the NJP itself. In making a filing determination, the imposing commander must carefully weigh the interests of the Soldier's career against those of the Army to produce and advance only the most qualified personnel for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility. In this regard, the imposing commander should consider the Soldier's age, grade, total service (with particular attention to the Soldier's recent performance and past misconduct), and whether the Soldier has more than one record of NJP directed for filing in the restricted folder. However, the interests of the Army are compelling when the record of NJP reflects unmitigated moral turpitude or lack of integrity, patterns of misconduct, or evidence of serious character deficiency or substantial breach of military discipline. In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance folder. b. Paragraph 3-37b states the decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance folder or restricted folder of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed. The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by superior authority. However, the superior authority cannot direct filing a DA Form 2627 in the performance folder that the imposing commander directed to be filed in the restricted folder. c. Paragraph 3-43 contains guidance for transfer or removal of DA Forms 2627 from the OMPF. It states that applications for removal of a DA Form 2627 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the ABCMR. It further states there must be clear and compelling evidence to support removal of a properly completed, facially valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's record by the ABCMR. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required to support officer transfers and discharges. a. Paragraph 4-6 states the BOI's purpose is to give the officer a fair and impartial hearing, determining whether the officer will be retained in the Army. Through a formal administrative investigation conducted under Army Regulation 15-6 and this regulation, the BOI establishes and records the facts of the respondent's alleged misconduct, substandard performance of duty, or conduct incompatible with military service. Based upon the findings of fact established by its investigation and recorded in its report, the board then makes a recommendation for the officer's disposition, consistent with this regulation. The Government is responsible to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the officer has failed to maintain the standards desired for the officer's grade and branch or that the officer's Secret-level security clearance has been permanently denied or revoked by appropriate authorities acting pursuant to Department of Defense Directive 5200.2-R (Personnel Security Program) and Army Regulation 380-67 (Personnel Security Program). In the absence of such a showing by the Government, the board will retain the officer. However, the respondent is entitled to produce evidence to show cause for his/her retention and to refute the allegations against him/her. The respondent's complete AMHRR will be entered into evidence by the Government and considered by the BOI. b. Paragraph 4-15b(3) states the board may not recommend removal of documents such as OERs, DA Forms 2627, and memoranda of reprimand from an officer's AMHRR. The board recommendations are limited to either retention (with or without reassignment) or elimination. 6. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed from an individual's AMHRR. a. An administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. b. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 (Appeals). c. Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. d. Paragraph 7-3c states an officer who directed filing an administrative memorandum of reprimand, admonition, or censure in the AMHRR may request its revision, alteration, or removal, if evidence or information indicates the basis for the adverse action was untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. An officer who directed such filing must provide the DASEB a copy of the new evidence or information to justify the request. 7. 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. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the OMPF, 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 agencies. b. Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the AMHRR and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) states: (1) DA Forms 2627: the original will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF. The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance folder or the restricted folder of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander; and (2) memorandums of reprimand, censure, and admonition are filed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210017699 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1