IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 May 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220005948 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal and expungement of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), undated, and all allied documents from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * removal, set aside, and expungement of the Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Report of Investigation (ROI) from his AMHRR * a personal appearance hearing before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provision of Title 10, U.S. Code 1552) * Counsel's Petition, undated, with 22 exhibits – * Exhibit 1 – National Guard Bureau (NGB) Memorandum (Filing Determination of the Memorandum of Reprimand – (Applicant)), 27 January 2022 * Exhibit 2 – Email Exchange (Reply: GOMOR Notification), 12 January 2022 through 7 February 2022, with attached email notifications * Exhibit 3 – Email (GOMOR), 31 January 2022 * Exhibit 4 – DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Exhibit 5 – Email (Request for Interview – (Applicant)), 18 December 2020 * Exhibit 6 – DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 10 May 2022 * Exhibit 7 – Joint Force Headquarters – Guam Orders 278-09, 5 October 2019 * Exhibit 8 – Internet Article, Postguam.com, "Guard: Reprimand an Error," 7 February 2019 * Exhibit 9 – Applicant's Response to Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation, 21 September 2021 * Exhibit 10 – Character Reference Memorandum, undated * Exhibit 11 – Letter of Support for (Applicant) Memorandum, 14 August 2021 * Exhibit 12 – Support Letter, 4 August 2021 * Exhibit 13 – Support Letter, undated * Exhibit 14 – Support Letter, undated * Exhibit 15 – Excerpt of Applicant's AMHRR Restricted Folder, Over-Redacted Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation, with supporting documents * Exhibit 16 – Email (ROI Referral), 24 July 2021 * Exhibit 17 – Email ((Applicant 15-6 (Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation) Response and Attachments), 23 September 2021 * Exhibit 18 – Chief of Staff Award – Flag * Exhibit 19 – DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action – (Flag)), 31 January 2022 * Exhibit 20 – NGB Memorandum (Memorandum of Reprimand), undated, with blank Acknowledgment of Receipt * Exhibit 21 – Email Exchange (Reply: GOMR), 1 February 2022 * Exhibit 22 – Email (Reply: Request for Interview – (Applicant)), 17 December 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. On 31 January 2022, the applicant retired from the U.S. Army, he also learned the GOMOR was filed in his permanent records without allowing him and his attorney proper notice and opportunity to provide responses. The legally deficient and procedurally invalid GOMOR and the underlying investigation are materially prejudicial to him; they violate his due process rights and they tarnish his otherwise honorable and impeccable military service record of over 32 years. b. The evidence shows that on 12 January 2022, 13 January 2022, and 31 January 2022, Lieutenant Colonel , Associate General Counsel, NGB, emailed the applicant the GOMOR, the notification, and the filing determination at his "army.mil" email address. However, as of at least July and 26 December 2020, due to the Army email migration, the applicant's official Army email address was "mail.mil." Based on this, the GOMOR must be removed from his AMHRR without delay. c. The GOMOR is also improper because it is based on a legally deficient investigation. In late 2019, the applicant was assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Guam Army National Guard (ARNG). The Guam ARNG Command Sergeant Major (CSM), CSM , stated the Guam ARNG was crippled and plagued by high-level cronyism, low morale, and hostile and toxic work environment issues that the previous Adjutant General failed to address. Any positive changes the new Adjutant General and the applicant attempted to introduce concerning accountability and integrity were encountered with resentment and a barrage of Inspector General complaints. The applicant completed his Guam assignment in late 2020 and transferred to the continental United States. However, a biased Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was launched based on the allegations of misconduct against him and the Guam Adjutant General during the period he was in Guam. The applicant was never allowed to see the entire investigation in violation of Army Regulation 15-6, paragraph 5-4b. d. In September 2021, the applicant provided responses denying all allegations of misconduct. He also explained he followed the orders of his supervisor, the Adjutant General, and each action had a legal review. He addressed the toxic leadership of the outgoing Guam Adjutant General and he and his attorney notified the Army Regulation 15-6 investigating officer (IO) about additional serious misconduct within the Guam ARNG. The IO failed to investigate the additional serious misconduct. e. He describes the applicant's military service, awards, assignments, five character-reference statements, and experience in the Chief of Staff position, and further addresses the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. f. Before departing the Guam ARNG, the applicant was presented with an award for his excellent and dedicated service. Following his return to the continental United States, he reported to Fort Belvoir. He also worked at the White House through the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Internship Program. Subsequently, the applicant departed on transition leave. On 8 October 2020, a suspension of favorable personnel actions was placed against him. Despite this, he was allowed to take transition leave and honorably retire. During the applicant's transition leave, his access to email was very limited. g. Legal Arguments. (1) Filing the GOMOR violated the applicant's due process rights because he was never properly notified under Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). (2) The excessive redactions denied the applicant's due process rights and violated Army Regulation 15-6 and Army Regulation 600-37. (3) The investigation failed to comply with Army Regulation 15-6 because the findings are not supported by the evidence. (4) It is improper for the IO in a Title 10 status to investigate allegations against an officer in a Title 32 status. h. In conclusion, the applicant's records should be immediately corrected. He has served faithfully and honorably for over 32 years without any incident. The failure to provide due notice, the over-redacted Army Regulation 15-6 ROI, and the IO's failure to consider the evidence and adhere to the Army's regulation and policies warrant immediate and full relief in this case. 3. The applicant's DA Form 67-10-1 (Field Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report) covering the period 1 April 2017 through 31 March 2018 shows in: a. Part Ig (Unit, Organization, Station, Zip Code or Army Post Office, Major Command), his unit as Hawaii ARNG Element, Joint Force Headquarters, Kapolei G1, National Guard; b. Part III (Duty Description, his principal duty title as Chief, Cyber Training and Exercise Branch; c. Part IVe (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater marked "PROFICIENT" and commented: [Applicant] is a proven leader and gifted staff officer who always delivers quality results. He consistently applies his deep cyber experience and technical expertise to educate leadership, mentor peers, and develop the National Guard cyber operations workforce in executing effective domestic operations. A consummate professional with the highest level of integrity and motivation, he is exceptionally qualified and ready for increased responsibility. d. Part VI (Senior Rater), his senior rater rated his potential as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" and commented: [Applicant] ranks among the top 10% of very talented LTCs [lieutenant colonels] assigned [to] NGB-J3/7. His outstanding professionalism and sense of mission accomplishment serves as evidence of his great potential for serve at senior COL [colonel] positions and beyond. Groom for Brigade Command and other critical staff assignments. Promote immediately. 4. The NGB memorandum (Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army), 23 August 2018, promoted him to the rank/grade of COL/O-6 effective 24 May 2018. 5. The Postguam.com article, "Guard: Reprimand an Error," 7 February 2019, provides a synopsis about the new Guam Adjutant General wrongfully receiving a GOMOR, allegations of the previous Guam Adjutant General, and the negative climate of the Guam ARNG. 6. Joint Force Headquarters-Guam Orders 278-09, 5 October 2019, ordered the applicant to active duty in an AGR status with his consent pursuant to Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502(f), as an active reservist of the ARNG in a full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) status. His active-duty commitment is shown as 1 year with a reporting date of 6 October 2019. 7. The NGB memorandum (Appointment as Assistant IO), 23 November 2020, appointed Brigadier General as an assistant IO to conduct an administrative investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding allegations that the Guam Adjutant General, G1, Assistant Adjutant General (applicant), and State CSM exhibited counterproductive leadership, took improper actions in violation of multiple rules and regulations, and violated hiring and assignment directives. 8. Counsel's email (Regarding: Request for Interview – (Applicant)), 17 December 2020, notified the assistant IOs that the applicant wanted to participate in the investigation, but he advised the applicant to respond to written questions as opposed to sitting for an interview, especially since he is located in and the applicant is in. 9. The email from the assistant IO (Request for Interview – (Applicant)), 18 December 2020, requested that the applicant set a time for an interview concerning an investigation in which he was named as the subject. 10. The Executive Summary states: a. The allegations set forth in the appointing memorandum were, with a few exceptions, founded by a preponderance of the evidence. The conduct of the Guam Adjutant General, the applicant, and the State CSM was egregious, recurrent, and deliberate, and in violation of multiple statutes, regulations, and policies. The material and relevant facts set forth in the ROI demonstrate repeated instances of counterproductive and toxic leadership within the meaning of Army Regulation 600-100 (Army Profession and Leadership Policy), paragraph 1-11d, that had a significant deleterious impact on the welfare of the organization and on their subordinates and fellow Soldiers and airmen. b. In regard to the applicant: (1) Allegation 1: The Guam Adjutant General and the applicant approved a Guam Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to address AGR tour continuation beyond 20 years of active service in violation of Army Regulation 135-18 (The Active Guard Reserve Program), National Guard Regulation 600-5 (The AGR Program Title 32, Full Time National Guard Duty Management), Active Service Management Board policy, and Title 32 AGR career management policy and procedures. In accordance with the new SOP, they then issued 1-year orders to all the Army COLs in the Guam AGR Program, further violating AGR career management policy and procedures. Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to both the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant. (2) Allegation 4: The Guam Adjutant General, the State CSM, and the applicant demonstrated counterproductive leadership by transferring CSM to and from the State CSM position and his separation from the AGR Program and retirement in violation of Army Regulation 600-100, paragraph 1-11d. Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to the Guam Adjutant General, the applicant, and the State CSM. (3) Allegation 6: The Guam Adjutant General and the applicant did not provide CSM , the former State CSM, 1 year to transition from the AGR Program in violation of National Guard Regulation 600-5. Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant. (4) Allegation 7: The Guam Adjutant General approved a new AGR career policy, Command Policy Memorandum Number 19-15 (Establishment of Career Program Status for AGR Soldiers and AGR Tour Extension Policy), 19 March 2019, which was prepared and implemented by the Deputy G1, the Human Resources Officer, and the applicant. This State policy violated Title 32 AGR career management policy. Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence in its entirely as to the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant. (5) Allegation 8: The Guam Adjutant General, the applicant, and the G1 improperly assigned AGR Soldiers to ARNG AGR positions that violated AGR assignment policy (double-slotting AGR Soldiers and command-directed AGR movements to positions making them over-grade). Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence in its entirely as to the Guam Adjutant General, the applicant, and the Deputy G1 in regard to the assignment of AGR Soldiers in violation of National Guard Regulation 600-5 and/or Army Regulation 135-18. (6) Allegation 12: The G1 improperly ordered a subordinate to adjust mandatory release dates of Soldiers, as well as those of the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant, without proper documentation. Findings: This allegation is also founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant for their failure to ensure compliance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14512; Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14510; and/or National Guard Regulation 635-100. (7) Allegation 14: The applicant demonstrated counterproductive leadership by (including and not limited to) threatening CSM with release from active duty, attempting to initiate a retaliatory investigation into four members of the Guam ARNG, and making false accusations of substance abuse against Major in violation of Army Regulation 600-100. Finding: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to the applicant. (8) Allegation 24: The applicant improperly issued orders under Title 32 authority after transitioning to Title 10 status in violation of Title 32, U.S. Code, section 325 (Relief from National Guard Duty When Ordered to Active Duty). Findings: This allegation is founded by a preponderance of the evidence as to the Guam Adjutant General and the applicant. 11. The NGB memorandum from the IO (Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation Concerning the Guam ARNG), 14 February 2021, states he was appointed as an IO regarding a number of allegations that concerned the Guam ARNG and its senior leadership on 13 July 2020. The allegations primarily concerned the Guam ARNG, in particular the Guam Adjutant General, the applicant (Chief of Staff), the State CSM, and the G1. The applicant was a Hawaii ARNG officer who was a Title 10 AGR officer before coming to Guam in mid-2018. He was appointed as the Chief of the Joint Staff the date the new Guam Adjutant General was appointed, and later he was appointed as the Assistant Adjutant General. He is currently serving in the National Capital Region in a Title 10 status but continues to function remotely as Guam's Chief of the Joint Staff. He declined to be interviewed by the IO, but he did agree to answer written questions instead. After he was provided the written questions, he then refused to answer them. (Note: Each of the allegations against the applicant is addressed in the above Executive Summary. This memorandum expands on each allegation, the applicable regulations and policies, an analysis, and the findings and recommendations. Also noted, the memorandum is heavily redacted and all the recommendations for each allegation are completely redacted.) 12. The NGB email (ROI) from the Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 24 July 2021, referred the attached Army Regulation 15-6 ROI to the applicant to allow him the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. He was given 30 days from receipt of the ROI to respond (23 August 2021). 13. The five character reference memorandums/support letters, 4 August 2021, 14 August 2021, and three undated, attest to the applicant's character, extensive experience, professionalism, and one who lives the Army Values. 14. Counsel's email to the Associate General Counsel ((Applicant) Army Regulation 15-6 Response and Attachments), 23 September 2021, provided the applicant's rebuttal. 15. The applicant's 13-page response to the Army Regulation 15-6 ROI, 21 September 2021, states, in part:? a. The Governor's appointment of the new Guam Adjutant General caused major issues within the Guam ARNG for many reasons. The new Guam Adjutant General's appointment undermined the succession plan already determined by the previous leadership and it led to an internal war between the new Guam Adjutant General, her supporters, and those who supported the previous leadership. b. In his 32-plus years of service, he has never been subjected to such a hostile work environment until he became the new Guam Adjutant General's Chief of Staff. He tried to do whatever he could to effectuate the express orders and guidance he received from the Governor's office, as well as the Guam Adjutant General. He believed every decision he made or executed as the Chief of Staff to be legal and within Army regulation. He never took any action as the Chief of Staff without first being vetted by the Guam legal advisor and after assurances that the course of action was legal. c. He describes his military experiences, the difficult transition of the new Guam Adjutant General, and his selection as the new Guam Adjutant General's Chief of Staff. d. Regarding the specific findings made against him, he submits the following: (1) Allegation 1: This issue was vetted through the Guam J1, Attorney Advisor, and the NGB G1 staff. The Guam National Guard consulted with other States who have similar policies. (2) Allegation 4: Transferring CSM to another CSM position was necessary to accommodate the incoming State CSM . He never threatened to release CSM from active duty for substandard performance. (3) Allegation 6: CSM was given 11 months to retire, which was at his retention control point. To his knowledge, CSM never formally submitted a request to extend beyond his retention control point, which is only approved at the Department of the Army level. (4) Allegation 7: The AGR career policy, Command Policy Memorandum Number 19-15, was vetted through the Guam National Guard J1 and an attorney adviser prior to implementing the SOP. (5) Allegation 8: These actions were vetted through the Guam National Guard J1 and an attorney adviser. They took these actions having knowledge of past leadership standards of practice. (6) Allegation 14: When he was notified that CSM was not conducting his retirement out-processing or making flight arrangements to the Hawaii out-processing center with only 3 months remaining, he instructed CSM to report to his office. In reference to MAJ , there were multiple complaints from different personnel concerning alcohol smell on his breath. He responded to each individual identified in allegation of retaliatory actions. There were many other investigations throughout the command, none of which were bullying, distorted information, abuse of authority, retaliatory, dishonest, unfair, or unjust. (7) Allegation 24: Prior to returning to Virginia, the Guam Adjutant General, J1, attorney adviser, and he discussed the option of him continuing the Chief of Joint Staff duties while in a Title 10 status until his replacement was promoted. e. In summary, regarding any advisement to the Guam Adjutant General, he acted in good faith and he ensured that critical and sensitive topics/issues were vetted among the trusted senior staff, NGB, and other States subject matter experts, to include the Guam National Guard Attorney Advisor. 16. The NBG memorandum from Major General (MG) , the Deputy Director, ARNG (Memorandum of Reprimand), undated, reprimanded the applicant in writing for violations of National Guard Regulation 600-5 and Title 32 AGR Management Policy, issuing improper orders under Title 32 authority after transitioning to Title 10 status, fostering a counterproductive leadership environment, and showing little to no respect to a fellow military officer in violation of Army Regulation 600-100, paragraph 1-11. The Deputy Director, ARNG, states: a. The applicant's behavior is reprehensible, embarrassing, and discrediting to the ARNG. He is thoroughly concerned with the applicant's leadership, temperament, and ability to serve as a commissioned officer. b. This is an administrative action and not punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He is considering filing this reprimand in the applicant's AMHRR; however, he will consider any matters the applicant may wish to submit in rebuttal before taking action. 17. On 27 January 2022, the Deputy Director, ARNG, directed permanently filing the GOMOR, 13 January 2022, in the applicant's AMHRR. 18. The DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 31 January 2022, shows a flag that was initiated on 8 October 2020 by reason of a commander's investigation was removed on 27 January 2022. The disposition is shown as "Final Action Unfavorable." 19. A review of the applicant's AMHRR revealed no DA Forms 67-10-2 (Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report) in evidence for his performance in the rank/grade of COL/O-6.? 20. On 31 January 2022, the applicant retired from the ARNG of the United States and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge) shows in: * item 8 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) – U.S. Army Chief Information Officer, G6, Guam * item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 20 years, 7 months, and 28 days * item 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 5 years, 6 months, and 10 days 21. The NGB memorandum from the Deputy Director, ARNG (Memorandum of Reprimand), 31 January 2022, states the applicant was presented with the unfavorable information on 12 January 2022 and 13 January 2022 and refused to acknowledge such by signature. (Note: the GOMOR was posted to the applicant's restricted folder of his AMHRR on 31 January 2022.) 22. The email from the Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, to the applicant and the Deputy Director, ARNG (Forward: GOMOR Notification), 31 January 2022, states the applicant was provided the GOMOR, filing disposition, and flag removal. 23. A review of the applicant's AMHRR revealed the GOMOR was posted to the performance folder of his AMHRR on 31 January 2022 in the folder named "Letter of Reprimand" and titled "Letter of Reprimand, Censure, Admonition," and contains the following documents: * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Memorandum of Reprimand), undated * Acknowledgment of Receipt, unsigned and undated * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Filing Determination of the Memorandum of Reprimand of (Applicant)), 27 January 2022 * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Memorandum of Reprimand), 31 January 2022 24. The applicant's email to the Deputy Director, NGB (GOMOR), 31 January 2022, states: Today, I discovered a GOMOR in my iPERMS [interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System]. How did you present me unfavorable action on 12 January and 13 January 2022? My attorney and I have not received any such notification. Please CC [courtesy copy] my attorney, MAJ on all responses. 25. A review of the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR revealed a filed named "Letter of Reprimand" and titled "Letter of Reprimand, Censure, Admonition," posted on 1 February 2022, containing the following documents: * Executive Summary * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Appointment as Administrative and Cultural Assistant to the IO), 26 October 2020 * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Appointment as Assistant IO, Change 1), 23 November 2020 * Chronology – 2018-2020 Guam Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation (Heavily Redacted) * National Guard Bureau Memorandum (Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation Concerning the Guam Army National Guard), 14 February 2021 26. On 1 February 2022, the Deputy Director, NGB, replied to the applicant's email, providing a courtesy copy to the applicant's attorney and the Associate General Counsel, NGB, stating: On 12 January 2022, you were provided via email with the GOMOR and notification and an opportunity to respond. On 13 January 2022, a second copy of the GOMOR and notification was sent. In addition, we attempted to reach you via the phone numbers listed as your contact number (home and mobile). Both numbers were out of service. On 31 January 2022, you were sent a third copy of the GOMOR, the filing disposition, and the flag removal closing your actions. If you are asserting that you did not receive the previous notifications, I will allow you to submit a response no later than 10 February 2022 for consideration. I will review any response you provide and advise if or how your response affects my current filing determination and my intended course of action. In addition, as you have been transferred to the Retired Reserve, you may submit an appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), as outlined in Army Regulation 600-37 and Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records). 27. The email from the Associate General Counsel (Forward: GOMOR Notification), 7 February 2022, responded to counsel's request and provided him with copies of the following email messages: a. the email from the Associate General Counsel (Forward: GOMOR Notification), 31 January 2022, to the applicant and the Deputy Director, ARNG, noting the applicant was provided the GOMOR, filing disposition, and flag removal. b. the NGB email (GOMOR Notification), 12 January 2022, wherein the Associate General Counsel notifying the applicant of the attached GOMOR and acknowledgement for his review and response; and c. the NGB email from the Associate General Counsel (Forward: GOMOR Notification), 13 January 2022, requesting that the applicant acknowledge receipt of the attached GOMOR by signing and returning the acknowledgement. 28. Counsel's email (Reply: GOMOR Notification), 7 February 2022, states: Thank you very much for these emails. As we discussed, the applicant never received these emails. For the last six or more months, [Applicant] was working at the White House through the AGR internship program or on terminal [transition] leave. Because I had handled all prior communications relating to the subject investigation, either with Brigadier General or you, [Applicant] reasonably expected that any additional communications and/or any related notices would have gone through me – especially since he was transitioning out of the military and submitted his retirement package in 2021. In fact, [Applicant] and I spoke mid-January 2022, discussing the fact that neither of us had heard anything regarding the investigation. As we further discussed, MG ordered [Applicant's] GOMOR be filed in his AMHRR, and my understanding is, which you confirmed this morning, the only way to remove the GOMOR from [Applicant's] AMHRR is through the ABCMR. Accordingly, based on my advice, that is the process he will use. 29. On 7 February 2022, the Assistant General Counsel responded to counsel's email, stating: Received and tracking. To ensure we are on the same page I understand your email to mean that your, and [Applicant's], intent is not to submit any further matters to MG for consideration and instead appeal directly to the ABCMR. If that is the case, I will consider the applicant's matters closed. 30. The DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) from CSM , 10 May 2022, describes the issues she and the applicant faced during the change of senior leadership within the Guam Army National Guard and attests to the applicant's character and contributions. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. 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 Board carefully considered through counsel the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review through counsel of the applicants petition and available military records, the Board determined that counsel did not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that procedural error occurred that was prejudicial to the applicant and by a preponderance of evidence that the contents of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) are substantially incorrect and support removal. Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence that would support removal, set aside, and expungement of the Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Report of Investigation (ROI) from his AMHRR. Evidence in the record shows the finding were substantiated during the IO investigation. The Board recognizes the applicant served faithfully and honorably for over 32 years without any incident. However, based on the facts and circumstances within the record the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The Board determined there does not appear to be any evidence the contested GOMOR was unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's AMHRR. Therefore, relief was denied. 2. The purpose of maintaining the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the AMHRR serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the AMHRR. Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by an appropriate authority. 3. This board is not an investigative body. The Board determined despite the absence of the applicant’s evidence, they agreed the burden of proof rest on the applicant, however, his counsel did not provide any supporting documentation and his service record has insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions to support removal of the GOMOAR from his service record. 4.. 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. ? 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. 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 considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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. 2. 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. a. 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. b. Paragraph 5-4b states when a field grade officer has the right to respond pursuant to this paragraph, the portion of the ROI and supporting evidence pertaining to the adverse information will be referred to the officer after being properly redacted. 3. Army Regulation 135-18 (The Active Guard Reserve Program) prescribes the policy and procedures for the administration of the Active Guard Reserve Program. It provides Army policy for the selection, utilization, and administration of ARNG of the United States and U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers ordered to active duty for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the ARNG and Army Reserve. Paragraph 2-6 (Qualifications for Continuation on Active Duty in the AGR Program) states after initial entry or re-entry into the AGR Program, and while serving on active duty or FTNGD, ARNG of the United States Soldiers serving in Title 32, U.S. Code, status not serving on a one-time occasional tour, will be considered for active-duty continuation prior to issuance of subsequent assignment orders. 4. National Guard Regulation 600-5 (The AGR Program Title 32, Full Time National Guard Duty Management) sets policy and procedures for the management of ARNG Soldiers serving on FTNGD in the AGR Program. It provides NGB policy and procedures for selection, utilization, career management, professional development, release from FTNGD, and the administration of ARNG Soldiers serving on FTNGD. a. Paragraph 3-1 (AGR Career Status) states AGR Career Status is the continuation beyond the initial period, or service in an AGR status for a period of more than 6 years; it constitutes retention and requires subsequent management under a career program. AGR career status may lead to a military retirement after attaining the required years of active service. b. Paragraph 3-3c (Utilization) states an AGR Soldier may be carried as "excess" against his/her paragraph and line number for a period of up to 1 year when he/she is pending separation and a backfill has been selected and assigned. 5. Army Regulation 600-100 (Army Profession and Leadership Policy) establishes Army profession and leadership policy by defining key terms and responsibilities associated with the Army profession and appropriate leadership practices and methods for Soldiers and Army civilians. Paragraph 1-11d states Army professionals are required to uphold the Army Ethic and model the core leader competencies. They must remain vigilant to guard against counterproductive leadership behaviors from themselves as well as in the units with which they serve. Counterproductive leadership can take different forms, from incompetence to abusiveness, all of which have detrimental impacts on individuals, the unit, and the accomplishment of the mission. 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. Unfavorable information will not be filed in the AMHRR unless the recipient has been given the opportunity to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing, and a reasonable amount of time to make a written statement in response. 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 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 (Appeals). c. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) 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. Soldiers must have received at least one evaluation (other than academic) since imposition. d. 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. 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. 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 another authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220005948 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1