IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 12 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011392 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
 
• removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 7 December 2018, from her Army Military Human Resource Record (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 Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) 

• Joint Force Headquarters G-3 Operations, District of Columbia National Guard, Memorandum ((Applicant) – Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Appeal of GOMOR), 18 October 2022 

• six DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) from the following individuals – 


 
• Captain (CPT) S____ M. B____, 17 March 2019 

• Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) H____ D. A____, 1 April 2019 

• Ms. K____ P. H____, 18 June 2019 

• CPT M____ F. G____, 29 September 2019 

• CPT P____ M. P____, 7 October 2019 

• Major (MAJ) M____ A. M____, 11 October 2019 


 
• District of Columbia National Guard Federal Recognition Board Summarized Transcript, 19 October 2019 

• Self-authored Memorandum for Record (Incorrect and Noteworthy Items from Transcript from Withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board Proceedings  19-20 October 2019), 25 June 2020 

• Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Docket Number AR20200009429, 15 December 2020 


 
  
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant states she received partial relief regarding filing of the GOMOR from the DASEB and is now seeking complete removal of the GOMOR from her AMHRR. She makes this request for two reasons: 
 
 a.  First, the allegations raised by her GOMOR were thoroughly examined before a Withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board that was held 19-20 October 2019. This board conducted an extensive 2-day hearing involving 14 facts and character witnesses. After reviewing both new and old evidence, the board unanimously found her not guilty of any dereliction concerning the allegations raised in the GOMOR. Also, the board determined that she still had a lot to offer the Army. Major General A____ E____, who issued the GOMOR, did not have access to the same evidence as the board, such as certain testimony. 
 
 b.  Second, the GOMOR has been filed in her AMHRR since December 2018 and has served its intended purpose. She has continued to take full responsibility for her actions. She had absolutely no malicious intent. Furthermore, she is very remorseful for the errors she made. She has implemented personal measures to prevent these mistakes from happening again and is teaching others to do the same. 
 
2.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan, Special Operations Joint Task Force – Afghanistan, memorandum from the Commanding General (Memorandum of Reprimand), 7 December 2018, reprimanded the applicant for several poor decisions, calling into question her judgment as an officer in the U.S. Army, wherein he states: 
 
 a.  She committed serious security violations. During her deployment with the Special Mission Wing Special Operations Advisory Team – North, she willfully downgraded the classification of material without proper authority with the intention of distributing the classified material to Afghan partners who were not authorized to receive the material. Additionally, she photographed a Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) computer screen with a non-secure cellular device, further demonstrating her disregard for the rules surrounding the sensitive nature of classified material. 
 
 b.  Her poor judgment was reflected in her indifference to the regulations surrounding her daily conduct. On multiple occasions she did not maintain positive control of her assigned weapons. She violated policy by allowing members of the opposite gender to access her billet and by distributing the secure dormitory codes to individuals who were not authorized access. Additionally, she misused and otherwise improperly disposed of U.S. Government property issued to her. 
 
3.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan, Special Operations Joint Task Force – Afghanistan, memorandum from the Commanding General (GOMOR Filing Determination), 16 December 2018, shows that after carefully considering the GOMOR; the circumstances of the misconduct; and all matters submitted by the applicant in defense, extenuation, or mitigation, if any; along with the chain of command recommendations; he directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. All enclosures were forwarded with the reprimand for filing as appropriate. (Note: The allied documents pertaining to the GOMOR are not filed in her AMHRR.) 
 
4.  On 1 January 2019, the applicant was honorably released from active duty to the control of her District of Columbia Army National Guard unit. 
 
5.  The sworn statement from CPT B____, 17 March 2019, states he was the legal assistance attorney at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, and attended the interview the applicant participated in with the investigating officer (IO). Despite the fact that the sworn statement included with the GOMOR packet has her name on it, the applicant did not write this statement. Based on the interview that he attended, it is not an accurate reflection of the statements the applicant made during the interactions with the IO and his legal advisors. After they received the statement the IO wrote, he questioned the IO because he did not believe it to be accurate. The IO responded that he believed he had given an accurate summary of the conversation. The problem is that the IO did not clearly and accurately portray the statement as his own words and his own summary of the words spoken. Instead, the IO appears to attempt to portray his words as the applicant's words, implicating her complicity with statements and actions that are not correct. In particular, the applicant did not sign that sworn statement and instead wrote her own sworn statement. Her DA Form 2823 was not included in the GOMOR packet. A plain portable document format version of her sworn statement is included in the last pages of the GOMOR, rather than the DA Form 2823 that she provided, and it is not clearly labeled. Since the IO is only basing his statements on inaccurate recollections of his discussion with the applicant, he believes much heavier weight should be applied to the applicant's own words, as portrayed in her sworn statement. (Note: The applicant did not provide a copy of the investigation, nor is a copy available in her AMHRR.) 
 
6.  The sworn statement from LTC A____, 1 April 2019, states he was the logistics officer during their deployment in Afghanistan. He and the applicant made every effort to work around limitations to accomplish the mission while protecting sensitive information. He was treated differently during command and staff meetings by a couple of key leaders, and he was treated differently from his peers overall. There were only four African American leaders who were part of the command and staff biweekly conference calls. He recounts instances where these leaders were treated differently/poorly. 
 
7.  The sworn statement from Ms. H____, 18 June 2019, states she worked as the senior administrative representative in Afghanistan. She had very little interaction with the applicant. She further states: 
 
 a.  They lived in the same co-educational building on the same floor, down the hall and across from each other. Each room was issued the same furniture. When people redeployed, they often sold, gave away, or left some of their belongings. People could take whatever they wanted. Local Afghan nationals cleaned the dormitories and had access. 
 
 b.  She observed personnel taking their personal or U.S. Government cell phones into the operations centers and using them in there. Personal cell phones were kept at personnel's desks and personnel would use them while on their computers, usually for work matters. 
 
 c.  The environment was racially charged and was very uncomfortable. She sometimes witnessed actions by leaders against racially diverse individuals that was markedly different from those leaders' treatment of non-diverse individuals. Many of the people who began to experience exclusionary and negative administrative actions upon the change in leadership were African American. 
 
8.  The sworn statement from CPT G____, 29 September 2019, states he was the executive officer while also fulfilling the roles of operations officer, battle captain, and supervisor. He worked with the applicant during recurring operations meetings and coordinating supporting between their units. He had no awareness of any efforts to subversively secure classified information. Personal cell phones were frequently used in the same vicinity as SIPR equipment by numerous individuals on a frequent basis. 
 
9.  The sworn statement from CPT P____, 7 October 2019, states he was an instructor and a technical expert who trained and advised Afghan pilots for the Polish Air Force in Afghanistan. He and the applicant worked together supporting mission operations while she began her flight training. He never personally observed any issues with the applicant securing classified information. She followed all of the prescribed procedures when they worked together. He witnessed a lot of negative discussion about the applicant when her unit would not extend her deployment orders. Some of the discussions were disrespectful, unprofessional, and demonstrated bias. He witnessed or observed personnel carrying cell phones and using unapproved cell phones around SIPR equipment. He witnessed some security violations by other personnel whose cell phones were not searched. 
 
10.  The sworn statement from MAJ M____, 11 October 2019, states he was the Advanced Operating Base – North Commander in Afghanistan. He interacted with the applicant nearly every day. Personal cell phones were used in the operations center 
around SIPR equipment when working with partner forces who were only reachable by their cell phones. He never saw anything from the applicant that would lead him to question her security practices and he does not believe she would place her aircrews or coalition advisors at risk through negligent or unsafe practices under any circumstances. 
 
11.  The summarized transcript of the Withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board Proceedings, 19 October 2019, shows the board was called to determine if the applicant should have her federal recognition withdrawn due to an act of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer. The applicant was notified by the convening authority via memorandum, 29 May 2019, of the matters that gave rise to consideration of withdrawal of federal recognition. (Note: The memorandum from the convening authority is not available for review. The specific reasons for consideration by the Federal Recognition Board are not enumerated in the documents provided by the applicant or available in her AMHRR.) 
 
 a.  Counsel asks the Board to consider the applicant's whole career, not just her actions in Afghanistan. The applicant is taking responsibility for what she did and is not making excuses. The applicant admitted she left her M9 weapon in a secured bathroom. She admitted she gave dormitory codes to a trusted German ally. There are counter arguments for the other issues. 
 
 b.  The applicant highlighted portions of CPT G____'s testimony to the board. CPT G____ attested to her work ethic and the high operations tempo during their deployment. He stated that non-secure cell phones were common in secure areas due to the necessity of coordinating quickly with Afghan partners. 
 
 c.  The applicant highlighted portions of MAJ M____'s testimony to the board. MAJ M____ was the applicant's commander during deployment. He attested to the high operations tempo. He admitted to personally making mistakes on concepts of operations. He stated it was not uncommon to see non-secure cell phones in secure areas. 
 
 d.  The board president stated the board found, via secret ballot, that the applicant did not engage in moral or professional dereliction pursuant to National Guard Regulation 635-101 (Efficiency and Physical Fitness Boards), paragraph 9d (Acts of Intemperance or Personal Misconduct) and paragraph 9f (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer), for all allegations brought before the board. 
 
12.  The applicant's memorandum for record (Incorrect and Noteworthy Items from Transcript from Withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board Proceedings 19-20 October 2019), 25 June 2020, enumerates errors in the summarized transcript that bear most directly upon her security clearance or that are important to provide context. She states:  
 a.  She was alleged to have misappropriated U.S. Government property which was never marked or identified as U.S. Government property, and she was personally notified that the property was left behind by the room occupant prior to when she moved in. The S-4 also verified the property was not on any property book. Her purpose for submitting this record is because she perceived some professional or racial bias of facts that are easily verifiable and were used to support suspension of her security clearance and other adverse administrative actions. In the Equal Opportunity complaint that she filed in the spring of 2019, she explained that 10 of 13 total African Americans received adverse administrative actions up to and including release from duty/assignment at MAJ W____'s direct recommendation and his unproven sworn statements. Supporting evidence is available upon request in the form of sworn statements from several individuals who were not given the opportunity to testify before the Withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board. 
 
 b.  The second error pertains to issuance of her SIPR token, addressed in the transcript. Page 44 inaccurately states that "Respondent says that she went through a series of 30 CBTs [computer-based training sessions] in Bagram where she applied for a SIPR token and received it there as well as completed annual IA [Information Assurance] training." This does not reflect her testimony. The transcript should state that she told the board that she completed 30 computer-based training sessions at the Continental United States Replacement Center at Fort Bliss, TX, and she signed for and received her SIPR token, a controlled item with records, at Fort Bragg, NC. The accuracy of her testimony in this regard can be verified through records at Fort Bliss, TX, and Fort Bragg, NC, and through standard mobilization procedures, which set forth guidance about issuance of controlled SIPR tokens. 
 
 c.  These updates do not in any way negate her acceptance of full responsibility for any mistakes she made. She remains fully remorseful and aware of her errors, and she had absolutely no malicious intent. She is simply addressing significant errors that provide context for the pivotal testimony in this official record. 
 
13.  The DASEB Record of Proceedings in Docket Number AR20200009429, 15 December 2020, shows the DASEB, by unanimous vote, determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial relief of the applicant's request to remove the GOMOR, 7 December 2018, from her AMHRR or, alternatively, transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of her AMHRR. 
 
 a.  The board directed transferring the GOMOR, 7 December 2018, and allied documents to the restricted folder of her AMHRR. 
 
 b.  This action is not retroactive and therefore does not constitute grounds for promotion reconsideration, if previously non-selected. 
 
 c.  The board further directed filing the decision memorandum and allied documents in the restricted folder of her AMHRR. 
 
14.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR revealed the GOMOR is filed in the restricted folder. 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
1.  The Board determined 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 military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for several poor decisions: She committed serious security violations when she willfully downgraded the classification of material without proper authority with the intention of distributing the classified material to Afghan partners who were not authorized to receive the material. Additionally, she photographed a classified/secure computer screen with a non-secure cellular device, further demonstrating her disregard for the rules surrounding the sensitive nature of classified material. Additionally, on multiple occasions she did not maintain positive control of her assigned weapons. She violated policy by allowing members of the opposite gender to access her billet and by distributing the secure dormitory codes to individuals who were not authorized access. Additionally, she misused and otherwise improperly disposed of U.S. Government property issued to her.  
 
 a.  The evidence shows the applicant was provided an opportunity to submit matters on her own behalf and she did so. The imposing CG considered the facts and circumstances of her case as well as her rebuttal and ordered the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. The GOMOR is filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. She petitioned the DASEB to remove the GOMOR, but her request was partially granted by transferring it to the restricted section.    
 
 b.  The Board is aware that a GOMOR is primarily used as a tool for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance, to train, and rehabilitate Soldiers. However, it is also true that the quality of service of a Soldier in the Army is affected by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit in the Army or prejudicial to good order and discipline. Once the GOMOR was filed in her OMPF it became a permanent record and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. The Board was not persuaded by the applicant’s contention. The Board found the GOMOR is properly filed and the applicant has not proven this GOMOR to be either untrue or unjust or that it has served its purpose.  
Thus, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to support its removal from her OMPF.  
 
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
xx: xx: xx: 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. 
 
  9/12/2023

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), 1 March 2006, 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. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 380-5 (Army Information Security Program), 22 October 2019, prescribes Department of the Army policy for the classification, downgrading, declassification, transmission, transportation, and safeguarding of information requiring protection in the interests of national security. It primarily pertains to classified national security information, or classified information, but also addresses Controlled Unclassified Information. For purposes of this regulation, classified national security information, or classified information, is defined as information and/or material that has been determined, pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or any applicable predecessor order, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its appropriate classification. Except for classified information released to a foreign government or international organization, and under the safeguarding of that country or organization, U.S. classified material will only be retained in foreign countries when necessary to satisfy specific U.S. Government requirements. Commanders will take into consideration the additional risk associated with storing, discussing, and processing classified information outside the United States when establishing procedures to implement this regulation. Particular attention will be paid to the foreign release requirements of Army Regulation 380-10 (Foreign Disclosure and Contacts with Foreign Representatives), making sure that classified material is not accessed by foreign personnel not authorized access to the information. U.S. classified material in foreign countries will be stored in accordance with Department of Defense Manual 5200.01 (Department of Defense Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information), Volume 3. 
 
4.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), 10 April 2018, sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army 
members in individual official personnel files; ensured that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensured that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. 
 
 a.  Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files) states 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.  Paragraph 3-5 (Filing of Nonpunitive Administrative Memoranda of Reprimand, Admonition, or Censure) states nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure in official personnel files, such as 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) states 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. 
 
5.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), 7 April 2014, prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 (Authority for Filing or Removing Documents in the AMHRR Folders) provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//