ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 July 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220000852 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 25 March 2020, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * invalidation of the board of inquiry (BOI) recommendation * 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) * Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), Chapter 1, 8 February 2020 * Warrant of Arrest – Misdemeanor (State), 23 February 2020 * Commonwealth of Virginia Summons, 23 February 2020 * U.S. Army Military District of Washington Memorandum (GOMOR), 25 March 2020, with allied documents * U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Memorandum (Initiation of Elimination), 28 February 2021, with allied documents * U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Memorandum (Acknowledgment of Receipt of Notification of Initiation of Elimination (Applicant)), 1 April 2021 * U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort George G. Meade, Memorandum ((Applicant) Appellate Brief Concerning Deficiencies in Board of Inquiry), 14 June 2021 FACTS: 1. The applicant states the GOMOR references three charges; however, he was found not guilty of two of the three charges. Specifically, the charges of reckless driving and refusal to conduct a breathalyzer were not processed. As a result, maintaining the GOMOR is his AMHRR is invalid. Additionally, his disposition as a sexual assault survivor was not taken into consideration in filing the GOMOR because that information was redacted from the reports. Instead, he was encouraged to brief his sexual assault case to the commanding general. This trauma was not taken into consideration of the disposition, which included a separate Military Protective Order violation investigation. The BOI was conducted without inquiry of the reprisal resolved. He is concerned the initiator of the BOI knew of the sexual assault incident and Military Protective Order violation investigation that was conducted at a previous installation and unit. During the initiation of elimination proceedings, he did not receive a memorandum stating the general court-martial convening authority reviewed the separation involving a sexual assault survivor as required by regulatory guidance. The BOI dismissed the allegation, not knowing there was a conflict of interest. His formal allegation/election was made in the officer elimination acknowledgment letter. 2. On 23 April 2020, he was serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of captain/ O-3 and was arrested for driving a motor vehicle on the highway in excess of 80 miles per hour and refusing to provide a breath sample for chemical testing to determine his blood alcohol content as set forth in the Code of Virginia. 3. On 25 March 2020, he was issued a GOMOR for driving while intoxicated, refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, and reckless driving. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, further stated: a. On 23 February 2020, a county police officer pulled the applicant over for driving 86 miles per hour in a posted maximum 55-mile per hour zone and swerving between lanes. Upon making contact, the officer noticed the applicant's glassy and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled an alcoholic beverage. The applicant failed a field sobriety test and refused to provide a sample of his breath or blood as required by Virginia law. The applicant's conduct violated both Virginia law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. b. The Army and this command have consistently emphasized the consequences of drinking and driving. As an officer and company commander, the applicant is charged with the responsibility of setting the standard for others. Clearly, the applicant's actions fell below the standard. There is no excuse for the applicant's irresponsible and improper behavior, and further incidents of this nature may result in more serious action. c. This reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure consistent with Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was considering filing the reprimand permanently in the applicant's AMHRR but would consider any written matters the applicant wished to submit before rendering his filing decision. d. The applicant would acknowledge receipt of this reprimand and had 7 calendar days from receipt to submit any written matters in rebuttal. 4. On 9 April 2020, he submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR wherein he requested filing the reprimand locally and not in his AMHRR. He stated that on the advice of counsel, he would refrain from specifically addressing his actions on the evening of 23 February 2020, because his civil case has not been adjudicated in the court of law. Prior to this incident, he maintained a superb career with an unblemished record of dedication to the mission and displayed a steadfast commitment to the Army Values. Due to the charges presented, he registered for the U.S. Army Garrison Prime for Life Program to take responsibility regardless of the plea in court to show his maturity and professionalism, and he requested to remain on active duty. Three character-reference statements were provided to attest to his professionalism, contributions to the organization effort, and exceptional qualities as a leader. 5. The memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir (Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination), undated, shows the applicant's commander recommended permanently filing the reprimand in his AMHRR. He stated that while he respects the applicant, he does not appear to have fully internalized his actions and accepted appropriate responsibility. His self-report was not entirely honest, and he blamed other factors for his arrest, rather than speeding in excess of 30 miles per hour above the speed limit. He was also troubled by the applicant's refusal to provide a breath sample during his apprehension processing. 6. On 22 April 2020, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. In reaching the determination, he carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances pertaining to this matter, the chain of command's recommendations, and the rebuttal matters submitted. 7. His DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) covering the period 23 June 2019 through 29 April 2020 shows in: a. Part Ii (Reason for Submission), the reason as "05/Relief for Cause"; b. Part IVb (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater marked "Capable" and entered the following comments: "Leading one of the most diverse headquarters companies in the United States Army, [Applicant] took actions to prepare the company for changing circumstances, such as the COVID-19 [Coronavirus Disease 2019] response and the ACFT [Army Combat Fitness Test.] He transitioned the company's mission set by planning for and coordinating the Fort Belvoir JRSOI [Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration]"; c. Part IVc1 (Character), his rater entered the following comments: "In most circumstances, [Applicant] demonstrated the ethics and standards expected of Army Officers. A positive leader, shows empathy to his Soldiers and ensures all are treated equally. Lack of values shown by receiving a GOMOR due to misconduct. Supports SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention], EO [Equal Opportunity], and EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity]"; d. Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), his senior rater marked "Not Qualified"; e. Part VIb (I Currently Senior Rate __ Army Officers in This Grade), his senior rater entered "7"; and f. Part VIc (Comments on Potential), his senior rater entered the following comments: "[Applicant] possesses the desire and intelligence needed for future positions. However, I lost faith in his ability to command and directed relief after an incident for which he received a permanently filed GOMOR." 8. On 17 August 2020, the applicant appeared in county court. The judge ordered a nolle prosequi [decline to prosecute] on prosecution's motion for the misdemeanor charges of reckless driving (speed in excess of 80 miles per hour) and breath refusal. 9. The applicant's rebuttal (redacted) to his officer evaluation report, 6 October 2020, states, in part: a. First and foremost, he accepts full responsibility for the events that resulted in the GOMOR. Until now, his entire focus and response to the GOMOR was to accept responsibility and to redact his (redacted), medical information, and the resulting trauma from the arrest. For him, the record of his (redacted) in his permanent military records is best described as a permanent and visible scar. In years past, the trauma has unearthed anxiety, nightmares, and a paranoid sense of not feeling safe that grew exponentially from one parking lot to a local region. b. Until the evening of 13 March 2020, his leadership was unaware of his status as a (redacted) as it relates to follow-up concerns of the investigation and his safety. The disclosure in the police report left him feeling vulnerable and violated. His focus immediately became redacting information from the police report and he failed to address the events that led to the evening of the arrest. c. On 14 January 2020, he learned (redacted) would not be held liable. He continued to follow up with the criminal investigator regarding his concerns of the investigation and the information presented. During this time, his alcohol consumption increased as he slowly began to realize his efforts to seek justice were not only for himself but for countless others. On 23 February 2020, he was struggling to come to terms with the fact that his (redacted) was still free to continue to victimize others, particularly junior enlisted service members. This experience continued beyond the date of his arrest. His last communication with an investigating officer was 25 February 2020 for the violation of the military protective order by his (redacted). When he reviewed the arrest record, he immediately wanted to protect his medical information. In addition to the victimization of being told his case was unfounded, he struggled to gain some semblance of normalcy and dignity by redacting the police report that was never granted. Notably, the information was listed in the arrest narrative and was thus included with the GOMOR and distributed throughout the Military District of Washington. His battalion commander was aware of the criminal investigation but did not provide any administrative or professional support in protecting his trauma. d. In summary, he felt victimized by the criminal investigation's unfounded finding. He was constantly plagued, resulting in him seeking medical support from behavioral health personnel. While he understood the formality of the nonjudicial administrative proceedings, the embarrassment of speaking with someone with an exhibit containing the assault details and medical conditions made the proceedings unbearable. He developed feelings of paranoia and isolation. He immediately began to feel shunned as he was told of the spillage of his medical information and treatment while arrested was of no concern to the leadership. At the time, he did not believe he had to mention these traumatic events as it related to the filing decision of the GOMOR. e. Words cannot express the feelings he has had to process after the years of encouraging service members to use proper reporting channels, only to receive the investigative finding of unfounded, with a lack of support for his follow-up concerns. He continues to struggle with anxiety after his (redacted) threatened his life and contacted him during the investigative process. However, he is working diligently to grow emotionally and spiritually. He accepts full responsibility for the events that led to 23 February 2020 and wants to continue to serve the Army. Despite the trauma he experienced, he has proven to be a capable leader for many years. Admittedly, he was unprepared for the unexpected reality of the criminal investigation, the resulting reopened wounds, the threats made against his life as a victim, the phone call notifying him of (redacted's) close geographical proximity, and his attempt to communicate with him while in the local area. 10. The memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir (Initiation of Elimination), 26 February 2021, states the applicant is required to show cause for retention on active duty due to his misconduct and moral or professional dereliction as a result of derogatory information filed in his AMHRR. a. The commander stated his actions are based upon the following specific reasons for elimination: * GOMOR, 25 March 2020, filed in his AMHRR * referred officer evaluation report, 6 October 2020, filed in his AMHRR * conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated in the above-referenced GOMOR b. The applicant may have the assistance of an attorney appointed as counsel or seek civilian counsel of his own selection and at no expense to the Government. 11. On 1 April 2021, he acknowledged receipt of initiation of elimination proceedings. Paragraph 5 shows he elected to submit a rebuttal or written statement or documents on his behalf to the general officer show cause authority for consideration. Paragraph 6 shows he reported that he did file an unrestricted report of sexual assault in which he was a victim within the past 24 months and that he does believe this separation action is a direct or indirect result of his sexual assault or his report of the sexual assault. 12. The BOI findings and recommendations, undated, show a board convened to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction and derogatory information. a. The board made the following findings in a closed session and upon secret ballot with a majority vote taken. These allegations were supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant: * drove while intoxicated, resulting in the GOMOR filed in his AMHRR * refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, resulting in the GOMOR filed in his AMHRR * drove recklessly, resulting in the GOMOR filed in his AMHRR * drove while intoxicated – conduct unbecoming an officer – as indicated by the GOMOR * refused to submit to a breathalyzer test – conduct unbecoming an officer – as indicated by the GOMOR * lost the faith of his command in his ability to command, resulting in a referred officer evaluation report, 6 October 2020, filed in his AMHRR b. The board found the allegation that the applicant drove recklessly – conduct unbecoming an officer – as indicated by the GOMOR was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. c. In view of the findings, the board recommended the applicant's separation from the U.S. Army with a general under honorable conditions service characterization. 13. On 14 June 2021, counsel submitted an appellate brief concerning deficiencies in the BOI. He requested BOI action to close the applicant's case and direct his retention because the BOI committed several errors that substantially prejudiced the applicant's rights. Additionally, the applicant is a sexual assault victim and the alleged misconduct is a result of his sexual assault and the Army's failure to handle his allegation appropriately. Finally, the applicant is a valuable asset to the Army and his separation is not in the best interest of the Army or the Soldier. a. The board members received several pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible by the legal advisor. The Government's packet originally included two memorandums that implied the applicant willfully disobeyed an order on two occasions. The applicant objected to this evidence as unfairly prejudicial because on each occasion there were extenuating circumstances that showed he did not disobey an order as the memorandum implied. Before the legal advisor ruled on these objections, the recorder sent this evidence to the board president. It is also evident from one of the board member's comments during the BOI that the other board members also received this evidence. The evidence the recorder sent originally was partially redacted, which the applicant objected to as unfairly prejudicial. The legal advisor sustained the objection and the Government removed the redactions. The board members saw unfairly prejudicial evidence which the applicant had no opportunity to rebut. b. The recorder made several inappropriate comments during the BOI that tainted the proceedings. In her closing, the recorder referenced a Virginia law that had not been introduced into evidence or previously provided to the applicant. The recorder claimed this law stated that an individual could be charged with driving under the influence if the blood alcohol content was under 0.08 percent. The applicant objected because this alleged law was not in evidence nor was it previously provided to the applicant. The objection was sustained, but the board president made remarks expressing frustration because the evidence was relevant. The board president was obviously annoyed, although it was the recorder who violated regulatory guidance by referencing a law that was not introduced into evidence, nor provided to the applicant 10 days in advance of the BOI. c. Earlier in the proceedings, the recorder spoke in specific detail about evidence and testimony the legal advisor ruled inadmissible. The recorder did not respect the legal advisor's rulings and attempted to circumvent the rulings several times and improperly make the board president rule on objections, which he seemed eager to do. In fact, the board president ruled on evidentiary objections during the proceedings in violation of regulatory guidance which requires that the legal advisor rule on all evidentiary objections. d. The bell cannot be un-rung. The board members saw evidence and heard a description of evidence and testimony that was ruled inadmissible. This substantially prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair and impartial proceeding. The recorder attempted to have the board president rule on objections and attempted to present inadmissible evidence to the board members, which contributed to the members' frustration and prejudiced them against the applicant. e. The findings memorandum improperly exaggerated the allegations against the applicant and thus prejudiced him. Regulatory guidance states the findings memorandum should normally mirror the notification memorandum. The applicant's notification memorandum had two bases for separation – derogatory information filed in his AMHRR and conduct becoming due to the derogatory information. However, the board members' findings worksheet had eight separate allegations. The findings worksheet was incredibly redundant, exaggerated the alleged wrongdoing, and made it more likely that the board would elect to separate him because it gave them the ability to make numerous adverse findings against him. The format of the findings memorandum unfairly prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair and impartial proceeding. f. The applicant is a victim of sexual assault. In his election of rights, he indicated that he believed this separation action was a direct or indirect result of his report of sexual assault. Male victims of sexual assault are often not taken seriously due to their gender and are sometimes reprised against. A witness for the respondent testified that she was surprised that the unit chose to initiate separation based on the allegations in the initiation memorandum. It is possible that the applicant's command initiated separation against him because he is a male victim of sexual assault. g. Additionally, evidence was presented that the applicant's sexual assault led to his alleged misconduct that was the basis for the BOI. The applicant testified that after making an unrestricted report of sexual assault, he was stalked and harassed by his assailant, in violation of a military protective order. He was never informed of any consequence to his assailant due to violating the protective order. He was then told to brief his own sexual assault allegation to the Sexual Assault Review Board. Soon after, military police unfounded his sexual assault allegation. As a result, the applicant was emotionally wrecked by this sequence of events and noticed an increase in his alcohol consumption. He was also prescribed Lexapro (escitalopram, used to treat depression and anxiety) for anxiety, which he took the night of his arrest. Lexapro can interact with alcohol to cause an individual to be drowsy, less alert, and less coordinated. h. If the applicant were not the victim of a sexual assault, the events leading to his BOI would not have occurred. It seems that the Army did not take his allegations seriously because of his gender. Apparently nothing was done due to the military protective order violation, his leadership made him brief his own sexual assault case, military police unfounded his allegation, and his command may have initiated his separation due to his allegation. It would be unjust to separate the applicant due to alleged events that were caused by his emotional state in the wake of the Army's missteps in handling his sexual assault allegation. i. Finally, the BOI committed several errors that prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair hearing. The board members saw evidence ruled inadmissible because it was unfairly prejudicial. The alleged wrongdoing has a strong nexus to the Army's failure to properly dispose of the applicant's sexual assault allegation. The applicant is a valuable asset to the Army, as evidenced by the unanimous witness testimony at his BOI. For these reasons, he should be retained. 14. The memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir (Officer Elimination Action, (Applicant)), 5 November 2021, states that after careful consideration of the applicant's BOI report, the findings and recommendations of the BOI, the elimination file, and the appellate matters, the commander recommended the applicant's elimination from the U.S. Army with a general under honorable conditions service characterization. He further stated the action was reviewed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24 and does not appear to be and is not actual retaliation resulting from the applicant filing an unrestricted sexual assault report. Based on the totality of the file and medical documentation, the elimination does not involve a medical condition that is related to sexual assault. The commander further stated the separation is in the best interests of the Soldier and the Army. The case against the alleged offender is closed. 15. The memorandum from the Army Review Boards Agency (Resolution of Unfavorable Information, (Applicant), Case Number AR20210013669), 15 December 2021, shows the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board deliberated on the applicant's petition to remove the GOMOR, 25 March 2020, from his AMHRR. After careful consideration, the Board voted to deny removal of the GOMOR. 16. The memorandum from the Army Review Boards Agency (Officer Elimination Case), 24 May 2022, stated on 2 June 2021, a BOI recommended the applicant's involuntary elimination from the U.S. Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information, with a general under honorable conditions service characterization. An Ad Hoc Review Board subsequently reviewed this case. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) stated he determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated with an honorable service characterization. The elimination is based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, and derogatory information in accordance with paragraph 4-2c. 17. On 16 June 2022, the applicant was honorably discharged in the rank/grade of captain/O-3. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in: * item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 11 years, 9 months, and 24 days * item 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – none * item 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – none * item 23 (Type of Separation) – Discharge * item 24 (Character of Service) – Honorable * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 600-8-24 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Unacceptable Conduct BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found relief is not warranted. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to consider this case fully and fairly without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board found insufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the GOMOR is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the applicant’s AMHRR. The Board determined the GOMOR should not be removed. 3. The Board further found insufficient evidence of a failure of due process or other error in the applicant’s separation processing that would warrant invalidating the BOI’s recommendation. The Board found the conclusions and recommendation of the BOI were fully supported by the record and determined the applicant’s separation was not in error or unjust. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. 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. Paragraph 5-2 states investigating officers 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. 3. 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. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), prescribes policies and procedures governing transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. a. Paragraph 1-35 (Screening and Counseling of Victims of Sexual Assault) provides guidance for screening and counseling of victims of sexual assault. When recommending an administrative separation for any reason, commanders must ensure the separation packet contains a statement signed by the officer with the officer's answers to questions regarding filing an unrestricted report of a sexual assault within the past 24 months. If so, the officer must indicate if he/she believes the separation action is a direct or indirect result of the sexual assault, or his/ her reporting of the sexual assault. The officer's general court-martial convening authority or higher authority will review all administrative separations involving known victims of sexual assault and officers who answered "yes" to any of the questions cited on their signed statements. The reviewing authority will determine if the separation appears to be in retaliation resulting from the officer reporting the sexual assault and will consult with the appropriate medical command personnel if the separation involves a medical condition related to the sexual assault. Finally, the reviewing authority will determine if separation is in the best interest of the Army, the Soldier, or both. Commanders will include a statement that the separation was reviewed in accordance with this paragraph. b. Figure 1-1 provides a sample format for the retention statement to be used on the DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), stating the officer has reviewed Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-23, and has been fully advised of the rights and advantages that may accrue by voluntarily remaining on active duty in the Army beyond the scheduled date of separation for the purpose of completing hospital care and/or physical disability evaluation under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, and has been further fully advised that if he/she elects to be separated from active duty as scheduled, he/she will not be eligible for separation or retirement for physical disability. c. Chapter 4 provides the tasks, rules, and steps for eliminating officers in the Active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security. Paragraph 4-6 states the BOI's purpose is to give the officer a fair and impartial hearing, determining if the officer will be retained in the Army. The Government is responsible to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officer has failed to maintain the standards desired for his/her grade/branch or that the officer's conduct has been prejudicial to national security. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220000852 1 1