IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006040 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigation from the Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS) * removal of the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Command Review Board (CRB) RC2106-03, Calendar Year 2021 (CY21), U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Command Selection List), 3 August 2021 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) * Automated Record Brief, 1 February 2022 * four DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the periods – * 10 July 2006 through 8 February 2007 * 11 May 2011 through 10 May 2012 * 10 May 2012 through 1 January 2012 * 2 January 2012 through 30 November 2013 * seven DA Forms 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) OER) covering the periods – * 1 December 2013 through 30 November 2014 * 1 December 2014 through 30 November 2015 * 1 December 2015 through 7 July 2016 * 7 July 2016 through 6 July 2018 * 7 July 2018 through 6 July 2019 * 10 February 2020 through 16 August 2020 * 17 August 2020 through 20 January 2021 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 9 June 2017 * two Department of the Army Office of the Inspector General (IG) Letters, 11 December 2020 and 17 February 2021, with enclosures – * Results of Investigation, 19 September 2006 * Modified Report of Investigation * Office of the Chief of Army Reserve Memorandum (CRB RC2106-03, CY21, LTC, Command Selection List), 3 August 2021 * Office of the Chief of Army Reserve Memorandum (Announcement of the CY22 USAR LTC Command Board Troop Program Unit and Active Guard Reserve Selections), 12 January 2022 * three Memorandums of Support/Recommendation, 19 January 2022, 2 February 2022, and 9 March 2022 * Email (Erroneous Selection), 21 January 2022 FACTS: 1. The applicant states his chain of command took swift and appropriate action as a result of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. He has done his best to support the Army's mission, serve Soldiers, and try to redeem himself from a past mistake. Despite his best efforts, the presence of the investigation in ARIMS was cause for his removal from the USAR LTC CY22 Battalion Command Selection List. 2. On 17 January 2013 in Docket Number AR, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board granted his request to transfer the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 16 February 2010, to the restricted folder of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The board determined the intent of the GOMOR had served its purpose and transfer of the GOMOR was in the best interest of the Army. The board further determined the record of proceedings and allied documents would be filed in the restricted folder of his AMHRR. Additionally, all allied documents pertaining to his previous requests in Docket Numbers AR and AR would also be transferred to the restricted folder of his AMHRR. 3. On 7 December 2018 in Docket Number AR, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records granted the applicant's request to remove his DA Form 67-10-1 covering the period 11 May 2009 through 10 May 2010 and the GOMOR, 16 February 2010, from his records and placing a statement of non-rated time covering the period 11 May 2009 through 10 May 2010 in his records. 4. On 11 December 2020, the Office of the IG Records Release Office released documents to him pertaining to a 2006 investigation of which he was a subject. The enclosures included were:? a. the Headquarters, 85th Division (Training Support), memorandum (Results of Investigation), 19 September 2006, stating: (1) The allegations reported to the 85th Division IG that he was participating in an improper relationship and fraternizing with an enlisted Soldier in violation of Article 134 (Fraternization), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Army Regulation 600-20 (Command Policy) were referred to his chain of command for appropriate action. The chain of command conducted a Commander's Inquiry and determined the allegations were substantiated. (2) The case is closed; however, the results will be maintained in the IG database under the provisions of Army Regulation 20-1 (IG Activities and Procedures) and Army Regulation 25-400-2 (ARIMS). b. A modified report of investigation reflects a substantiated allegation that he participated in an inappropriate relationship with a married woman. That relationship was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, and Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 4-14 (Relationships between Soldiers of Different Grades). 5. On 17 February 2021, the Office of the IG rendered a letter to the applicant. The letter reflects that in accordance with Army Regulation 20-1, paragraphs 1-5 (Records Management (Recordkeeping) Requirements) and 3-1 (Nature of Inspector General Records and Information), the Army IG system retains its records using the ARIMS retention schedules. Moreover, the current ARIMS retention schedule requires that substantiated findings be retained for 30 years. After a careful review of the information he provided regarding the underlying IG case, The Inspector General did not approve amending (or reversing) the substantiated finding. 6. The Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (CRB RC2106-03, CY21, USAR, LTC, Command Selection List), 3 August 2021, directed removal of the applicant from the CY21, USAR, LTC, Command Selection List. The applicant's name is reflected on the attached USAR LTC Command Board Active Guard Reserve Assignment Selection List. 7. On 19 January 2022, rendered a letter of support on behalf of the applicant to remove the Army Regulation 15-6 report of investigation from ARIMS. Mr. stated he has personally known the applicant for 2 years. During his tenure as the Acting Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and then as its Principle Deputy, he handpicked the applicant to serve as his executive officer. The applicant's professionalism, competence, commitment, character, and leadership are outstanding. He believes the applicant's incident is an isolated lapse of judgment. He is increasingly concerned with a system that will hold a Soldier accountable for a mistake he made as a lieutenant, proceed to promote him several times thereafter, place him on Black Book assignments, and then punish him as a LTC once again for the same offense committed when he was a young Soldier. 8. The Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Announcement of the CY22 USAR LTC Command Board Troop Program Unit and Active Guard Reserve Selections), 12 January 2022, states the Department of the Army Board Secretariat conducted the CY22 USAR LTC Command Board 2-22 June 2021. The Chief of Army Reserve approved the board results on 5 October 2021. 9. An email from the Colonel (COL)/LTC Command Board Program Manager to the applicant (Erroneous Selection), 21 January 2022, informed him that the CY22 USAR LTC command board erroneously slated him to command the Camp Parks Training Area because he is not eligible for battalion and brigade command. On 3 August 2021, the Chief of Army Reserve signed a memorandum removing him from the CY21 Command Selection List. In accordance with Chief of Army Reserve Policy 21-02 (USAR COL and LTC Command Board Program), 29 June 2021, enclosure 4-2 (General Guidance), paragraph 7 (Post-Board Screening), on 3 August 2021, he became ineligible for future LTC or COL command opportunities. Per enclosure 8-1 (Removal from USAR Command Board and Assignment Slate), paragraph 2a (Administrative Removal), the USAR Command G-1 is removing him from the CY22 USAR LTC Command Assignment Selection List and re-slating the position. 10. The Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Administrative Removal from CY22 USAR LTC Command Board Selection, 25 January 2022, formally notified him of his administrative removal as the selectee to command the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area in accordance with Chief of Army Reserve Policy 21-02, enclosure 8, 29 June 2021. On 3 August 2021, the Chief of Army Reserve directed his removal from the CY21 LTC Command Board Selection List based on the recommendation from the CRB; therefore, he is ineligible for future command. 11. On 2 February 2022, Mr Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, rendered a letter of recommendation on behalf of the applicant to have his substantiated Army Regulation 15-6 report of investigation removed from ARIMS. He stated he can personally attest to the applicant's impeccable character, sound ethical and moral decision-making, and outstanding leadership abilities. The applicant is a true professional who embodies everything the Army represents. He is convinced that the applicant's actions leading to the substantiated Army Regulation 15-6 investigation were due to a temporary lapse in judgment and are in no way character flaws or indicative of his true moral or ethical decision-making skills. The applicant's performance and professionalism have been outstanding and his potential is boundless. 12. On 9 March 2022, Mr. Interim President of University, rendered a letter of recommendation on behalf of the applicant to have his substantiated Army Regulation 15-6 report of investigation removed from ARIMS. He stated the applicant is a great officer, Soldiers love him, and he has the moral courage to make the right decisions. He believes the incident did not hurt the Army as the Army took immediate action and the applicant took full responsibility. This incident has impeded the applicant's opportunities because he was removed from the USAR LTC Command Centralized Selection List. The applicant made a mistake. He did not try to hide from it and he grew because of it. The Army is not a zero-defect organization. 13. The applicant submitted for consideration 11 OERs covering the periods 10 July 2006 through 8 February 2007, 11 May 2011 through 6 July 2019, and 10 February 2020 through 20 January 2021. All OERs are commendatory, with the raters evaluating his performance as "Outstanding," "Excels," or "Proficient" and the senior raters evaluating his potential as "Best Qualified" or "Most Qualified." BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within applicant's the military records, the Board found that relief was warranted. The applicant's contentions, his military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. a. The Board reviewed the investigation and the IG’s response to the applicant and determined, based upon the available documentation and the misconduct involved, an injustice was present which warrants correction. Based upon the overall record of the applicant, the Board determined the incident has wrongfully impeded the applicant's career opportunities and deprived the Army of his outstanding leadership. b. It is true that the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical purposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created, unless there is sufficient evidence that shows a material error or injustice. Based upon their review, the Board found sufficient evidence of such an injustice. c. As a matter of justice, the Board determined the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation should be amended from “substantiated” to “unsubstantiated and removal of the AR 15-6 investigation from the Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS), as well as removal of the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Command Review Board (CRB) RC2106-03, Calendar Year 2021 (CY21), U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Command Selection List), 3 August 2021 should be removed from the applicant’s record. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the Modified Report of Investigation Case # to show: * the allegation that [Applicant] participated in an inappropriate relationship with a married woman in violation of Article 134, UCMJ and AR 600-20, Para 4-14 was ‘Unsubstantiated” * the allegation that [Applicant] improperly fraternized with an enlisted soldier in violation of AR 600-20, Par 4-14 was “Unsubstantiated” * removing the Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigation from the Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS) * removing the Memorandum from the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Command Review Board (CRB) RC2106-03, Calendar Year 2021 (CY21), U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Command Selection List), 3 August 2021, from his records 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. The Office of the Chief of Army Reserve memorandum (Chief of Army Reserve Policy Number 21-02: USAR COL and LTC Command Board Program), 29 June 2021, prescribed the procedures and authorities for execution of the USAR COL and LTC Command Board Program. a. Enclosure 4, paragraph 7, states: (1) All officers recommended by the USAR COL and LTC Command boards will undergo a complete Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) post-board screening prior to slating and assuming command. The post-board screening consists of three stages. The first stage is an initial record check by the Department of the Army IG, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, and U.S. Army Central Clearance Facility to identify potential derogatory information. If no derogatory information exists, the post-board screening concludes and clears the officer. If the post-board screening identifies potential derogatory information, HQDA refers the officer to a General Officer Review Board (GORB) (HQDA holds the files in abeyance pending the records review determination and potential forwarding to the GORB). (2) The GORB determines if the derogatory information warrants referral to a CRB. If the GORB determines the derogatory information does not warrant a CRB, the GORB clears the officer, which closes the post-board screening. If the GORB determines the derogatory information is serious enough to question the officer's suitability to command, the GORB refers the officer to a CRB. (3) U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) flags USAR officers referred to a CRB and notifies the officer, the officer's current major subordinate command, and the USAR Command G-1 of the officer's status. HRC provides identified officers with a copy of the alleged derogatory information and officers have 14 days to submit a rebuttal. The officer's rebuttal, along with his/her performance folder and officer record brief goes before the CRB. The CRB determines if the information is enough to warrant the officer's removal from the selection list and forwards the results to the Chief of Army Reserve for final resolution. Upon final resolution of the CRB action, HRC notifies the officer of the Chief of Army Reserve's decision and removes the flag. (a) The Chief of Army Reserve will direct removal of officers found unsuitable for command. This removes the officer's name from the order of merit list and the officer is ineligible to apply for future LTC or COL command opportunities. (b) Officers cleared by the CRB will remain on applicable order of merit lists for consideration for command positions that meet their preferences until the current CY's list expires and may apply for future command boards if otherwise eligible.? b. Enclosure 8 states: (1) The approval authorities indicated on the Approval Matrix may remove officers on a USAR COL and LTC command board and or subsequent slating, either administratively or involuntarily, prior to assumption of command. (2) The USAR Command G-1, on behalf of the convening authority, will remove officers found administratively ineligible for command from the order of merit list(s) after the announcement of the board results due to a personnel data error or change in duty status. Upon discovery of a voiding factor(s), regardless of having been slated or not, the USAR Command G-1 may conduct an administrative removal at any point provided it is completed prior to assumption of command. The USAR Command G-1 will send the notification to the officer and major subordinate command via email and slate the vacated position during the next monthly slate, provided it is a valid vacancy. 2. Army Regulation 20-1 (IG Activities and Procedures), 23 March 2020, prescribes policy and procedures concerning the mission and duties of The Inspector General. It also prescribes duties, missions, standards, and requirements for IGs throughout the Army. Responsibilities are prescribed for commanders and heads of agencies, activities, centers, and installations for the support of IG activities. a. Paragraph 1-5 states the records management requirement for all record numbers, associated forms, and reports required by this regulation are addressed in the Army Records Retention Schedule-Army. Detailed information for all related record numbers, forms, and reports are located in ARIMS. b. Paragraph 3-1 states: (1) The mission of the Army IG records and information release program is to balance the confidentiality of those seeking assistance from, testifying to, and providing information to the IG with the law, with the needs of the Army, and with due process concerns. This balanced release enhances the public's trust in the Army IG system and in the IG's effectiveness as an impartial inspector, assistor, and investigator. All IG records and information, including USAR and Army National Guard IG records and information, belong to the Secretary of the Army. IGs maintain these records and safeguard this information on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of the Army's designated authority for the maintenance and release of all IG records and information is The Inspector General. (2) IG records are documents that IGs produce through the performance of IG duties or documents given to an IG in confidence, such as in the course of receiving an IG complaint. IG records often contain sensitive and confidential information and advice. Army IG records include written or recorded IG work-products created during the course of an IG inspection, assistance inquiry, investigative inquiry, or investigation. Examples include IG reports, IG Network data, or other computer automatic data processing files or data, to include IG notes and working papers. Documents given to the IG in confidence and not referred to the command are considered IG records as well. (3) Non-IG records are documents contained within an IG file created by other Army or Federal agencies or documents from outside the Federal Government. While these records may be under the control of the IG for purposes of conducting inspections, assistance inquiries, investigative inquiries, and investigations, release of these records remains under the jurisdiction of the originating organization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006040 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1