IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006891 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 18 October 2014, from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * reversal of her involuntary separation from the Army * promotion to the rank/grade of major (MAJ)/O-4 * alternatively, consideration for promotion to the rank/grade of MAJ/O-4 by a special selection board (SSB) 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) * Counsel's Brief in Support of Application for Correction of Records, undated, with 11 exhibits – * Exhibit 1 – * Biographical Summary, 22 March 2022 * DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award (For Other Than Valor) of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Meritorious Service Medal), 20 September 1994 * three Army Commendation Medal Certificates, 26 October 1994, 22 January 2012, and 17 April 2013 * two DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award), 14 November 2007 and 6 September 2011 * Army Achievement Medal Certificate, 6 November 2007) * Arizona Army National Guard Form 600-22b (Memorandum for Record (Authorization for State Awards)), 1 August 2009 * German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency in Silver Certificate, 4 January 2010 * 850th Military Police Battalion Memorandum for Record (Shoulder Sleeve Insignia – Former Wartime Service), 11 September 2012 * 3rd Army U.S. Army Central (Shoulder Sleeve Insignia – Former Wartime Service), 12 September 2012 * Third Army (U.S. Army Central) Memorandum (Shoulder Sleeve Insignia – Former Wartime Service), 12 September 2012 * Headquarters, 158th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Memorandum (Award of Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal), 28 November 2012 * Army Commendation Medal Certificate, 17 April 2013 * 850th Military Police Battalion Memorandum (Statement of Former Wartime Service), 11 February 2013 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 158th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Memorandum (Award of Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal), 17 November 2015 * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) (State Awards), 17 December 2015 * six Character Statements – * Colonel 22 April 2022 (unsigned) * Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) 12 April 2022 * MAJ 13 April 2022 * Ms. 12 April 2022 * Captain (CPT) 11 April 2022 * Sergeant First Class (SFC) 4 April 2022 (unsigned) * Exhibit 2 – DD Form 149, 2 September 2020 * Exhibit 3 – * Joint Forces Headquarters-Arizona Memorandum (GOMOR), 18 October 2014 * Joint Forces Headquarters-Arizona Memorandum (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Letter of Reprimand), 18 October 2014 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 158th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Memorandum (Rebuttal to Suggested GOMOR Concerning (Applicant)), 4 November 2014 * Joint Forces Headquarters-Arizona Memorandum (Decision Regarding Filing Disposition of GOMOR), 17 November 2014 * Exhibit 4 – DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 10 August 2020 * Exhibit 5 – * 200th Military Police Command Memorandum (Initiation of Involuntary Separation, (Applicant)), 14 March 2020 * DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014 * OER Rebuttal Statement, undated * Exhibit 6 – Memorandum (Involuntary Separation of (Applicant)), 17 September 2020 * Exhibit 7 – Email (Notification of Non-Selection First Time Fiscal Year 2020 MAJ Army Promotion List), 16 July 2020 * Exhibit 8 – Email (Reply: (Applicant) – Officer Transferred with Non- Transferrable Flags), 11 August 2020 through 5 February 2022 * Exhibit 9 – Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) Docket Number AR20200008477, 22 September 2020 * Exhibit 10 – * Headquarters, 63d Readiness Division, Memorandum (Options Upon Non- Selection for Promotion after Second Consideration CPT and MAJ (No Selected Continuation)), undated * Reserve Status Statement and Election of Rights (blank) * Exhibit 11 – Email ((Applicant) – Recorder Contact), 22-24 January 2022 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1991 and transferred to the Army Reserve in 2017. She has served honorably for 23 years, receiving numerous awards and commendations for her service. However, when she was serving in the rank/grade of first lieutenant (1LT)/O-1 in the Arizona Army National Guard, she met SFC during a deployment in Qatar in 2012-2013. They fell in love. When she told SFC that she was told she could not talk to him anymore, he threatened to end his life. She had previously experienced two other Soldiers committing suicide, so she took SFC to the medical facilities and he was prescribed medications. Once they returned to the United States, they were married in November 2013. The applicant received a GOMOR, 19 October 2014, for her relationship with her former husband and a prior relationship. b. Later, the applicant learned her husband suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was sporadically taking his medication. In April 2014, he threatened his own life and the applicant's life, and she had to involve the police. Her husband continued to take his medication sporadically and he filed for divorce in 2015. In 2017, the applicant left the Army National Guard and later joined the U.S. Army Reserve. She now suffers with PTSD. c. On 25 July 2018, the applicant received a code "L" (Commander's Investigation) flag for a command investigation which ended in her favor with no adverse action and the flag was removed in October 2019. d. On 14 March 2020, involuntary separation action was initiated against the applicant, requiring her to show cause for retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers), paragraph 2-13 (Acts of Misconduct or Moral or Professional Dereliction). The underlying factual allegation(s) were: (1) She violated Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 2-13d, as evidenced by the allegations of two inappropriate relationships stated in a permanently filed GOMOR, 18 October 2014, and an OER covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014. (2) She violated Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 2-13p, as evidenced by the allegations of two inappropriate relationships stated in a permanently filed GOMOR, 18 October 2014, and an OER covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014. However, she did not receive notice of this memorandum until September 2020. On 16 July 2020, she was notified that she was not selected for promotion to MAJ. There was no reason given as to why the board did not select her for promotion. She met all the qualifications at the time of the promotion board; her OER was submitted timely (prior to 26 November 2019) and her OER through date met the 28 August 2019 criteria. However, unbeknownst to her, she was not promotable at the time, as indicated in an email from 12 August 2020. At the time, the applicant had both a code "W" (Headquarters, Department of the Army Use Only – Involuntary Separation) flag and a code "L" flag in her file. The code "L" flag, which was the result of the aforementioned command investigation which ended in her favor in October 2019 was not removed until August 2020. She was not even aware of the memorandum initiating involuntary separation proceedings (the reason for the code "W" flag) until September 2020. e. In addition, the DASEB denied the applicant's request to remove the GOMOR from her AMHRR in September 2020. While her board hearing was pending on the involuntary separation proceedings, she was notified via memorandum, 1 December 2021, that she was again not among those selected for promotion or selective continuation. Because this was her second non-selection for promotion, she was notified that she would be administratively discharged not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the board was approved, unless discharged sooner for other reasons, or she qualified for retention under other options. Thus, the applicant's defense counsel was notified on 24 January 2022 that due to her pending administrative separation, the Army would not further pursue her involuntary separation proceedings. She is currently awaiting administrative separation from the Army and will likely be administratively separated while this request is pending before the Board. f. There are significant due process concerns regarding the handling of this case. The applicant's due process rights were violated by a fundamentally flawed process that was unjustifiably delayed on multiple occasions. While normally the due process requirements afforded to an individual during the course of an investigation are limited, here the applicant should have been afforded at least the protection of a fair and impartial investigation because of the mandatory separation processing that resulted from her failure to be selected for promotion on two occasions. Her due process rights were violated by the fact that it took almost 6 years for the military to begin involuntary separation proceedings since she was presented with the GOMOR. If her misconduct was so severe as to warrant her discharge, it doesn't to seem justifiable for the Army to wait almost 6 years to begin the process. Furthermore, if the applicant were ever afforded the opportunity for a board hearing regarding her involuntary separation, her ability to provide her own defense would be greatly limited by the length of time that transpired since 2014. g. Secondly, there were significant delays regarding her ability to address her code "L" and code "W" flags, which prevented her from being promoted. When she was not selected for promotion in July 2020, she had both a code "L" flag and a code "W" flag against her record. Her code "L" flag was for a command investigation which ended in her favor in October 2019, but the code "L" flag was not removed until August 2020, after she had already been passed over for promotion the first time. Furthermore, after her involuntary separation proceedings were officially filed in March 2020, she never actually received notice of the proceedings until September 2020. Then while she was waiting for her hearing before the separation board, she was not selected for promotion a second time in December 2021. If her code "L" flag had been removed in a timely manner, and if the Army had not waited almost 6 years to begin her involuntary separation proceedings, and if she had been given the opportunity to have her case heard, it is possible that she would have prevailed in her case, had both her code "L" flag and code "W" removed, and been selected for promotion. However, she was denied that opportunity and now suffers the consequences of the Army's unjustified delays and mishandling of her case. With the delay in removing her code "L" flag and not being given the opportunity to have her code "W" flag removed, it was effectively impossible for her to be selected for promotion. Since she was not selected for promotion on two occasions, she is now facing administrative discharge from the Army. h. In addition to the due process concerns stated above, the applicant is requesting correction of her records to prevent a material injustice and to ensure fundamental fairness. The memorandum provided guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency. In the guidance attached to that memorandum, there are several areas, among others, that are specifically mentioned for boards to consider in determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency. One consideration is whether similarly situated service members have received disparate punishments. In addition, boards should also consider, when applicable, factors such as: (a) the length of time since misconduct; (b) acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct; (c) the degree to which the requested relief is necessary for the applicant; (d) character and reputation of the applicant; (e) meritorious service in Government or other endeavors; (f) availability of other remedies; (g) job history; (h) character references; and (i) letters of recommendation. When all these factors are considered in the applicant's case, it is clear that correction of her military records is warranted. i. The first reason a correction of records is warranted is because the applicant was the subject of discrimination based upon her gender due to the fact that she was treated disparately when compared to similarly situated service members of the opposite sex. The applicant in this case received a GOMOR, 18 October 2014, based upon allegations of two inappropriate relationships. This GOMOR was the basis for her involuntary separation proceedings and likely a significant contributing factor in why she was not selected for promotion on two occasions. While the applicant received a GOMOR and was being processed for involuntary separation, the men who were part these relationships have never received any form or punishment or reprimand for their involvement to the applicant's knowledge. Also, the applicant's relationship with MAJ occurred while they were deployed in the Middle East and was known by her command at the time. She was not reprimanded for that relationship until after she returned to the United States. The second relationship with her former husband, SFC occurred for only a few months before they were married while he was in Ohio and she was in Arizona. Nevertheless, SFC was never reprimanded or punished for the relationship and received an honorable discharge from the Army. Therefore, it hardly seems equitable, and certainly gives the appearance of discrimination, to punish the female for her part in the relationship, but the men go completely free of any punishment or negative consequences. j. Moreover, when you consider the other factors in the memorandum, it becomes clear that correction is warranted. First, the misconduct that was the basis for the GOMOR occurred over 7 years ago. She has accepted responsibility for her actions has not had any other reprimands or unfavorable information in her file since 2014. Second, this relief is absolutely necessary for her to continue her military career. She has exhausted her other administrative remedies and it is very likely that the only reason that she has not been selected for promotion on two occasions is the continued stigma of the GOMOR and her code "W" and code "L" flags in her records. k. Thirdly, the applicant's job history and performance indicate she has served with honor and distinction throughout her career. Finally, she has the support of her fellow officers and peers, as indicated by the letters of support. These character references submitted on her behalf reveal her true character and point to the fact that her true character and nature of her overall service outweigh any prior misconduct. 3. Counsel provided the applicant's biographical summary and 11 awards for the Board's consideration. 4. The Joint Forces Headquarters-Arizona memorandum (GOMOR), 18 October 2014, reprimanded the applicant for participating in two inappropriate relationships; specifically, she engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her battalion executive officer (XO) as well as a separate inappropriate relationship with an enlisted Soldier. 5. On 4 November 2014, the applicant submitted her rebuttal to the GOMOR to the imposing authority. She requested not to be issued the GOMOR and, instead, requested issuance of a counseling statement. If the imposing authority decided to retain the GOMOR, she requested placement of the GOMOR in her local file vice her permanent file. She stated: a. As the special project officer and the tax service center officer in charge, she was required to interact with Soldiers to promote and coordinate special events. As such, many of her interactions with the Soldiers in her unit may have appeared more social in nature and could have been misconstrued as fraternization. b. Her relationship with her battalion XO, MAJ occurred during a deployment outside of the command structure of the Arizona Army National Guard. Her relationship with her battalion XO, who was her unit acting XO at the time, was known by her command and they were not reprimanded. It was only after her return from deployment that her personal relationship with him was subjected to an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation. To the best of her knowledge, her battalion XO was not reprimanded for this relationship, either overseas or in the Arizona Army National Guard. c. Her relationship with her future husband occurred after her return to Arizona while he was living in Ohio. d. She and her husband were attracted to one another when they met during deployment. However, they maintained a professional relationship until after they returned to the United States. It was after the deployment that she reached out to him. She was in and he was in. She realized he was enlisted and she was an officer. She considered their physical distance from each other, his pending separation from the Army, and the fact that their relationship would not have any impact on her command, and decided to become romantically involved. None of the requirements of Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy), paragraph 14-4b, would apply to their relationship. e. Per Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 14-4c(2), when evidence of fraternization between an officer and enlisted member prior to their marriage exists, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization. Commanders have a wide range of responses available, including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action, or adverse action. Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is appropriate. Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied. f. Considering her husband was no longer enlisted in the Army National Guard and the only aspect of their relationship was a technical violation of the regulation for a few months before they were married, receiving a GOMOR seemed to be much more punitive than necessary. Ultimately, such a reprimand would end her career. At a minimum, she should receive a counseling for the relationship that led to their marriage. 6. Joint Forces Headquarters-Arizona memorandum (Decision Regarding Filing Disposition of GOMOR), 17 November 2014, states that after consideration of the relevant facts and evidence, the imposing authority decided to permanently file the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. 7. The applicant's OER covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014 shows she received a referred extended annual OER. The OER was signed by the rater, senior rater, and applicant between 7 November 2014 and 7 December 2014. a. In Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes), block b (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), her rater marked "CAPABLE" and commented, in part: "[Applicant] has demonstrated a failure to uphold the Army Values and make sound decisions." b. In Part IV, block c1 (Character), her rater commented, in part: "[Applicant] failed to adhere to the Army Values based on findings of an AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation. [Applicant] was found to have violated AR [Army Regulation] 600-20 by having two inappropriate relationships. [Applicant] was additionally found to be dishonest during the investigation of the prohibited relationships." c. In Part IV, block c3 (Intellect), her rater commented: "[Applicant] failed to demonstrate sound judgment by involving herself in two relationships what violated the Army's Command Policy on fraternization. [Applicant] received training on the regulation but the findings of the AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation demonstrate that she fails to understand her actions and decisions violated Army regulations." d. In Part VI (Senior Rater), block a (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), her senior rater marked "NOT QUALIFIED" and commented, in part: "[Applicant] failed to conduct herself in accordance with the Army Values based on the findings of an AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation. She needs continued junior officer development in order to improve her personal responsibility and judgment skills." 8. On 23 November 2014, the letter of referral that accompanied the DA Form 67-10-1 covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014, was completed. The letter informed the applicant that the specific reason for her referred OER is that she violated Army Regulation 600-20 by having two inappropriate relationships and failed to adhere to the Army Values based on the findings of an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. She was given a suspense date of 7 December 2014 to submit comments to her referred OER. 9. On an unspecified date, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to her referred OER. She stated she did not concur with the referred OER. She further stated: a. She admitted to having a relationship with an officer during deployment that was outside the command structure of the Arizona Army National Guard. Her relationship was known by her command at the time and they were not reprimanded. It was 6 months after she returned from her deployment that her personal relationship with the officer was subjected to an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. To the best of her knowledge, the officer with whom she was involved was not reprimanded for this relationship while overseas or upon his return to Arizona. Officers are allowed to date one another. b. Her husband, a senior noncommissioned officer, and she maintained a professional relationship while overseas until after they returned to the United States. He lived in Ohio and was not in the Arizona Army National Guard. She realized he was enlisted and she was an officer, but she considered the physical distance between them, his pending separation from the military, and that their relationship would not have any impact on her command. They became romantically involved and later married. c. Commanders have a wide range of responses available to them, including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action, or adverse action. Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is appropriate. Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied. Considering that her husband is no longer in the Arm and the only aspect of their relationship was a technical violation of the regulation for a few months before they were married, receiving a referred OER and a GOMOR seems to be much more punitive than necessary. 10. The 200th Military Police Command memorandum (Initiation of Involuntary Separation, (Applicant)), 14 March 2020, notified the applicant that she was required to show cause for retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 2-13. The underlying factual allegations were: a. She violated Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 2-13d, as evidenced by the allegations of two inappropriate relationships stated in the permanently filed GOMOR, 18 October 2014, and her OER covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014. b. She violated Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 2-13p, as evidenced by the allegations of two inappropriate relationships stated in the permanently filed GOMOR, 18 October 2014, and her OER covering the period 15 June 2013 through 17 August 2014. 11. On an unspecified date, the applicant requested a hearing before a Board of Officers and to appear in person at the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry. 12. The email (Notification of Non-Selection First Time Fiscal Year 2020 MAJ Army Promotion List (No Reason Given)), 16 July 2020, states the email served as a standard notification of non-selection for promotion during a Department of the Army Reserve Components Mandatory Selection Board that convened to consider officers in the rank of CPT for promotion. The board examined the performance portion of the official military record. All officers eligible for promotion were considered, but some were not selected for promotion by the board. No reason was given for non-selection. The email is not addressed directly to the applicant. 13. On 10 August 2020, the applicant's code "L" flag was removed effective 10 August 2020. 14. The email (Non-Transferrable Flags), 11-18 August 2020, reflects a conversation between the applicant's supervisory staff administrator, Mr. and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command regarding flags the against the applicant. On 11 August 2020, her code "L" flag was removed. On 18 August 2020, Mr. submitted documentation to the 200th Military Police Command showing the applicant's code "L" flag was removed and requested removal of her code "W" flag. 15. On 17 September 2020 as part of her initiation for separation packet, the applicant indicated she was not a victim of sexual assault for which an unrestricted report was filed within the past 24 months. 16. The email ((Applicant) – Recorder Contact), 24 January 2022, shows the chief of administrative law was informed that the applicant was a two-time non-select for MAJ and thus was facing automatic separation. Under the circumstance, the command would not be proceeding with her administrative separation. 17. On 4 April 2022, SFC provided an unsigned statement of support on behalf of the applicant. He stated he can personally attest to her intelligence, fortitude, and professionalism. Her Soldiers, as well as her peers, confirm her respectable qualities as a company commander and motivator. The applicant has performed her duties in an exceptional manner. She has the ability to push through tough situations and succeed in all environments. She is a driven and competent officer and leader who possesses the traits necessary to continue to excel. He has witnessed the moral standards and ethics that he himself upholds on a daily basis. 18. On 11 April 2022, CPT provided a statement on behalf of the applicant. He stated that upon meeting her, he immediately recognized that she was a leader who led by example. Her company was identified by the U.S. Army Reserve as a Quick Reactionary Force due to the fact that she maintained her unit's individual metrics at greater than 90 percent and could be deployed quickly in a time of war. This distinction is very prestigious. He used the applicant's standards and practices as the model from which he led his company as a commander since 2019. Her quantifiable strengths include mental and physical resiliency, honesty, being firm but fair, being knowledgeable, maintaining the Army Ethos and supporting the Code of Ethics, and leading by example. 19. On 12 April 2022, LTC provided a statement on behalf of the applicant. He was the applicant's commander at the Officer Candidate School (OCS) and her commissioning official. He has known her since 2006. He stated the applicant brings confidence, open mindedness, integrity, and both physical and interpersonal bravery to the Army. He would not commission anyone he would not take back as one of his subordinate platoon leaders (or staff, company commanders, etc.). He believed that about her then and still believes it multiple assignments later. 20. On 12 April 2022, Ms. provided a statement on behalf of the applicant. She stated she has known the applicant since 2008 when they were classmates in OCS. Throughout the many challenges in OCS, the applicant demonstrated resilience, grit, and perseverance. She knows the applicant well enough to know she is a person who takes responsibility for her actions and is always remorseful for wrongdoing. It is not the mistakes that degrade trust and unit cohesion, but the lack of accountability and unequal practice of discipline that do the most damage. The applicant may have made mistakes, but she has expressed regret and has been humbled by this experience. 21. On 13 April 2022, MAJ provided a character statement on behalf of the applicant. She stated she has known the applicant for over 10 years, both professionally and personally. She met the applicant when the applicant was serving in the rank of 1LT during their separate deployments to Qatar from 2012 to 2013. Although they were not in the same command, she was able to observe the applicant in a professional setting. Despite continual adversity, she witnessed the applicant's ability to adapt and make educated decisions during difficult situations, relying on intuition, knowledge, and experience. The applicant is respected among her peers and sought after for advice by current and prior service members within her command/unit. The applicant continues to live by and firmly uphold the Army Values. She has unquestionable loyalty and dedication to the Army's mission, unit, superiors, and subordinates. It is a testament to her leadership when Soldiers from her previous command call her for advice. 22. On 22 April 2022, Colonel provided an unsigned character and recommendation statement on behalf of the applicant. He stated she ranks in the top 10 percent of all officers he has known in his 29 years of service. He has known and worked with her since 2017. The applicant is technically and tactically competent, a hard worker, and an empathetic and effective leader. She excels in her leadership ability, maturity, and decision-making skills. She is an asset to have on staff and achieves regardless of circumstances. Her character is unwavering and she possesses high ethics and morals. 23. On 22 September 2022, the DASEB denied the applicant's request to remove the GOMOR, 18 October 2014, from her AMHRR. The board discussion reflects: a. The applicant stated the GOMOR should be removed because she and her then- husband were not under the same chain of command, they were from two different states, they got married and completed all of their scheduled drills in 2013, and her then-husband left the military less than 6 months after their marriage. b. An administrative reprimand is a management tool within the sole discretion of the imposing authority. The imposing authority clearly stated the applicant participated in two inappropriate relationships. The applicant did not elaborate on the second relationship (with her XO) in her statement to the DASEB. c. The filing of the GOMOR was not unjust. The governing regulation permits the issuance of a written reprimand when there is reasonable belief that someone has deviated from the Army Values, personal conduct, or the expectations of a Soldier. The applicant was given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal statement and any other evidence that she deemed necessary before the imposing authority made his filing determination. The imposing authority considered all the evidence and determined her actions supported issuance of the GOMOR. d. The applicant did not provide a letter from the imposing authority stating the GOMOR was untrue or unjust or that new evidence was being considered. The governing regulation states the officer who directed the filing in the AMHRR of an administrative GOMOR, admonition, or censure may request its revision, alteration, or removal, if later investigation determines it was untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. The basis for such determination must be provided to the DASEB in sufficient detail to justify the request. e. The DASEB, in compliance with Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), does not have a policy of removing unfavorable information based on an alleged injustice resulting in possible elimination from the military. f. There are several/many unknown circumstances surrounding the GOMOR. The applicant has not provided clear and convincing evidence to support removal of the GOMOR. The DASEB must presume regularity. Once a GOMOR is properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. g. Based on the available evidence, the applicant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that shows the GOMOR is inaccurate, unjust, or otherwise flawed. 24. Headquarters, 63rd Readiness Division (U.S. Army Reserve), Orders 22-108- 00018, 18 April 2022, released the applicant from her current assignment and assigned her to the Retired Reserve effective 18 May 2022. 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. The Board determined the applicant knowingly violated Army fraternization policy based on her relationship with a senior noncommissioned officer. The Board agreed 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 removing the GOMOR,18 October 2014, from her Army Military Human Resource Record. 2. The Board found the applicant, nor her counsel demonstrated the existence of a probable error or injustice that would warrant reversal of her involuntary separation from the Army. Furthermore,the Board determined that official promotion and selection boards select members for promotion based upon their performance and potential; the Board does not. The Board may refer records to appear before a special selection board (SSB) for promotion consideration when there is a clear error or injustice. The Board agreed the request for relief has no merit as the available evidence does not clearly indicate that the conditions for referring the applicant to an SSB was met. The Board found, based on the preponderance of evidence the applicant and her counsel did not demonstrated the contents of the GOMOR are substantially incorrect to support removal. Therefore, relief was denied. 3. 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. 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 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. 2. 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. 3. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Thank General Officers), 13 July 2004, prescribed policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States and of commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S. Army Reserve. a. Paragraph 2-10a (General) stated mandatory selection boards will convene each year. These boards will consider Army National Guard of the United States and U.S. Army Reserve officers on the Reserve Active Status List for promotion to CPT through LTC. These boards will consider officers for promotion without regard to vacancies in the next higher grade. b. Paragraph 2-10b (First Consideration) stated first consideration for promotion will occur well in advance of the date the officer will complete the time in grade requirements, as appropriate. c. Paragraph 2-10c (Subsequent Consideration) stated those officers noted in paragraph 2-10b, who were not selected for promotion on the first consideration, and who remain in an active status, will be reconsidered by the next board considering their grade and/or branch. d. Paragraph 3-19 (General) stated officers and warrant officer who have either failed for selection for promotion, or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a promotion advisory board or an SSB, as appropriate. (1) Special selection boards, convened under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act on and after 1 October 1996, will reconsider commissioned officers, (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were wrongly not considered and reconsider commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were considered but not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened on or after 1 October 1996. (2) These boards are convened to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records through error, were not submitted to a mandatory promotion selection board for consideration or contained a material error when reviewed by the mandatory selection board. 4. Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), 16 July 2021, and currently in effect, prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures to assign, attach, detail, remove, or transfer U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers. Paragraph 7-6b (Non-Selection for Promotion After Second Consideration) stated to remove officers who are twice non-selected for promotion to chief warrant officer 3, chief warrant officer 4, MAJ, and LTC on the first day of the seventh month after the month the president approves the selection board report that filed to select the officer for promotion the second time unless selectively continued. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006891 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1