IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 September 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011570 APPLICANT REQUESTS: recission of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) memorandum of reprimand (referred to as the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) in numerous documents), 5 August 2021, and expungement of the memorandum of reprimand from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 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) with attachments – * Attachment A – Counsel's Memorandum (Regarding: (Applicant) – Request to Remove Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-Related Derogatory Administrative Action), 31 October 2022 * Attachment B – * Officer Record Brief, 22 July 2021 * DLIFLC Forms 864 (Assessment and Counseling Form) for the following dates – * 17 December 2020 * 4 February 2021 * 11 March 2021 * 9 April 2021 * 10 May 2021 * 2 June 2021 * Joint Foreign Area Officer Course Phase I Certificate of Training, 24 June 2021 * Attachment C – * DLIFLC Memorandum (Memorandum of Reprimand), 5 August 2021 * DLIFLC Memorandum (Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination), 31 August 2021 * U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence and Fort Huachuca Memorandum (GOMOR Filing Determination), 3 December 2021 * Attachment D – Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Force Health Protection Guidance (Supplement 17) Revision 1 – Department of Defense (DOD) Guidance for the Use of Masks, Personal Protective Equipment, and Non- Pharmaceutical Interventions during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic), 22 June 2021 * Attachment E – Applicant's Declaration, 30 June 2021 * Attachment F – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidance, "Your Guide to Masks," 29 June 2021 * Attachment G – Applicant's Email (Continued Issues), 12 July 2021 * Attachment H – Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Memorandum (Request for Religious Accommodation for Exemption from Immunizations – (Applicant), Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944, 48D (Foreign Area Officer – South Asia), Christian (No Denomination), 30 September 2021 * Attachment I – Headquarters, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Memorandum (Religious Accommodation Request – (Applicant)), 30 September 2021 * Attachment J – Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Memorandum (Request for Religious Accommodation for Exemption from Face Masking – (Applicant), Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Presidio of Monterey, CA, 48D (Foreign Area Officer – South Asia), Christian (No Denomination), 16 November 2021 * Attachment K – DLIFLC Pandemic Order Number 8 (Punitive), 17 May 2021 * Attachment L – DLIFLC Email (Reminder Regarding COVID-19 Rules, Masks, Face Shields, and Distancing), 9 July 2021 * Attachment M – Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Updated Guidance for Mask and Screening Testing for all DOD Installations and Other Facilities), 1 March 2022 * Attachment N – * Memorandum for Record ((Applicant)), 12 October 2022 * 60th Inpatient Operations Squadron (Air Mobility Command) Memorandum (Notification of Discharge of Service Member (Applicant)), 24 October 2022 * Attachment O – Physician's Letter, 18 July 2021 FACTS: 1. The applicant states the memorandum of reprimand should be withdrawn/rescinded because the allegation that he violated masking requirements in July 2021 is based on unlawful command orders, which improperly failed to account for his Constitutional First Amendment rights, unjustifiably applied to him but not to other Soldiers based on vaccination status, and improperly applied CDC standards. He defers continuing argument to counsel. 2. Counsel states the masking orders relevant to this case were unlawful military orders as applied to the applicant because they failed to meet the Constitutional strict scrutiny requirement to allow for the applicant's religious needs, failed to effectuate a military benefit since his natural inoculation provided the same protection as the vaccinated individuals who did not have mask requirements, and finally improperly applied standards not actually founded within CDC guidance. 3. DLIFLC Pandemic Order Number 8 (Punitive), 17 May 2021, states all personnel subject to the authority of the DLIFLC Commandant general court-martial convening authority shall comply with the most current DOD, Department of the Army, Force Health Protection Measures, Combined Arms Center, State, and local restrictions. a. Mask Wear (Vaccinated Personnel) on DOD Property. Unless required otherwise by an authority listed above, personnel who are fully vaccinated (those who are at least 2 weeks beyond their final dose) are no longer required to wear a mask, unless indoors where 6-feet social distancing cannot be reasonably maintained, or while on mass transportation. b. Mask Wear (Unvaccinated Personnel) (Punitive). Personnel who are not fully vaccinated must continue to follow DOD mask guidance, including continuing to wear masks indoors, when outdoors, when 6-feet social distancing cannot be reasonably maintained, and while on mass transportation. 4. Six DLIFLC Forms 864, issued between 17 December 2020 through 2 June 2021, show the applicant was assessed and counseled after completion of each unit of his academic schedule. On each DLIFLC Form 864, the applicant received an "A (Superior)" grade. The comments in the Discussion of Issue and Plan of Action are commensurate with a learning environment and stated the areas the applicant did well in and the areas that needed improvement. 5. The Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Force Health Protection Guidance (Supplement 17) Revision 1 – DOD Guidance for the Use of Masks, Personal Protective Equipment, and Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic), 22 June 2021, supplements other references with updated guidance on the use of masks in conjunction with other public health measures, including non-pharmaceutical interventions, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Service members and civilian employees who misrepresent their vaccination status may be subject to appropriate adverse administrative or punitive actions. The revised guidance further stated: a. All individuals who have not been fully vaccinated must wear masks on military installations and adhere to the requirements of the Secretary of Defense memorandum (Use of Masks and Other Public Health Measures), 4 February 2021. The Military Departments will issue guidance on uniform wear for service members. Local commanders and supervisors may elect to establish more stringent guidelines for wearing masks and may require mask wearing as necessary to ensure a safe workforce, to respect host nation or local jurisdiction guidelines, or to ensure mission accomplishment. b. Per the CDC, individuals are considered fully vaccinated against COVID-19 2 weeks after their second dose in a two-dose series, or 2 weeks after administration of a single-dose vaccine. A commander has the authority to verify the vaccination status of service members. 6. On 24 June 2021, the applicant completed the Joint Foreign Area Officer Course Phase I. 7. The CDC guidance for unvaccinated people, titled: "Your Guide to Masks," updated 29 June 2021, states: If you are not fully vaccinated and aged 2 or older, you should wear a mask in indoor public places. In general, you do not need to wear a mask in outdoor settings. – In areas with high numbers of COVID-19 cases, consider wearing a mask in crowded outdoor settings and for activities with close contact with others who are not fully vaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated and have a condition or are taking medications that weaken your immune system, you may need to keep taking steps to protect yourself, like wearing a mask. Talk to your healthcare provider about steps you can take to manage your health and risks. If you are fully vaccinated, see When You've Been Fully Vaccinated. 8. On 30 June 2021, the applicant filed a declaration in support of legal actions against coercive measures and practices to compel uptake of the Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization COVID-19 injections and in support of legal actions to revoke the Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization status for all COVID-19 injections wherein he stated: a. He has experienced various forms of coercion to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and has been ostracized and discriminated against in various work settings due to not receiving a COVID-19 injection. b. He believes he previously contracted COVID-19 in approximately July 2020 when he and his co-worker both got sick at the same time with the same symptoms. His symptoms consisted of fever, extreme fatigue, painful headache, severe brain fog, diarrhea, loss of taste/smell, stuffy noise, issues with his eyes/vision, heart palpitations, and muscle soreness. His co-worker tested positive for COVID-19 with a confirmed positive test. Although he tested negative, his workplace supervisor told him to undergo quarantine, treating his illness as COVID-19 due to the close proximity in a small, contained area in house of sustained close contact leading up to and including the same day as the positive COVID-19 test. He completed the 14-day quarantine and returned to work. According to his primary healthcare physician, he is still suffering from the effects of long COVID. c. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines is going to harm him because he is already being ostracized and negatively impacted in his job for the decision not to receive the vaccine. The future mandate of a COVID-19 vaccine will result in him losing his job and likely receiving punitive legal action. d. He has a natural immunity to COVID-19 and, therefore, he is not a risk of being a COVID-19 spreader. Yet, he is forced to wear a mask and face shield around vaccinated persons because he is deemed a medical threat to those vaccinated. At the same time, he is dealing with the effects of breathing difficulties from long-term COVID-19, while still having to wear personal protective equipment that interferes with this breathing for 8 hours a day in a class where consistent speaking is required. e. He is being threatened in writing via email by his supervisors, stating he should receive the vaccine now so he does not face "difficulties" if he does not receive the vaccine. In several written communications from his supervisors, he was told that he "must" receive the vaccine, although he knew it was not mandated at that time. The word "must" presents a connotation that it is mandatory. 9. The DFIFLC email (Reminder Regarding COVID-19 Rules, Masks, Face Shields, and Distancing), 9 July 2021, describes the definition of fully vaccinated as 2 weeks beyond the second (final) dose of the two-dose vaccine or the single-dose of the one- dose vaccine. The email outlined the scenarios which required personnel to wear masks and face-to-face restrictions. 10. A series of email messages extracted from multiple email messages and packaged together from 9 July 2021 through 12 July 2021, show the applicant developed breathing difficulties in class that prevented him from functioning normally as a student. He went to urgent care. His blood-oxygen levels were measured at 2 percent below normal, but the urgent care doctor was not concerned with him continuing to mask in class since it is the requirement. He eventually returned to class in full prescribed personal protective equipment. He again began having the same breathing/dizziness issues, which started a couple of hours into class. He believes the issues are due to wearing the mask. He is unable to see his medical provider until the next month and asked if there were anything he could do to address his medical issue. 11. The DLIFLC memorandum (Removal of (Applicant) from the Classroom), 15 July 2021, shows the Dean of Persian Farsi School recommended administratively dropping the applicant from class. The applicant's behavior is disruptive and has created a hostile learning environment. 12. The physician's letter, 18 July 2021, states he treated the applicant via Telehealth audio-visual consultation for a COVID-19 upper respiratory infection without pneumonia on 17 May 2021. Although his early polymerase chain reaction test was negative, a false negative test early in this disease is not unusual, and repeat testing was not performed. The physician further states: a. If the applicant's immunity is in question by the applicant's employer, he may be referred to the laboratory/clinic of his employer's choice for confirmation of his exposure/ immunity status at the expense of his employer. b. The applicant is immune from COVID-19 for a period of at least 10 months and is expected to have current immunity that equals or exceeds that provided by vaccination. Vaccination against COVID-19 should not be required for the current year 2021. 13. The 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, DLIFLC, memorandum from the Battalion Commander (Decision to Pull (Applicant), Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion) from Persian Farsi Class on 15 July 2021 Pending Board), 19 July 2021, states the applicant demonstrated that he has not be able to correct his behavior through school, unit requests, or counseling. He supports measures to immediately remove the applicant from class and deems it appropriate for the health and welfare of all other students to keep the applicant out of class pending his board action. 14. The applicant's officer record brief, 22 July 2021, shows his religious affiliation as Christian – no denomination. 15. The redacted 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, DLIFLC, memorandum from the investigating officer (IO) (Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) Investigation to Conduct Preliminary Inquiry Regarding Allegations of a Toxic or Unprofessional Classroom Environment in Class ), 23 July 2021, recommended administrative and/or action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice against the applicant based on the investigation and after carefully considering the evidence collected and sworn statements from all parties questioned. He stated the unit and the schoolhouse must communicate effectively and document serious violations on a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling) to mitigate the development of a hostile learning environment. a. Findings. (1) A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that (Redacted) and the applicant are the only students supported by the evidence who displayed counterproductive leadership, to include bullying, distorting information, refusing to listen to subordinates, abusing authority, blaming others, poor self-control (losing tempers), withholding encouragement, being dishonest, unfairness, unjustness, showing little or no respect, talking down to others, and behaving erratically. (2) A preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the applicant displayed counterproductive leadership. On 14 July 2021, the applicant's behavior was deemed dangerous and disruptive and created a hostile learning environment. He was placed on academic hold and is currently awaiting a board action for disenrollment from the class. (3) A preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that (Redacted) and the applicant showed recurrent counterproductive behavior and had a noticeable impact on the welfare of the students. b. Recommendations. He recommended the unit commanders further investigate the violations by (Redacted) and the applicant and take administrative and/or action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and placement of the applicant on academic disenrollment. 16. The applicant's DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) covering the period 19 November 2019 through 3 August 2021 shows he received a referred report and did not complete the Persian-Farsi Basic Course. The academic evaluation report shows in: a. Part II (Academic Achievement), his rater commented: "[Applicant] was dis- enrolled from the Persian-Farsi Basic Course at the Defense Language IDENTIFIER: Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) due to disciplinary issues prior to course completion. [Applicant] displayed character, presence, and critical thinking skills below the expectation of a Captain by disrespecting and flouting the Commandant's standing pandemic order. [Applicant's] classroom leadership contributed to a flurry of disciplinary issues, derailing the performance of 11 other joint-service students. [Applicant] had an in-course GPA [grade point average] of 3.73 at time of removal, but did not finish the course and therefore did not receive a final GPA, DLPT [Defense Language Proficiency Test], or OPI [Oral Proficiency Interview] score…"; and b. Part III (Overall Academic Achievement), his reviewing official annotated the applicant failed to achieve course standards and commented: "[Applicant] was administratively dis-enrolled [sic] from the Persian-Farsi Basic Course at the DLIFLC for disciplinary reasons. [Applicant's] behavior was disruptive to the teaching staff and students during the course." 17. The DLIFLC memorandum from the Commandant (Memorandum of Reprimand), 5 August 2021, reprimanded the applicant for failing to wear a face covering during class in violation of DLIFLC Pandemic Order 8, placing the health and safety of himself and other military language students and instructors in jeopardy. He was counseled by his military language instructor and was directed to wear a proper face covering. On 7 July 2021, he knowingly violated DFLFLC Pandemic Order 8 by wearing a non-CDC approved paintball mask to class. Again, he was counseled by his chain of command and directed to comply with the general order. On 14 July 2021, he interrupted a class in session by entering the classroom without an approved face covering or shield, waving a face covering on a stick and proclaiming loudly that he was "drinking water." As a result of his deliberate and disruptive behavior, the Dean of the Persian Farsi School directed his immediate removal from class. On 21 July 2021, an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation revealed the applicant engaged in counterproductive leadership, to include disrespecting language instructors. 18. The Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, memorandum from the applicant (Letter of Reprimand Rebuttal Letter, (Applicant)), 31 August 2021, states: a. He wholeheartedly took responsibility and apologized for all his actions that did not meet the level of conduct expected of an officer in the U.S. Army and as a member of the team at the DLIFLC. He will ensure to clearly meet those expectations, to appropriately follow and enforce Army policies in order to guarantee there will be no future hindrances to his ability to positively contribute to successful mission execution at the DLIFLC, embodying a positive example of enduring rehabilitation that will be expected of him going forward. b. He appreciated the opportunity over the past month to have direct conversations with his chain of command, which have allowed him the opportunity to make immediate adjustments that will ensure future success. Furthermore, he appreciated the opportunity to seek counseling from behavioral health professionals, the chaplain, and an outside faith-based counseling organization. Access to these resources, which he will continue to use, have allowed for an indispensable reset to learn and grow in order to properly reintegrate at the DLIFLC if given the opportunity.? c. He respectfully requests consideration for local filing of this GOMOR. 19. The Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, DLIFLC, memorandum from the Commander (Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination), 31 August 2021, recommended permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. He stated that "after reviewing [Applicant's] counseling packet and speaking with select student(s), cadre, and Schoolhouse instructors, I believe that [Applicant] has degraded the institutional learning environment, unit cohesion, and created an overall negative atmosphere for Initial Entry Soldiers, subordinates, and peers. His actions and behavior are a cause for concern, especially being a senior Captain in the U.S. Army. His behavior and actions suggest lack of support to the Army's policies and guidelines, and may be a detriment to national and strategic level objectives." 20. The 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, DLIFLC, memorandum from the Battalion Commander (Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination), 31 August 2021, recommended permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR. He stated the applicant was given several opportunities to correct his behavior in relation to the standing pandemic orders and he did not. The applicant's actions undermined the good order and discipline of the DLIFLC memorandum and he set the wrong example in front of initial entry trainees. The applicant's behavior was not reflective of what is expected of an officer and leader in the U.S. Army. 21. The Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, memorandum from the applicant (Request for Religious Accommodation for Exemption from Immunizations – (Applicant), Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Presidio of Monterey, CA, 48D (Foreign Area Officer – South Asia), Christian (No Denomination)), 30 September 2021, requested religious accommodation for exemptions from vaccinations and immunizations, to include COVID-19 and flu immunizations, in accordance with the standard provided in Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy). He further stated: a. His request is based on his sincere belief in God and the spiritual revelation and instructions the Holy Spirit gave to him early this year (calendar year 2021). He requested exemption from vaccinations and immunizations, which includes the COVID-19 and the flu immunizations due to it burdening his religious belief. b. He became a Christian in Spring 2017. He was baptized in Fall 2019. c. As a Christian, living by faith requires having a personal relationship with God and having the maturity to hear and listen to the Holy Spirit within him. He prayed and asked God about the COVID-19 vaccine. He felt the Holy Spirit strongly guide him and give him personal revelation not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. d. In regard to the vaccines, he clearly heard from God and the course of action He wanted the applicant to take. Therefore, he cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccine, flu vaccine, or any vaccinations in good conscience. 22. The Headquarters, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, memorandum from the Command Chaplain (Religious Accommodation Request – (Applicant)), 30 September 2021, states: a. On 27 September 2021, he conducted a telephonic interview with the applicant addressing his request for religious accommodation. He and the applicant served together previously and he experienced first-hand the applicant's commitment to his religious faith and belief during the that period. b. The applicant requests a religious accommodation with regard to immunizations in accordance with the standards provided in Army Regulation 600-20, Army Regulation 40-562 (Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. c. The applicant's objections stem from his belief that the Holy Spirit guides him not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. As a Christian, he believes that he cannot disobey a direct order that God has given to him personally. d. The applicant verbally communicates his faith. The religious tenets of his Christian faith are sincere and in keeping with his view of scripture in the refusal of the immunization required by the U.S. Army. 23. The Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, memorandum from the applicant (Request for Religious Accommodation for Exemption from Face Masking – (Applicant), Echo Company, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Presidio of Monterey, CA, 48D (Foreign Area Officer – South Asia), Christian (No Denomination)), 16 November 2021, requests religious accommodation for exemptions from face masking – forced covering of the face, which includes covering of the nasal passage and mouth, in accordance with the standard provided in Army Regulation 600-20. He states: a. His request is based on his sincere belief in God and His direction not to wear face masks. He believes the Holy Spirit is his counselor, comforter, and guide in all situations in life. As a follower of Jesus Christ, his physical body is no longer his own and he must live in a way that God requires of him. b. He became a Christian in Spring 2017. He was baptized in Fall 2019. c. As attestation to his religious beliefs, in 2020 he attended a church in Alabama. As a congregation consisting of all races and age groups, they made the decision not to fear the virus and to worship their God, in person, with no mask requirements or social distancing. In this environment, he personally witnessed miraculous healing as the gift of the healing of the Holy Spirit at work. d. He has both documented and undocumented medical issues associated with daily long-term mask wearing and face shielding and the complications of "long" COVID, he wanted to make it 100-percent clear that his primary and foundational belief for requesting accommodation for not wearing a face mask is his deeply held religious believe based on how God directed him to live. 24. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence and Fort Huachuca memorandum from the Commanding General (GOMOR Filing Determination), 3 December 2021, directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the applicant's AMHRR, along with all enclosures, after carefully considering the reprimand, supporting documents, and the recommendations of subordinate commanders. 25. The Under Secretary of Defense memorandum (Updated Guidance for Mask and Screening Testing for all DOD Installations and Other Facilities), 1 March 2022, states that in accordance with the updated guidance released by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force on 28 February 2022, beginning immediately, the following masking and screening testing guidance requirements based on the CDC COVID-19 community levels will apply to all DOD installations and other facilities owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by DOD: a. protocols for high, medium, and low community levels; b. workplace access and mask wearing for DOD personnel with symptoms, a positive test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 remains in effect; c. any previously approved exceptions to the masking requirement remain in effect; d. posting signs and information on their websites clarifying what masking requirements apply on each installation and at each facility; and e. all other force health guidance remains in effect. 26. The applicant's change-of-rater DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) covering the period 14 October 2020 through 28 July 2022 is a referred report and shows in: a. Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes), his rater rated his overall performance as "UNSATISFACTORY" and commented: "[Applicant] is in the bottom 10% of officers I have supervised. His performance during the rated period reflected an unwillingness to put aside personal differences with official U.S. government policy. He facilitated an on-site graduate school fair and spouse program during the Joint Foreign Area Officer Course, but struggled to independently complete other tasks to standard. Officer refused to submit an Officer Evaluation Report Support Form when directed"; and b. Part VI (Senior Rater), his senior rater rated his potential as "NOT QUALIFIED" and commented: "Rated Soldier refuses to sign. #13 of 13 of Captains I senior Rate. No potential for future uniformed service in the United States Army. Do not recommend promotion or further schooling for this officer." 27. The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board Docket Number AR20220008341, 4 October 2022, denied the applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR, 5 August 2021, from the performance folder of his AMHRR. The board determined the evidence presented did not clearly and convincingly establish that the document was untrue or unjust. Therefore, by unanimous vote, the Board determined the overall merits of the case did not warrant the requested relief. 28. The memorandum for record from the psychiatrist ((Applicant)), 12 October 2022, is intended to serve as confirmation that the applicant is currently undergoing in-patient behavioral health treatment at Travis Air Force Base. The applicant is diagnosed as having psychotic disorder and major depressive disorder. The applicant has a history of suicidal ideation and attempt. The psychiatrist further states: a. He was informed that a Board of Inquiry regarding the applicant was scheduled for 14 October 2022. In his professional opinion, it would be highly disruptive to the applicant's ongoing treatment to undergo an adversarial administrative hearing at that time. If the applicant were to attempt to leave the treatment facility to attend the board hearing, he would take action to place the applicant in an involuntary holding status for his health and safety. b. The current treatment goal is to transfer the applicant to a residential treatment facility within a couple of weeks (hopefully sooner). He anticipated an appropriate residential program would last approximately 4 weeks. Under the current circumstances, he did not endorse the applicant's attendance at an adversarial administrative hearing until he completed the anticipated residential program. He was hopeful that the applicant would be well enough to personally appear in approximately 6 weeks. 29. The 60th Inpatient Operations Squadron (Air Mobility Command) memorandum (Notification of Discharge of Service Member (Applicant)), 24 October 2022, states the purpose of the memorandum is to provide unit leadership sufficient clinical information and recommendations to understand the applicant's condition and make reasoned decisions about his safety, duties, and medical care requirements. a. The applicant was admitted to the Joint Inpatient Mental Health Unit on 6 September 2022. Over the course of his hospitalization, his psychiatric symptoms improved to the point that the multidisciplinary treatment team collaboratively determined inpatient psychiatric hospitalization was no longer required. b. The applicant was discharged with a diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder and unspecified psychotic disorder. 30. Thev60th Inpatient Operations Squadron (Air Mobility Command) memorandum (Notification of Hospital Stay for (Applicant)), 24 October 2022, states the applicant was admitted to the Inpatient Acute Psychiatric Unit on 6 September 2022. He was discharged on 25 October 2022 and transferred to a residential program for continued treatment. 31. On 1 April 2023, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of non- selection for permanent promotion. 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. 2. The Board found the decision to reprimand the applicant was fully supported by the evidence and the decision to file the reprimand in his record was executed after the applicant had the benefit of all due process. The Board found insufficient evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the document in question was untrue or unjust and determined the reprimand should remain in his record. ? 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 and in effect at the time, set 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) stated 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) stated 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 6-3a(5) (Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board Process), stated Soldiers who believe that unfavorable information filed in their AMHRR in the form of a memorandum of reprimand, admonition, or censure has served its intended purpose, may submit an appeal to request its transfer to the restricted folder of the AMHRR in accordance with paragraph 7-2d(3). Such appeals must include evidence that: (1) the intended purpose has been served, (2) the Soldier has received at least one evaluation report (not academic) since its imposition, (3) the transfer is in the best interest of the Army, and (4) the Soldier's chain of command at the time of the imposition and/or imposing authority support the transfer in the form of a memorandum. d. 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. The recipient must indicate how the transfer of the unfavorable information would be in the best interest of the Army, thereby warranting transfer of the document to the restricted folder of the AMHRR. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to: statements of support from the imposing authority, the Soldier's current chain of command, the Soldier's chain of command at the time of imposition, and/or other memoranda of support; subsequent evaluation reports (other than academic); notarized witness statements; official documents; court documents; statements of remorse; documents demonstrating rehabilitation; other documents proving the intended purpose of the document has been served; and legal documents. The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board will not consider appeals that merely allege that the intent of the document has been served without supporting evidence. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220011570 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1