IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001416 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), 1 June 2020, and allied documents from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * removal of the DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 14 April 2019 through 19 March 2020 and allied documents from his 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) * U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command Memorandum (GOMOR), 1 June 2020 * 1st Information Operations Command (Land), U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Memorandum (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Reprimand), 9 June 2020 * Memorandum (Rebuttal to Proposed GOMOR), 16 June 2020 * two 1st Information Operations Command (Land), U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Memorandums (Commander Recommendation on Filing Determination), 22 June 2020 * U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command Memorandum (Reprimand Filing Determination), 2 July 2020 * Assignee Memorandum of Understanding, 16 July 2021 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 6 March 2022 * 99th Readiness Division Order Number 061125, 30 May 2022 * DA Form 67-10-1 covering the period 7 June 2021 through 6 June 2022 * Department of the Army Suitability Board (DASEB) Record of Proceedings Docket Number AR20220004989, 28 June 2022 * Email (White House Tour – Confirmed), 17 August 2022 * Federal Bureau of Investigation Official Record of Training for Sections between 1 March 2022 and 23 August 2022 * Part-Time Application Certificate of Intelligences Studies Academic Year 2023- 2024, 19 November 2022 * Officer Record Brief, 31 January 2022 * Various Certificates of Achievement, Appreciation, Award Nominations, and Completion * Various Endorsements FACTS: 1. The applicant states DASEB decision has already directed transfer of the GOMOR and allied documents to the restricted folder of his AMHRR. He now requests removal of the GOMOR and allied documents from his AMHRR. He also requests removal of the referred OER covering the period 14 April 2019 through 19 March 2020 and allied documents from his AMHRR. He further states: a. Removal of the GOMOR is necessary as the transfer to his restricted folder served its intended purpose and would further serve the best interest of the U.S. Army. He is currently in consideration for promotion by the U.S. Army Reserve Promotion Selection Board (PSB), Primary Zone (PZ) Major (MAJ) Board, which will commence on 27 February 2023. In accordance with Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 615 (Information Furnished to Selection Boards), and Section 14107 (Information Furnished by the Secretary Concerned to Promotion Boards), and Department of Defense Instruction 1320.14 (Department of Defense Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures), adverse information that is part of the AMHRR's restricted folder will be provided to the board through a screening process as directed by the Department of the Army. Based on this new regulation and due to the interest of time, not removing the GOMOR from the restricted folder of his AMHRR prior to the U.S. Army Reserve PZ MAJ Board would override the purpose of having a restricted folder and discredit his 3-year long effort in seeking justice of his military records. It is possible that he would be subjected to subsequent PRBs due to the fact that an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigation was conducted and indicated adverse information. This unfavorable information can remove him from the PZ MAJ Board and would count as a non-selection. A PRB can be a 12-month process for a promotion decision, which will include a flag notification to the chain of command. Once again this could negatively influence his daily duties, additional OERs, and the U.S. Army Reserve Above the Zone (AZ) MAJ Board in 2024. b. The cause of error and injustice to his military record was due to consistent bias, chain of command noncompliance, misunderstanding regulations, and technical capabilities in time and place, and exaggerated wait times from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which created areas of influence. c. In terms of the Army Regulation 15-6 inquiry, the investigating officer (IO) failed to check the social media presence or consult a person of technical expertise, automatically creating a bias and an unfair investigation. Additionally, the Army Regulation 15-6 determination that was issued was considered unnecessary at that time. Due to the flags based on the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, the referred OER, and the GOMOR, it omitted performance details during a pivotal point in Afghanistan regarding the retrograde of U.S. military forces as well as emerging technical capabilities that can be shared within the Cyber Community. 2. The applicant's records do not contain an Army Regulation 15-6 report of investigation. However, DASEB Docket Number AR20220004989, 28 June 2022, provided by the applicant and filed in his AMHRR, contains the following information regarding the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, 22 February 2020: a. Summary. On or around 21 January 2020, the applicant (a commissioned officer) and Specialist (SPC) had a social media interaction via Instagram that caused concern due to the platform and comments made about SPC 's appearance. On or about the same day, SPC notified First Lieutenant , who reported the incident to MAJ (the applicant's first line supervisor), and subsequently the chain of command. The investigation revealed the applicant used his phone to send three compliments to SPC , though only two were captured in screenshots of their conversation. b. Findings. (1) The IO found the greater weight of the evidence supported that the applicant did not act in a manner that violated Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy), chapter 7 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment), even considering the messages he sent as verbal sexual harassment, there were no quid pro quo requests, nor did his action create a hostile work environment. (2) The applicant did technically violate the federal law (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1561 (Complaints of Sexual Harassment: Investigation by Command Officers)) and its broad interpretation of "sexual harassment" in that he sent repeated, unwanted messages of a sexual nature. While this definition matches that of Army Regulation 600-20, the federal law does not have the "types of sexual harassment" that seem to restrict its application. Thus, even though SPC did not directly address it with him, instead commenting "thanks" after the first compliment, the IO found the applicant sending her messages about being "amazing," "gorgeous," and "stunning," over the course of 2 hours during one evening met the definition of "repeated unwanted comments of a sexual nature by a person in the military." (3) The applicant did not violate the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 4-19 (Treatment of Persons), because the conduct at issue did not amount to bullying or hazing. (4) The applicant did not violate Army Regulation 600-200, paragraphs 4-14b and 4-14c, because the questionable interactions he had with SPC were one-sided, and aside from those, he was professional in his interactions with SPC . (5) The applicant's conduct does not meet the definition of conduct unbecoming because the conduct is not so severe as to be in line with the statutory consideration for "acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty," nor did they meet the statutory examples. c. Recommendation. In view of the above findings, the IO recommended returning this matter to the applicant's chain of command for further disposition, such as a locally filed letter of counseling emphasizing good conduct and expectations of an officer; training on social media etiquette, privacy, and interactions with coworkers with an emphasis on the perception between officers and enlisted Soldiers; and enrolling in social awareness and emotional intelligence programs. 3. His change-of-rater OER covering the period 14 April 2019 through 19 March 2020 shows the report was referred. The OER further shows in: a. Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes), his rater rated his overall performance as "PROFICIENT" and commented in block c.1 (Character): "Supported SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention], EO [Equal Opportunity], and EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity], with the exception of one uncharacteristic lapse in judgment when it was found he attempted to fraternize with another Soldier. He learned from the situation and has grown as an officer"; and b. Part VI (Senior Rater), his senior rater rated his potential as "QUALIFIED" and commented: "[Applicant] is receiving a referred OER due to a display of poor judgment during this rating period. [Applicant] can rehabilitate his potential for future service. Consider for promotion and ILE [intermediate level education] when potential is demonstrated." 4. U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command memorandum from the Commanding General (GOMOR), 1 June 2020, reprimanded the applicant for attempting to establish an inappropriate relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier. In January 2020, the applicant was attached to the Information Warfare Task Force-Afghanistan. Between the dates of on or about 19 and 21 January 2020, he contacted a junior enlisted Soldier on his personal electronic device by way of his personal social media persona. In his online message to her, he made unsolicited statements to the Soldier, telling her she was "amazing," "gorgeous," and "stunning." He also sent her a picture of himself, and his online communications evolved into face-to-face interactions outside of his official duties. This prompted the Soldier to contact her chain of command and report his conduct. On 9 June 2020, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit written matters. 5. The memorandum from counsel (Rebuttal to Referred OER), 11 June 2020, states: a. A critical review of facts do not support the conclusion that there was sexual harassment, maltreatment, or fraternization in violation of the regulations. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the contention that the applicant committed any form of harassment by virtue of two comments posted on a public Instagram account. At worst, the applicant should be more cognizant that written statements might be misconstrued. It is a minor isolated incident on which an OER should not be based per the regulation. b. The applicant did not harass, mistreat, or fraternize with SPC . The undisputed facts are as follows: (1) It is undisputed that the applicant did not ever have any improper personal interactions with SPC . (2) SPC 's Instagram profile was public. As such, she welcomed anyone to view it or comment. (3) The applicant took pains to identify himself. (4) Two of the three alleged suspect comments can be construed in multiple ways. The words "stunning" and "amazing" can modify a range of nouns and they are not necessarily gender or sexual in nature. They are words commonly used in OERs, commendations, and award narratives. No evidence suggests that they were used in a sexual manner. SPC even thanked the applicant for the compliment. (5) SPC admits that she did not read the entire supposed "gorgeous" comment. She claims only a vague memory of having seen something to that effect pop up in a notification. She cannot provide any corroboration. Her memory is suspect (there are inconsistent details even about the supposed order in which the comments were received). (6) Incredibly, the IO did not bother to actually look at SPC 's Instagram feed or look at other comments to understand the context. (7) Other communications provided by the applicant and his professional interactions with SPC in person lead only to the conclusion that any comments were benign. (8) SPC thought it kind of flattering and, at worst, perhaps weird or funny. She was a participant in the conversation. She just did not want it to continue. (9) There was no adverse impact on her work. 6. The memorandum from counsel (Rebuttal to Proposed GOMOR), 16 June 2020, states: a. The proposed GOMOR alleges the applicant attempted to establish an inappropriate relationship with a female junior enlisted Soldier in January 2020, that he sent her inappropriate statements, and that her "online communications continued into face-to-face interactions outside of [his] official duties." The applicant apologizes for any actions that have been called into question. He has learned from this incident and recognizes that he needs to be more careful in his interactions with enlisted Soldiers such that his behavior is never called into question. Nevertheless, the proposed GOMOR narrative as written is demonstratively false, misleading, exaggerated, and unsupported by the evidence and cannot stand as written. The applicant respectfully requests recission of the GOMOR or, at a minimum, filing at the local level. b. The proposed GOMOR states the applicant would be provided a copy of the evidence which forms the basis for this reprimand. He has not received any evidence with the GOMOR and this rebuttal presumes the GOMOR is solely based on the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation completed in February 2020. A redacted copy was first provided to the applicant on 1 June 2020. The Army Regulation 15-6 IO did not find that the applicant violated any policy, regulation, or statute. The approving authority, however, summarily changed those findings without providing a basis as required under Army Regulation 15-6. The applicant was never given an opportunity to refute any of the substituted findings or recommendations. 7. The letter of referral, 18 June 2020, states the OER covering the period 14 April 2019 through 19 March 2020 was referred to the applicant for acknowledgement. The OER was referred due to a display of poor judgment during the rating period. 8. U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command memorandum from the Commanding General (Reprimand Filing Determination), 2 July 2020, states that after carefully considering the GOMOR; the circumstances of the improper conduct; and all matters submitted by the applicant in defense, extenuation, or mitigation; along with the applicant's supervisor recommendations; he directed permanently filing the GOMOR in the performance folder of the applicant's AMHRR and filing all enclosures forwarded with the reprimand as appropriate. 9. The memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Army and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 16 July 2021, established guidelines for employing the applicant in an active-duty status from 30 August 2021 through 5 March 2022. 10. On 6 March 2022, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of captain/O-3 and transferred to a U.S. Army Reserve unit by reason of completion of required active service. 11. 99th Readiness Division Order Number 061125, 30 May 2022, ordered him to annual training for 14 days beginning 1 July 2022. 12. His annual OER covering the period 7 June 2021 through 6 June 2022 shows his rater rated his overall performance as "PROFICIENT" and his senior rater rated his potential as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED." 13. The applicant's records do not contain direct evidence of a Board of Inquiry (BOI) convened to determine whether he should be retained in the Army. However, DASEB Docket Number AR20220004989, 28 June 2022, provided by the applicant and filed his service record, shows the following information regarding the BOI (date unknown, but conducted after the applicant's GOMOR was issued): a. Findings. (1) The derogatory information contained in the GOMOR, 1 June 2020, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (2) The GOMOR listed factual mistakes regarding the applicant's attempt to establish an inappropriate relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier. (3) The derogatory information contained in the referred OER covering the period 14 April 2019 through 19 March 2020 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (4) The applicant attempted to fraternize with SPC , a junior enlisted Soldier. (5) The allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (6) The GOMOR listed factual mistakes regarding the applicant's attempt to establish an inappropriate relationship with SPC , a junior enlisted Soldier. (7) The allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the referred OER was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The applicant attempted to fraternize with SPC , a junior enlisted Soldier, but this was not conduct unbecoming an officer given the evidence provided. b. Recommendations. The BOI recommended the applicant's retention in the Army. 14. On 28 June 2022, the DASEB determined the evidence presented did not clearly and convincingly establish that the document under consideration was untrue or unjust. Therefore, by unanimous vote, the DASEB determined the overall merits of the case did not warrant removal of the contested GOMOR. DASEB Docket Number AR20220004989 further shows: a. The DASEB, by unanimous vote, determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial relief. As a result, the Board directed transfer of the GOMOR, 1 June 2020, to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. This action was not retroactive and therefore did not constitute grounds for promotion reconsideration, if eligible and previously non-selected. b. The DASEB further directed filing the decision memorandum and allied documents in the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. 15. The applicant provided an email (White House Tour – Confirmed), 17 August 2022, which confirmed his scheduled tour of The White House. 16. The applicant provided numerous certificates of achievement, appreciation, training, and award nominations, as well as other accolades. 17. The applicant provided two character-reference letters for the 2022 Lieutenant General Nomination. Both letters highly endorse the applicant and attest to his prowess and leadership skills. 18. The applicant's AMHRR shows the GOMOR is filed in the restricted folder. 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 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 of the applicants petition and available military records, the Board determined the applicant 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 referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) and the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) are substantially incorrect and support removal. The Board noted, the DASEB decision that directed transfer of the GOMOR, 1 June 2020, to the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. The Board noted, the applicant’s leadership concurred with the punishment and found his actions unacceptable. As such, the Board determined there does not appear to be any evidence the contested OER nor the GOMOR was unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's AMHRR. Therefore, relief was denied. 2. 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 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) (DASEB 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. 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. 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 DASEB will not consider appeals that merely allege that the intent of the document has been served without supporting evidence. 2. Army Regulation 623-3, 4 November 2015, prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) addressed requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier's AMHRR and evaluation reports that are being processed at HQDA, prior to completion. (1) An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. (2) Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier's AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program. (3) Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier's AMHRR file be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored if the request is based on the following: * statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier * statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did * requests that ratings be revised * statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, performance, or potential * statements from rating officials claiming OERs or NCOERs were improperly sequenced to HQDA by the unit or organization * a subsequent statement from a rating official that he or she rendered an inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier's performance or potential in order to preserve higher ratings for other officers or noncommissioned officers (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection) (4) For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the evaluation report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time reports were rendered. (5) An exception is granted for evaluation reports when information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified and this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier. The following actions will be accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report: * if the information would have resulted in a higher evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report and rating officials may provide input to support this point * if the information would have resulted in a lower evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the OER b. Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) stated the program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred. (1) Paragraph 4-3 (Applicability) stated that upon receipt of a request for a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry, the commander or commandant receiving the request will verify the status of the OER in question. If the evaluation has been submitted and received at HQDA for processing, but has not been filed in the Soldier's AMHRR, the commander or commandant will notify the Evaluations Appeals Office via email with a request to have the evaluation placed in a temporarily administrative hold status until completion of the inquiry. (2) Paragraph 4-8a (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. (3) Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: * the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-36a and 4-7a will not be applied to the report under consideration * action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice (4) Paragraph 4-11d stated for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the applicant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. 3. 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) AR20230001416 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1