ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 


IN THE CASE OF:  
 

BOARD DATE: 21 June 2022 

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210014068 


APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel, removal of the DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; W01-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 20 December 2019 through 11 May 2020 from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

























•DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552)•Captain (CPT) D____, 450th Movement Control Battalion, Email (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Incident), 18 December 2019•OER covering the period 29 January 2019 through 28 January 2020 (Major(MAJ) S____) (removed – unauthorized access)•Applicant's Email (Criminal Investigation Division Agent), 18 February 2020•Meritorious Service Medal Certificate, 27 April 2020 (Major S____) (removed –unauthorized access)•Applicant's Email (Request for Redress), 18 May 2020•304th Sustainment Brigade Memorandum (Response to (Applicant's) Initial Request for Redress), 3 June 2020•DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 8 June 2020 (CPT D____)•DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 23 June 2020•Applicant's Email (Sworn Statement with 11 Enclosures), 25 June 2020•Three Letters of Support, 1 August through 7 August 2020•Enclosure 1 – Legal Review with Exhibits A through T (Supporting Evidence)•Supplemental Statement, 19 July 2021



FACTS: 

1.The applicant states the evaluation report was factually inaccurate (see ArmyRegulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 1-8c1(a)). For that samereason, the evaluation report contains unproven derogatory information (see ArmyRegulation 623-3, paragraph 3-23(c)).
2.Counsel states the applicant's OER covering the period 20 December 2019 through11 May 2020 has several errors that warrant relief. The evaluation is factuallyinaccurate and contains unproven derogatory information. The rating official wasconflicted by being under investigation due to complaints submitted by the applicant,which calls into question his objectivity. Also, the OER does not reflect an assessmentof performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. It alleges defects in hercharacter and leadership, while both were widely respected. The OER unfairlymemorializes allegations that were resolved with a locally filed reprimand.

a.On 18 December 2019, the applicant made a sexual harassment allegationinvolving the battalion command sergeant major (CSM). In general, the complaint was that the CSM would repeatedly and inappropriately rub her shoulders in a manner that was uncomfortable. One week after her sexual harassment claim, an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigation was ordered into allegations that the applicant had an inappropriate relationship with MAJ S____. 

b.On 13 February 2020, the applicant reported to the U.S. Army CriminalInvestigation Command (CID) that her rater, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) H____, ordered her to falsely report equipment as stolen. 

c.On 3 May 2019, the applicant received the referred OER for the period ending11 May 2020 wherein her rater made negative comments regarding her character and presence. The OER makes the following allegations: the applicant engaged in reprisal and retaliatory behaviors against subordinates, demonstrated poor leadership presence and toxic or inconsistent leadership behavior, caused a perception of an inappropriate relationship, and violated billeting policy. 

d.On 19 August 2020, the applicant submitted her Evaluation Record Letter ofReferral Rated Officer Response, stating: "My rater who perused [pursued] my relief of [for] cause was placed under investigation due to an article 138 [Article 138 (Complaints of Wrongs), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)] I submitted against him prior to the thru [through] date on this evaluation. Therefore, he should have been suspended while investigated and have not been able to rate me. Additionally, I was given a locally filed GOMOR (general officer memorandum of reprimand) through a faulty investigation conducted by my BN XO [battalion executive officer] and hand waved [sic] legal review that ignored all evidence in my favor. I was found toxic due to 5 out of 20 of my Soldier's statements after two good command climate surveys within my first 90 days in command. The last survey being a month before the investigation against me. Lastly the room visitation violation was proven false in another investigation." 

e.The timing of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation is suspect. It was orderedon Christmas, 1 week after the complaint against the CSM. Nonetheless, the 
investigation forming the basis for the contested OER flowed from two Soldiers under her command: Staff Sergeant (SSG) D____ and Sergeant (SGT) H____. In response to disciplinary actions taken against both of them, they made false allegations that the applicant was having an inappropriate relationship with MAJ S____. The following timeline is applicable: 

.31 August 2019 – applicant deployed as the company commander

.2 September 2019 – applicant's rating period began

.25 September 2019 – applicant began having issues with SSG D____ beingaccused of an inappropriate relationship

.11 October 2019 – applicant counseled SSG D____ on her conduct

.14 November 2019 – Command Climate Survey results were published, withno comments regarding the applicant and MAJ S____ appearing to have aninappropriate relationship

.18 December 2019 – applicant sought legal advice on relieving SSG D____and also submitted a sexual harassment complaint against the CSM

.31 December 2019 through 2 January 2020 – SSG D____ created a delay inthe evacuation of embassy personnel by calling the mobility warrant officer tostop the flight allocation, explaining the Soldiers might be absent withoutleave, which resulted in the applicant relieving SSG D____ of her duties

.18 January 2020 – applicant emailed her rater detailing issues withSSG D____



f.SSG D____ had a history of reporting false allegations against superiors to initiateinvestigations. She had previously made a false allegation against the prior detachment sergeant, Sergeant First Class E____, who provided a statement. 

g.SGT H____ had an ongoing personality conflict with the applicant. Thatpersonality conflict manifested in several ways. First, SGT H____ was non-deployable in 2019 and made an unfounded complaint against the applicant because she was not deploying. SSG D____ demanded to take SGT H____ without a waiver, and she deployed in December 2019. When SGT H____ arrived, the applicant promptly sent her to Germany. While in Germany, SGT H____ obtained a waiver and returned to theater; however, she did not bring her required equipment and was unprepared. The applicant again moved SGT H____, counseling her with MAJ S____ as a witness. SGT H____ and SSG D____ appear to have believed that MAJ S____ was responsible for the counseling statement. 

h.The false allegation regarding the applicant and MAJ S____ flowed directly fromSSG D____ and SGT H____. Flaws in the investigation include allegations the applicant was seen at MAJ S____'s room, but there was not a witness who saw them together in his room. The investigating officer did not interview any of the neighboring Soldiers. Other witnesses were interviewed who provided favorable statements and 
contradicted the claims. There was no evidence of an inappropriate relationship and there was never any allegation until SGT H____ arrived and was counseled. 

i.Finally, the applicant did not have an inappropriate relationship with MAJ S____,as evidenced by his favorable OER for the same time frame. Instead, two enlisted Soldiers made the false allegation because of multiple pending disciplinary actions. As a result, the derogatory information is unproven and should be removed. 

3.On 20 December 2019, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army in therank/grade of CPT/O-3.

4.The DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), 29 April 2020, shows theapplicant was counseled by LTC H____, her battalion commander and rater.

a.Part II – Background Information (Purpose of Counseling) stated the purpose asevent-oriented counseling and entered: "To discuss a pattern of retaliatory and reprisal behavior against D____ (258 MCT [Movement Control Team] Detachment NCO [noncommissioned officer]." 

b.Part III – Summary of Counseling (Key Points of Discussion) stated, in part:

(1)On 25 April 2020, they discussed the administrative investigation thatdetailed the applicant's misconduct while serving as a commander. This included her toxic leadership, equal opportunity violations, appearances of improper relations, and violations of unit policies. She was informed a GOMOR would be placed in her local file for 18 months or when reassigned to another general court-martial jurisdiction. The applicant was verbally warned to not take any action that could be considered retaliation against SSG D____. Moreover, the applicant was previously counseled on 20 December 2019 regarding prohibitions against reprisal or retaliation against Soldiers of the Movement Control Team. 

(2)In direct contravention to the above counseling on 25 April 2020, theapplicant contacted the brigade SHARP representative regarding an alleged incident involving SSG D____ (subject) and SGT C____ (victim), which was already addressed as part of the investigation. The applicant failed to disclose the full facts and attempted to mislead the brigade SHARP representative by not disclosing the purpose and content of the previous investigation. 

(3)No SHARP incidents, to include inappropriately touching, should be takenlightly or tolerated. However, it appears the applicant purposely excluded material facts so a SHARP investigation would be conducted against SSG D____, even though she received verbal and written warnings regarding reprisal or retaliation. Furthermore, the applicant was showing a pattern of retaliatory and reprisal behavior when considering 
the email she sent to senior enlisted leaders, stating that SSG D____ will need to be removed from the detachment sergeant position and replaced when she is unsuspended. 

c.The Other Instructions – Plan of Action section states the applicant will ceaseretaliatory and reprisal behavior against members of the 258th Movement Control Team, to include those individuals who did not provide favorable sworn statements in the investigation regarding her misconduct while serving as the detachment commander. Any concerns should be directly communicated to her counselor so he can follow-up through the appropriate channels. Additionally, the applicant will take remedial training regarding what is considered "inappropriate touching" from a SHARP perspective. The rationale for the remedial training was the allegation of inappropriate touching by SSG D____ toward SGT C____. A similar incident occurred on 20 December 2019 regarding CSM E____ touching the applicant's shoulder and she wanted to file a SHARP complaint. At that time, both the victim advocate and brigade SHARP representative informed the applicant that touching a shoulder is not necessarily a SHARP complaint. 

d.The Session Closing and Leader Responsibilities sections are void of entries.













5.The applicant's records contain her OER covering the period 20 December 2019 through 11 May 2020.a.Part Ii (Reason for Submission) lists the reason as "05/Relief for Cause."b.Part IIa1 (Name of Rater) lists H____.c.Part IIa4 (Position, Rater) lists Battalion Commander.d.Part IIc3 (Rank, Senior Rater) lists colonel/O-6.e.Part IIc4 (Position, Senior Rater) lists Brigade Commander.f.Part IIIc (Significant Duties and Responsibilities) states: "Commanding Officer forthe 258 Movement Control Team with an assigned strength of 21 Soldiers at 6 locations in Iraq supporting Operations SPARTAN SHIELD and INHERENT RESOLVE. Responsible for leading, training, supervising, and safety for assigned personnel. Oversee execution of movement control operations and in transit visibility. Responsible for multiple contracts for Movement Control Team ground operations, container inventory, data management, material equipment (MHE), central receiving shipping point operations, air operations, and custodial services. Accountable for administrative actions, training, planning and execution of the Soldiers in the detachment. Responsible 
for MOTE [Modified Table of Organization and Equipment] equipment valued at $3 million." 

g.Part IVb (This Officer's overall Performance is Rated as) shows her rater marked"Unsatisfactory" and entered the comments: "I directed the relief based upon an AR [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation and subsequent GOMOR. [Applicant] did not provide a DA [Form] 67-10-1A [Officer Evaluation Report Support Form] for this evaluation even though requested on multiple occasions." 

h.Part IVc1 (Character) shows her rater entered the comments: "[Applicant]inconsistently displayed the Army Values and the traits of what we expect from our commanders. She engaged in reprisal or retaliatory behavior against subordinates substantiated in a[n] [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation. She did fully support the EO [Equal Opportunity] and SHARP programs." 

i.Part IVc2 (Presence) shows her rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] hadpoor leadership presence. Her toxic or ineffective leadership behavior, the perception of an inappropriate relationship, and violating the brigade command billeting policy, all substantiated in a[n] [Army Regulation] 15-6 investigation, undermined her ability to command and necessitated her relief from command. [Applicant] maintained a high degree of fitness as demonstrated by her 300 score on her record APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test.]" 

j.Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) showsher senior rater marked "Qualified." 

k.Part VIb (I Currently Senior Rate __ Army Officers in This Grade) shows hersenior rater entered "27." 

l.Part VIc (Comments on Potential) shows her senior rater entered the comments:"[Applicant] is a young officer who was placed into a tough company command. [Applicant] received a locally filed GOMOR and a subsequent relief from command OER. [Applicant] has the potential to do well in a company command with appropriate leadership and oversight. Place in assignments of increased responsibility and promote when she becomes eligible." 

6.The applicant's request for redress in accordance with Article 138, UCMJ, and ArmyRegulation 27-10 (Military Justice), undated, made complaints against LTC H____regarding the following issues:

.theft of personal property

.CID investigation

.denial of open door policy


.SHARP retaliation

.suspension of favorable actions

.threats by LTC D____

.OER/support form



7.The 304th Sustainment Brigade memorandum (Response to Applicant's InitialRequest for Redress), 3 June 2020, states, in part:

a.The intent of the Article 138 complaint process is to provide redress to a harmbrought through the actions or inactions of a commander. Redress is defined as the commander's ability to "restore the complainant any rights, privileges, property, or status lost" as a result of that wrong. 

b.The applicant requested a colleague ship her personal belongs home viaU.S. mail in late March and there was no evidence provided indicating she is missing any property. Therefore, no action was taken regarding the allegation of theft. 

c.The applicant's complaint regarding a CID investigation does not cite anyinformation that establishes that this alleged wrong occurred with the 90-day period required by regulatory guidance. Additionally, her allegation does not establish how an investigation where she was not held financially liable would restore any rights, privileges, property, or status lost as a result of the alleged actions. As a result, the requested relief to initiate an investigation is denied. 

d.The command takes allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassmentseriously. An investigation will be initiated regarding her allegations of SHARP retaliation. 

e.The applicant's request for an investigation into LTC H____'s request to providean OER support form does not identify how his action or inaction was in violation of law or regulation. Additionally, she provided no evidence of any abuse of discretion or unfair actions. As such, her request for an investigation into his actions regarding any personnel or administrative actions involving the applicant is denied. 

8.The applicant's sworn statement, 23 June 2020, states, in part:

a.In mid-November 2019, she became aware that SSG D____ and SGT C____were publicly displaying inappropriate behavior. After reporting it to her battalion commander at the time, LTC R____, she was ordered to geographically separate them during their deployment in Kuwait. Later, she learned of additional details regarding inappropriate behavior and made a SHARP report. Knowing that males are often more hesitant to report, she was hoping that someone would reach out to SGT C____ to see if he consented to the encounter. 
b.Additionally, LTC H____ discouraged her from reporting an alleged SHARPviolation to the victim advocate or Sexual Assault Response Coordinator after a senior noncommissioned officer improperly touched her. He stated that the incident was not a SHARP violation. However, her perception was that it was a SHARP violation and an attempt to show dominance over her. The fact that LTC H____ continues to protect the CSM, a senior noncommissioned officer, who touches females makes her concerned for the safety of other females within the command. For example, if he touched a female CPT/O-3, then others may also be in danger. Her observation and prior experience is that touching desensitizes respect and the violation of dignity, allowing violations to escalate from that point. 

c.LTC H____ retaliated against her for reporting an alleged SHARP violation. On29 April 2020, LTC H____ counseled her regarding the SHARP report she made. He incorrectly characterized the findings of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, stating she violated equal opportunity principles, even though the investigation did not make that finding. Further, he stated she was wrong in seeking the opinion of a SHARP representative regarding a possible sexual misconduct issue concerning herself. His counseling indicated she lied to the SHARP representative, which is not true – she provided the information requested. In the same counseling, he advised her that it was inappropriate for her to report CSM E____ for touching her, insisting that a shoulder touch could not be considered sexual harassment. 

d.She is outraged that LTC H____ continues to retaliate against people using theSHARP complaint process. Her goal in reporting was to inform the SHARP personnel to ensure nothing nonconsensual was happening. Regarding the shoulder touching by CSM E____, the conduct made her feel incredibly uncomfortable, unsafe, and violated. She was desperate to make sure the touching did not escalate. Finally, LTC H____ notified her of being relieved of command on the same day as the counseling for her SHARP reporting. 

9.On 21 July 2020, the applicant provided OER comments to her senior rater for herrelief-for-cause evaluation wherein she stated:

a.Her rater commented: "I directed the relief based upon an AR [ArmyRegulation] 15-6 investigation and subsequent GOMOR." However, she strongly disagrees with the findings of the investigation and is appealing the locally filed GOMOR based on newly discovered evidence. Her alleged inappropriate sexual relationship with MAJ S____ was proven to be false after he presented additional evidence during the investigation. The investigating officer stated: "I do not find that MAJ S engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship with [Applicant]" and "there is no direct or irrefutable evidence regarding the sexual component." 

b.Her rater failed to convey his expectations. Despite being her rater for 5 months,he never provided any counseling regarding his expectations. Additionally, he did not provide her with his support form until 17 May 2020. His statement that she failed to provide her OER support form is inaccurate and based on the complaint she filed against him. 

c.Her rater does not have the ability to be objective and fair regarding the OER. Hehas never known her as anything other than a commander under investigation. When she spoke with him and LTC R____ regarding a possible SHARP complaint, her rater brushed her off. His assumption to automatically disbelieve her carried over into all interactions with her. Her rater subsequently counseled her in writing, specifically for making a SHARP inquiry regarding her former Soldier. In fact, she made an inquiry, not a complaint. This incident of retaliation marks her rater's disregard of the regulatory requirements and spirit of the SHARP. As a result of this counseling, her attorney assisted her in drafting a complaint against her rater. Suspiciously, he notified her of the OER in question on the same day that she rendered a statement against him in that investigation, creating a strong perception of retaliation. Additionally, during the GOMOR proceedings, her rater recommended permanently filing the GOMOR issued to her. The GOMOR imposing authority disregarded his recommendation and directed filing the GOMOR locally; however, this may have contributed to her rater's decision to render a negative OER. 

10.The 304th Sustainment Brigade email from the Commander (Army Regulation15-6), 31 August 2020, informed the applicant that the informal investigation of SHARPretaliation allegations against LTC H____ were unsubstantiated and the investigationwas approved on 13 August 2020.

11.A copy of the applicant's locally filed GOMOR and the related informalinvestigations were not provided and are not available for review.

12.On 8 April 2021 in Docket Number AR20210005917, the Army Special ReviewBoard determined the evidence presented did not establish clearly and convincingly thataction was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Therefore, byunanimous vote, the board determined the overall merits did not warrant the requestedrelief. As directed by the board, the decision memorandum would be filed in theapplicant's AMHRR with the evaluation report in question and the appeal documentationwould be filed in the restricted folder of her AMHRR.

BOARD DISCUSSION: 

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 applicant's contentions, her military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully 
considered. The Board found insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the contested report contains administrative or substantive errors or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policies. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown the evaluations rendered by the rating officials represented anything other than their objective judgment and considered opinions at the time the contested evaluation report was prepared or that they exercised faulty judgment in evaluating her as they did. 

BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 

XX: XX: XX: 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. 

XCHAIRPERSON

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 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluations are independent assessments of how well a rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army within the period covered by the report. 
 
 b.  Paragraph 2-5 states the rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rated Soldier responsible for directing and assessing the rated Soldier's performance. Civilian raters will be officially designated on the established rating scheme. 
 
 c.  Paragraph 2-7 states the senior rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rater and a supervisor above all other rating officials in the rated officer's chain of command or chain of supervision. 
 
 d.  Paragraph 3-9 states senior raters will ensure timely submission to Headquarters, Department of the Army, to arrive no later than 90 days after the "THRU" date of the OER for processing and filing in the rated officer's AMHRR. The senior rater maintains responsibility for the OER until it is filed in the AMHRR. OERs are processed and profiled daily as OERs are received, regardless of the "THRU" date of the OER and the senior rater's signature date. An OER failing to process in the sequence desired by the senior rater is not a basis for appealing the OER. 
 
 e.  Paragraph 3-19 states any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning an individual. References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation report. 
 
 f.  Paragraph 3-26 states any comment so derogatory that the evaluation may have an adverse impact on the Soldier's career is a referred or adverse report. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides detailed instructions for handling referred OERs to ensure rated Soldiers know their evaluations contain negative or derogatory information and affords them an opportunity to submit comments, if desired. 
 
 g.  Paragraph 3-37 states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, 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. For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, administrative and substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. 
 
 h.  Paragraph 4-1 states the Evaluation Report Redress Program consists of several elements at various levels of command. 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 correct them once they have occurred. 
 
 i.  Paragraph 4-4 states alleged errors, injustices, and illegalities in a rated Soldier's evaluation report may be brought to the commander's or commandant's attention by the rated Soldier or anyone authorized access to the report. The primary purpose of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at Headquarters, Department of the Army. However, in these after-the-fact cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record. 
 
 j.  Paragraph 4-7 again states an evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 
 
 k.  Paragraph 4-8 states requests for administrative appeal or correction, by either the rated Soldier or the rating chain, will be submitted and received not later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date for an administrative error so significant as to affect not only personnel management decisions, but selection board proceedings and career decisions. Substantive appeals will be submitted and received no later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date. 
 
 l.  Paragraph 4-11 states the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 
2.  Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established by other regulations or directives. Paragraph 5-2 states investigating officers may use whatever method they deem most efficient and effective for acquiring information. Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information may also be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//