What Is a Military Letter of Reprimand?

A military letter of reprimand (LOR) is an administrative censure given to a servicemember for alleged failure to comply with military rules or regulations. A letter of reprimand is a serious matter, and servicemembers subject to receiving one should carefully consider their options. A letter of reprimand is important because this letter might stay in a servicemember’s file and impact the ability of that servicemember to be promoted, selected for new training and assignments, or lead to administrative discharge in some circumstances.  Any servicemember that is committed to the military as a career could find an LOR in their record to be seriously problematic.

Letters of reprimand are often issued by General Officers and may sometimes be referred to by the acronym ‘GOMOR’ for General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand.

Service Regulations

In the Army, letters of reprimand are governed by Army Regulation 600-37. In the Air Force, letters of reprimand are governed by AFI 36-2907. The Navy and Marine Corps use nonpunitive letters of concern and letters of instruction. More information regarding these may be found in the Rules for Courts Martial (R.C.M. 306) and JAGMAN (Chapter 1).

The Army GOMOR Process

For this article, I will use the Army structure to describe the LOR process. The same principles generally apply across each branch of service, even though the details of how each service implements them does vary. Therefore, a savvy servicemember dealing with a letter of reprimand should carefully read the letter, review the service regulation that governs the letter, and consult with an experienced military law attorney.

According to AR 600-37, a letter of reprimand may be filed locally or filed in the performance portion of the soldier’s permanent Army Military Human Resource Record. If the reprimand is filed locally, it will remain for up to three years or until the soldier is reassigned to a new command, whichever occurs sooner.

Upon receiving an LOR, the first step is for the soldier to carefully read the letter. The letter will state the deadline for the soldier to respond, which is often 7-10 days from receipt. The soldier’s response is critical, because the Commander that issued the letter can still decide at this point not to file the letter or place the letter in the local file.

The soldier’s statement should address the underlying facts and argue for a particular filing determination. If the letter is permanently filed, the soldier’s statement will be included.

LOR Response Strategies

The primary strategies for a soldier’s response are to deny the allegations, explain in a different way what happened, or mitigate the concerns in the LOR.

• Deny the allegations. Denying the allegations shows that the allegations are factually not true. This may include witness statements and other documentary proof such as emails, text messages, photographs, etc.
• Explain in a different way what happened. Here the soldier is not admitting to the conduct as characterized, but also not denying there is any validity to what occurred. This may include supporting evidence as well.
• Mitigate concerns in the LOR. This entails the soldier admitting to having violated a rule, regulation, or order, apologizing for the violation, and asking for a second chance. It would be wise for the soldier to include acceptance of resulting punishment and indicate that the soldier has already begun remedial measures to address the issue.

In all those strategies, the soldier should consider including favorable information, such as copies of good evaluation ratings, sworn letters attesting to the character and performance of the soldier, and awards previously received.

When drafting a response to an LOR, the soldier should write the statement in memorandum format. It would be wise to work with a team to edit and refine the statement prior to submitting.

After an LOR has been filed-Appeal Options

There is no formal process to seek removal of an LOR from the local file. However, a soldier may request removal by the Commander that issued it with an appeal in memorandum format through the chain of command.

If an LOR has been permanently filed, a soldier may seek removal to the restricted portion of the OMPF through the procedures described in AR 600-37. Unfortunately, for a soldier considering an appeal, this is not easy to accomplish. Once an LOR has been permanently filed, the Army presumes it is administratively correct. The soldier is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations are untrue or unjust thereby warranting removal.

Conclusion

If you are a servicemember dealing with a letter of reprimand, I encourage you to leverage the information provided in this article and reach out to a Nashville military law attorney to explore your best strategy today. Our team of military law attorneys at Cole Law Group are ready to assist. Contact us at 615-490-6020.

At the outset, some of the most significant changes brought about by the new law concern restrictions on the ability of government and private businesses to require individuals to provide proof of having received a COVID-19 vaccination. Specifically, the new law states that “[a] private business, governmental entity, school, or local education agency shall not compel or otherwise take an adverse action against a person to compel the person to provide proof of vaccination if the person objects to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for any reason.”¹ Importantly, the new law contains a broad definition of “private business,” and includes individuals, sole proprietorships, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, trusts, associations, and non-profit entities.² In addition, the new law contains a broad definition of “adverse action,” and includes discrimination “against a person by denying the person employment, privileges, credit, insurance, access, products, services, or other benefits.”³ As a result, under the new law, most private businesses and governmental entities in Tennessee are prohibited from requiring any individual from providing proof of vaccination in the event the person objects to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for any reason, and this prohibition is applicable to employees, customers, or just about any individual who accesses products or services of a private business or covered governmental entity. 

Nevertheless, the new law does contain several important exceptions to the general prohibition of requiring proof of having received a COVID-19 vaccination. The new law does not prevent the implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for Medicare and Medicaid providers, or assisted-care living facilities, federal government contractors or subcontractors, schools, or employers that submit notice in writing to the comptroller of the treasury that compliance with the new law would result in a loss of federal funding.⁴ Moreover, the new law does not prohibit “a place of entertainment” in Tennessee from requiring proof of a negative COVID-19 test in order to gain admission, or to allow a person to voluntarily provide proof of vaccination or proof of COVID-19 antibodies in lieu of presenting a negative COVID-19 test in order to gain admission to a “place of entertainment.”⁵ 

The new law also addresses the implementation of mask mandates throughout much of Tennessee. Under the new law, with certain exceptions, governmental entities are no longer permitted to “require a person to wear a face covering as a condition to access the governmental entity’s premises or facilities, or to receive the benefits of the governmental entity’s products or services, unless severe conditions exist and the requirement is in effect for no more than fourteen (14) days.”⁶ The new law further defines “severe conditions” to mean that: (1) the Governor of Tennessee has declared a state of emergency for COVID-19; and (2) a county has an average rolling fourteen-day COVID-19 infection rate of at least 1,000 new known cases of COVID-19 for every 100,000 residents of the county based on the most recent data published by the department of health.⁷ When “severe conditions” do not exist, many governmental entities are also prohibited from requiring employees from wearing a face covering as a term or condition of employment, or from taking an adverse action against an employee for failing to wear a face covering.⁸ 

In order for a school to implement a mask mandate under the new law, “severe conditions” must exist, the school’s governing body must adopt a policy requiring all persons on school property to wear a face covering, and the school must provide face coverings meeting the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health N95 classification of air filtration for persons 12 years of age and older.⁹ Even if these requirements are met, the new law does not permit schools to require a person to wear a face covering if the person provides documentation from the person’s healthcare provider that wearing a face covering is contraindicated for the person, or if the person objects to wearing a face covering because of the person’s sincerely held religious belief.¹⁰ As with the implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates under the new law, there are several exceptions to the prohibitions on the implementation of mask mandates set forth in this article, including for Medicare or Medicaid certified providers, entities operating on property owned, managed, or secured by the federal government, and healthcare providers.¹¹ Also, and very importantly, the new law does not prohibit private employers or businesses from requiring face coverings for employees, customers, or any other members of the public receiving services. 

Beyond significantly curtailing the ability of many government entities and private businesses from implementing COVID-19 vaccine and other similar mandates, the new law makes several other noteworthy changes to Tennessee law. The new law permits certain individuals to receive unemployment retroactively if they left employment because of a failure or refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when it was previously required by their employer.¹² Furthermore, except in certain cases of minors subjected to abuse or dependent and neglected children, the law restricts the ability of healthcare providers to administer a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without first obtaining written consent from the minor patient’s parent or legal guardian.¹³ Moreover, the law limits civil liability for deaths “arising from COVID-19, unless the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person proximately caused the loss, damage, injury, or death by an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful misconduct.”¹⁴ 

Importantly, the new law also contains an enforcement mechanism in the event of violations. Specifically, the new law creates a private right of action for injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees for any aggrieved person against an alleged violator.¹⁵ By its own terms, the new law terminates on July 1, 2023.¹⁶ 

The precise contours or Tennessee’s new COVID-19 law have yet to be fully litigated in the courts, and there are still several areas of uncertainty regarding the new law’s enforceability and constitutionality. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that Tennessee’s new COVID-19 law has already had a profound impact on Tennessee’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the new law’s effects will likely continue to be felt by private businesses, employers, employees, government entities, and many more until at least July 1, 2023. 

If you think Tennessee’s new COVID-19 law may impact you or a loved one, you should seek the legal advice of a knowledgeable attorney immediately. During these uncertain times, it is extremely important to seek the assistance of a legal professional to learn your legal rights and obligations as Tennessee continues to navigate through the COVID-19 pandemic. Contact a Nashville attorney with Cole Law Group today at 615-490-6020 to schedule a consultation and learn about how Tennessee’s new COVID-19 law may impact you. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andy Goldstein 

Andy Goldstein is an Associate Attorney at Cole Law Group. He is a graduate of Belmont University College of Law and is admitted to practice in Tennessee state courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Andy focuses his practice in the areas of Family Law, Defamation & Privacy, Probate, and Complex Civil Litigation. Cole Law Group clients benefit from Andy’s passion for the law and dedication to serving them well. 

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an experienced lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author. 

_________________________________

¹ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(a).

² Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-1-101(15). Notably, the new law does not define a “private business” to include schools, Medicare or Medicaid certified providers, certain healthcare providers enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, or certain assisted-care living facilities.

³ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-1-101(1)(A). Moreover, the definition of “adverse action” in the new law also means to “discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee in any manner that affects the employee’s employment, including compensation, terms, conditions, locations, rights, immunities, promotions, or privileges.”

⁴ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-6-102.

⁵ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(b).

⁶ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-103(a)(1).

⁷ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-1-101(20).

⁸ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-103(a)(2).

⁹ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-104.

¹⁰ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-104(c).

¹¹ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-1-101(8).

¹² Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-3-101.

¹³ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-4-103(a)-(b).

¹⁴ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-5-101.

¹⁵ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-6-103.

¹⁶ Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-6-104.