Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605081C070209
Original file (9605081C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be given the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) “kicker.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That she had enlisted for the VEAP “kicker”, and understood that receiving the “kicker” was contingent upon her being awarded, and working in, a certain military occupational specialty (MOS).  Although she had every expectation of fulfilling her end of the agreement, the Army unilaterally reclassified her to another MOS because her TOP SECRET security clearance had been revoked.  In response to that action, she requested and was given a full psychiatric evaluation.  Based on the favorable results of that evaluation, her TOP SECRET security clearance was reinstated.  However, she had already been trained in and awarded another MOS by that time.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the USAR Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 23 April 1985.  At that time she enlisted for training as an electronic warfare/signal intelligence analyst, and she chose the $8,000.00 cash bonus and the Department of Defense/Department of the Army (DOD/DA) contribution to the VEAP enlistment incentives.

She was discharged from the DEP and entered on active duty in the Regular Army on 27 June 1985.  On 1 November 1985 she was granted a final TOP SECRET security clearance.  On 10 July 1986 she graduated from the Defense Language Institute, having completed the course of instruction for the German language.  She was then sent to electronic warfare/signal intelligence analyst school. 

On 20 January 1987 the applicant was notified by the Central Clearance Facility (CCF) of its intent to revoke her security clearance.

Based on the action being taken by the CCF, on 28 January 1987, action was taken to remove the applicant from the electronic warfare/signal intelligence analyst school.

The applicant was then trained as and awarded the MOS of traffic management coordinator.

On 11 June 1987 the CCF carried out its stated intent and revoked the applicant’s TOP SECRET security clearance.  The reason cited for that action was “medical evaluations of 8 August 1986 and 8 April 1987, which reflected evidence of histrionic (the morbid or hysterical adoption of an exaggerated manner and gestures) personality traits which suggest that your judgment, reliability and stability under stress are questionable.”

The applicant then scheduled herself for a psychiatric evaluation in an attempt to regain her security clearance.  She underwent a complete psychiatric evaluation from 2 to 15 November 1988.  In the written report for that evaluation, the psychiatrist stated that the applicant was aware that the purpose of the evaluation was to document her mental status for a security clearance, and opined that she may have approached the tests with an attitude of minimizing any symptoms or degree of distress she might have been experiencing at that time.  Nonetheless, the psychiatrist found the applicant to have no severe disorder of thought, mood, affect, personality, or perception.  The psychiatrist also stated that the applicant had no mental condition which would represent a possible defect in judgment, reliability, or stability.

Based on that evaluation, along with laudatory statements made by her immediate military superiors, on 5 April 1989 her TOP SECRET security clearance was reinstated.

She completed her enlistment as a traffic management coordinator, being promoted to pay grade E-4, and was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) at the expiration of her term of service on 26 June 1989.  She had served 4 years on active duty.

The VEAP was an educational incentive program offered to individuals who enlisted between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The program was designed for the post-Vietnam era soldier as a means of establishing a fund to support their educational objectives following their military service.  For every dollar contributed by a soldier, the government matched it with a two dollar contribution to the individual’s VEAP account.  Participation in the VEAP was a voluntary option and was replaced in July 1985 by the Montgomery GI Bill.  The DOD/DA contribution to the VEAP option provided an enlistee additional funds over and above the money contributed by the Army to the individual’s VEAP account.  To be eligible to receive that option, the individual was required to maintain the security clearance required for the MOS and to be awarded, and to retain, that MOS for at least 2 years.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant, although properly enlisted for the DOD/DA contribution to the VEAP, lost that incentive when she lost her security clearance. 

2.  The fact that the applicant required professional psychiatric services during her initial training at which she exhibited histrionic personality traits was sufficient to suspend and revoke her TOP SECRET clearance.

3.  That she was subsequently psychiatrically cleared for reinstatement of her TOP SECRET security clearance does not mean that her security clearance was suspended/revoked in error.  It is reasonable to assume that she had overcome whatever distress or problems that had been instrumental in her receiving psychiatric care, not that she had no problems at the time.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant completed her term of service and was released from active duty shortly after her security clearance was reinstated.  Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was not awarded the MOS nor did she serve on active duty in the MOS.  Therefore, it would be inappropriate to grant the desired incentive.    

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.



                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010578

    Original file (20080010578.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 be corrected from 23 September 2005 to 26 August 2004 (the date she completed the Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Course) or 7 September 2004 (the date she arrived at her first duty station). In a self-authored statement, dated 7 June 2008, the applicant states that: a. she enlisted under the ACASP program, formerly known as the stripes for skills program, which qualifies non-prior service-members with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010544

    Original file (20080010544.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In his unsigned self-authored statement, dated 5 June 2008, the applicant states that: a. he enlisted under the ACASP program, formerly known as the stripes for skills program, which qualifies non-prior service-members with critical Army needed skills to be granted an accelerated promotion, when they enlist for a certain MOS, meet all the requirements for that MOS, and can demonstrate proficiency to their training command. He was finally recommended for promotion to SGT/E-5 on 27 November...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002546

    Original file (20080002546.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She goes on to state that she completed all of her training and demonstrated the appropriate level of proficiency; however, her commander denied her promotion because her Top Secret clearance had not been completed. However, after completing her training, she was assigned to a unit requiring her to have a Top Secret security clearance and because the adjudication of her clearance was delayed, she was denied advancement to the pay grade of E-5 until 13 February 2007, over 3 years after she...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013824

    Original file (20080013824.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A DA Form 4856, dated 27 November 2006, stated the applicant completed his obligations to be promoted to E-5 under the ACASP and completed his 8-week evaluation period as of 27 November 2006. The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 12 October 2007, from the Commander, 314th Military Intelligence Battalion. The battalion commander stated that this new policy equated to a target promotion date within 10-14 weeks after an ACASP enlistee arrived in the unit (based on 2 weeks of unit...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04106211C070208

    Original file (04106211C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He states that the top secret security clearance was a requirement to complete his MOS training. In spite of the denial of his request for an exception to the 24 month training requirement, the applicant pursued and was successful in securing a training seat in the pilot course, completed the course on 12 December 2003, and was awarded the 96B specialty. Although the applicant initially intended to pursue training in a field which did not require a security clearance, he was subsequently...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9603095

    Original file (9603095.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A current mental health evaluation indicates no mental illness and concludes that there is no substantial reason for security clearance revocation. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The Medical Consultant, BCMR, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, states that throughout this extensive record back to 1985, at least, can be found entries relating to mental health clinic (MHC) visits for a myriad of problems. 4 Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010360C070208

    Original file (20040010360C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Her Record of Military Processing (DD Form 1966 series) shows that she recertified her enlistment in MOS 98C; however, DD Form 1966/4, Section VI, Remarks, shows that the statement, “I understand that I will be trained in either MOS 98CL or 98GL and that MOS 98Xl is an enlistment MOS only. On 15 October 2003 action was taken to separate the applicant from the Army because of her personality disorder, and on 12 November 2003...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069200C070402

    Original file (2002069200C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence available to the Board which shows the date the applicant's security clearance was revoked. The opinion also states that the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 5 April 2001, the day his secret clearance was granted. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010545

    Original file (20080010545.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted under the provisions of the ACASP and that upon completion of all required 98G MOS training, she was reassigned to her first duty station, where she arrived for duty on 17 July 2004. Given the recommendation of the applicant's chain of command and the revised unit policy, it would be appropriate to grant partial relief in this case by adjusting the applicant's SGT promotion effective date and date of rank to 30 September 2004, which was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012028

    Original file (20070012028.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), which will simply be referred to as his DD Form 214 throughout the remainder of these proceedings, be corrected by: a. changing his primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) title in item 16a from Special Identification Operator to Special Identification Techniques Analyst; b. removing the entry "203.138 Telegraph Operator" from 1tem 16b (Related Civilian Occupation and Dictionary of...