APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that any and all derogatory information pertaining to his having been charged with possession and use of hashish be expunged from all Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) files and any other records under his name.
APPLICANT STATES: The CID report is false, that he was never charged with possession of hashish; his actual involvement in the case is misrepresented. He had informed his command that his roommate in the barracks kept and used illegal drugs. The CID investigated his roommate, found his information to be correct, and arrested him. However, the CID decided not to prosecute his roommate in exchange for his roommates cooperation and testimony in the arrest of the suppliers of his illegal drugs. However, in that process his roommate found out that he had been instrumental in his arrest. His roommate then retaliated against him by falsely implicating him as a conspirator in the ring of illegal drug users. The applicant contends that at no time was he placed under arrest, told that he was being charged with anything, or given any written charges.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 June 1988 for 4 years, was awarded the military occupational specialty of psychiatric specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
While assigned to an Army hospital in Germany, he was the subject of a CID Report of Investigation (ROI). That ROI shows that the applicant was titled (the subject of a CID investigation) with six other enlisted soldiers for their involvement with illegal drugs. The applicant was titled for wrongful possession and use of hashish.
The ROI stated that the basis for the investigation was the testimony of a soldier who was pending disciplinary action as a result of a separate CID investigation. That soldier had been promised immunity in exchange for his testimony.
During the investigation the soldier who had been granted immunity implicated two soldiers, neither being the applicant, as illegal drug users.
In the process of the investigation, one soldier made a sworn statement that she had used illegal drugs with the applicant and the other soldier made a sworn statement that he had witnessed the applicant using illegal drugs. Neither of these soldiers had been granted immunity from prosecution.
The ROI specifies that at 0955, 23 October 1989 the applicant was advised of his legal rights by [a CID investigator]. [The applicant] invoked his rights, requesting legal counsel.
The completed CID ROI was forwarded to the applicants commander, who determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant taking any type of disciplinary action against the applicant.
On 6 June 1991 the applicant was separated from active duty with an honorable discharge under the fiscal year 1991 early release program. He had 3 years of creditable service and no lost time.
Army Regulations 195-1 and 195-2 sets forth the policies and procedures for conducting CID investigations and completing ROIs. Section 3 states that, upon determination that an offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe that a certain individual has committed the offense, that individual will be entered in the title (subject) block of the ROI.
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 CID investigation is silent on the applicant being an informant in the case. Although he may have been the informant in the separate investigation mentioned in the CID report in question, there is no evidence to that affect.
2. The applicant had been identified as using illegal drugs by two soldiers, neither being the informant. This fact is in direct contravention to the applicants statement to the Board.
3. Also, the CID report shows that he had his rights read to him and he exercised his right at that time to remain silent and to talk to an attorney. Those circumstances do not support the applicants contention that he was never led to believe that he was being charged with any offense in conjunction with the investigation.
4. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that the applicant was correctly titled as the subject of the offenses in question on the CID ROI.
5. The fact that the applicants commander did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to take disciplinary action against him does not necessarily indicate that he was innocent of the charges. It only means that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to court.
6. The Board notes that in civil offenses records of charges brought against a person is retained indefinitely on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records, regardless of the disposition of the charges. This is done by the FBI, as it is with the Army, for historical purposes.
7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017713
Also in accordance with the 697th IMA Dets activation, the orders specified: a. unit members were to administratively train as Army Reservists 1 weekend per month to fulfill requirements to support SOCSOUTH with administrative support personnel; b. unit members would train for retirement points, not military pay; c. the unit would not be authorized a property book or permitted to acquire property; d. the unit would not be authorized weapons; and e. the unit would not be authorized to issue...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103075C070208
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5505.7, 14 May 1992, Titling and Indexing of Subjects of Criminal Investigations in the Department of Defense, states that titling ensures investigators can retrieve information in an ROI of suspected criminal activity at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes. His Member of Congress discusses the FBI's National Criminal Information Center list. It is presumed the applicant is requesting that the CID ROI and information that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022381
The applicant requests the following US Army Criminal Investigation Division Command (USACIDC) Reports of Investigation (ROI) be deleted from all systems of records: * CID ROI-CORRECTED FINAL (C)/SSI-0___-2___-CID108-7____-6__/9__(hereafter CID ROI #1) * CID ROI-FIRST FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL (C)/SSI-0___-2___-CID108-7____-6__/5___/9__ (hereafter CID ROI #2) In the alternative, the applicant requests his name be removed from the titling block of the above two CID ROI. It was further alleged that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005257C070208
Linda M. Barker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that all charges be removed from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) records (in effect, that information concerning the charges be removed from the records maintained by the U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Command's (CID's) Crime Records Center. Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the procedures under which the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053822C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, that her name be removed from the subject block of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) #0012-00-CID-142-50897-5L2, dated 29 February 2000. The CID titled the applicant based solely upon her testing positive for marijuana use during a random drug test; however, the legal standard under Article 112a,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014461
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of his name from the title block of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) 08-CID446-XXXX4-6EX, dated 8 October 2008. Identifying information about the subject of a criminal investigation shall be removed from the title block of an ROI and the DCII if it is later determined a mistake was made at the time the titling and/or indexing occurred in that credible...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011506
c. Army Regulation 190-45 (Law Enforcement Reporting), paragraph 4-10, states initiation of a court-martial is referral of charges or receipt of a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. While it is true that Army Regulation 190-45, paragraph 4-10, states that criminal history data will be transmitted to the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) when a commander receives a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, Army Regulation 195-1 is more...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008614
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of information from U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) records. He claims that he was in a lot of pain with his back even with the medications provided by the Army doctors, that he could not get relief, and that he used cocaine to self medicate. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that the CIDs decision to conduct the report of investigation and title him was in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018733
Counsel provided an email from Ms. AS, dated 16 November 2009, wherein Ms. AS stated: * she would be substantiating the case against the applicant for sexually abusing his stepdaughter * she had made several attempts to contact the applicant's attorney to set up a meeting to talk with the applicant, but no meeting had occurred * OCS was requesting the applicant complete a sex offender assessment before he be permitted to have any unsupervised contact with his children * the applicant could...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091182C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. ROI 01-CID045-84386---, dated 23 February 2001, created by the US Army Criminal Investigation (Division) Command (USACIDC), Fort Leonard Wood established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of wrongful use of a controlled substance (cocaine). The available records show that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his...