| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records be cleared of any derogatory information regarding his being titled in connection with the wrongful possession of marijuana while he was in the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while he was in the Army he was escorted to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) to be questioned in regards to the presence of marijuana in his room. He goes on to state that his roommate was using the marijuana and that after a urinalysis was conducted, he was sent back to his company after the test proved negative. However, his roommate was put in the stockade, court-martialed and stripped of all rank and pay. He further states that it was not until he attempted to become a foster parent and role model for abused children, that he was told by the State of Florida that he had an arrest record. He continues by stating that nothing was ever done to him and he never had his day in court, therefore, he should not have such information on his record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 22 May 1990 for a period of 2 years and 24 weeks, training as a unit level communications maintainer and participation in the Army College Fund. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado, on 7 December 1990. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1991.
On 7 November 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation for a local bar to reenlistment to be imposed against the applicant. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed against him on two occasions for disobeying a lawful order and for being absent without authority. He also indicated that the applicant had failed to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding his lack of motivation, failure of the physical fitness test, failure to go to his place of duty, disobeying orders, disrespect, and failure to repair. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the bar was approved on 14 January 1992.
On 10 February 1992, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5, based on his perception that he could not overcome the bar to reenlistment. His request was approved and he was honorably released from active duty on 10 March 1992. He had served 1 year, 9 months and 19 days of total active service.
In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted officials at the FBI to determine what, if any, information was listed on his file. Officials contacted at the time indicated that the applicant was titled by the CID in conjunction with an investigation on the wrongful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). There is no disposition of the charge reported by the Army Crime Records Center in Baltimore, Maryland.
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5505.7 serves as the authority and criteria for CID titling decisions. It states, in pertinent part, that titling ensures investigators can retrieve information in a report of investigation of suspected criminal activity at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes. Whether to title an individual is an operational decision made by investigative officials, rather than a legal determination made by lawyers. Titling or indexing alone does not denote any degree of innocence. The criteria for titling are a determination credible information exists that a person (a) may have committed a criminal offense or (b) is otherwise made the object of a criminal investigation. In other words, if there is a reason to investigate, the subject of the investigation should be titled.
The DODI also directs that judicial or adverse actions shall not be taken solely on the basis of the fact that a person has been titled in an investigation. By implication the DODI does not prohibit consideration of titling in making judicial or administrative decisions, but does prohibit using titling as the sole basis for those decisions. Once an individual has been titled, the only basis to remove a name from the title block of a report is if it involves a case of mistaken identity.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s contention that he was unjustly titled by the CID without ever having been proved guilty, is without merit. Individuals who are the subject of an investigation are titled without regard to innocence or guilt. All of the individuals involved in the alleged incident were titled yet not all were deemed to have committed an offense.
3. Although the applicant has asserted his innocence throughout the entire process, the issue before the Board is not one of guilt or innocence, but whether or not he was properly titled in a CID investigation. Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board finds that he was properly titled, that there is no case of mistaken identity, and that there is no basis to remove his name from the title block of the investigation.
4. In regards to the applicant’s innocence, there is insufficient information in the evidence made available to the Board to ascertain with any degree of certainty if the CID erred in its assessment of the applicant’s involvement and the Board will not attempt to second-guess investigators on the scene. Inasmuch as the Army has a need to maintain such records and since it is clear that the applicant was the subject of an investigation, the Board finds no error or injustice in titling the applicant as a subject of an investigation.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__inw___ ___jam __ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059183 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 328 | 134.0000/rem cid title from fbi rec |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074012C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He departed Germany on 1 October 1991 and was transferred to Fort Benjamin Harrison in accordance with the terms of his reenlistment contract. The applicant’s group commander (a colonel) provided a memorandum to accompany the bar to reenlistment request which indicated that the applicant had accepted NJP on 23 July 1992 for forgery and on 6 December 1993, he declined NJP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004658
Counsel requests that the applicants record be cleared of all allegations regarding the accusation of using an unauthorized calling card. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the JAG determined that there was insufficient evidence to take action against him for larceny due to insufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081356C070215
Once an individual has been titled, the only basis to remove a name from the title block of a report is if it involves a case of mistaken identity. Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds that the applicant was properly titled, that there is no case of mistaken identity, and that there is no basis to remove his name from the title block of the CID ROI. The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CID ROI is purely an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008540
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On or about 28 September 2004, a joint investigation was initiated by DCIS and CID agents. The contentions of the applicant have been noted; however, there is no evidence in the applicant's available records and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows the DCIS or CID agents were biased towards him during the investigative process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079154C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of his name from the title block of a United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) Report of Investigation (ROI). APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was unjustly titled in a USACIDC Report of Investigation for dereliction of duty during his first year in the Military Police (MP) Investigation Program. Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant as well as the evidence of record, the Board finds that he was properly titled, that there...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072160C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That while he admits to his wrongdoings, he worked with the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and was told that after his punishment, the charges would be dropped and stricken from his records. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 31 January 1989, the imposing commander (battalion commander) suspended the portion of NJP imposed on 27 October 1988, as pertained to his reduction to the pay grade of E-2, for a period of 6 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000560
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130000560 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior Reserve service, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the USAR on 9 June 2004. The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 15 April 2010, shows the punishment imposed was a written reprimand and the imposing commander directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the performance section of his Army Military Human...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002773
The ADRB review shows: a. a CID Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 15 March 2004, indicated the applicant was charged with reckless driving resulting in personal injury, negligent homicide, and reckless driving (all acts occurring on 13 August 2003); b. the specific facts and circumstances leading to his discharge were not in the available records; and c. a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) was on file that indicated he was discharged on 2 September 2004...
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 | 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.