| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that all record of the unsubstantiated allegations made against him concerning his supplying alcoholic beverages to a junior enlisted female soldier be removed from any and all Army records which could be accessed in the processing of his application for active duty under the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.
APPLICANT STATES: That because there was no proof of any wrongdoing on his part, no action was taken against him as a result of the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) inquiry which found that he supplied alcoholic beverages to a junior enlisted female soldier.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 July 2000, the applicant, an enlisted reservist in pay grade E-7 assigned to a troop program unit as a drilling reservist, was notified that he was not selected for recruiter duty in the AGR program because of unfavorable information which was provided by the DAIG during a background screening check. It was explained to him that this unfavorable information would disqualify him for recruiting duty for 3 years from the date of the incident.
The applicant requested a copy of the unfavorable information and was provided a DA Prototype 1559-E (a form used to summarize the findings of an IG inquiry or investigation). In that form it was stated that the investigator substantiated that the applicant provided alcohol to a junior enlisted female soldier, and recommended that the applicant’s higher headquarters follow-up on the DAIG inquiry with a formal investigation, and that the applicant be counseled concerning providing alcoholic beverages to junior enlisted soldiers.
The applicant appealed his failure to be selected for recruiting duty, stating that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. He then presented his recollection of what occurred on the day in question, stating that a junior enlisted female soldier drank excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages in the dining facility for which he was responsible. That overindulgence resulted in her inability to work the following day due to a severe hangover. He maintained that he had not supplied that soldier with the alcoholic beverages. He continues that although he was questioned about the incident the following day, when no further action was taken against him he assumed that no adverse information was generated against him as a result of the incident. In support of his appeal he submitted numerous letters attesting to his performance of duty and ethics.
On 16 January 2001, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denied the applicant’s appeal, stating that while the applicant clearly denied the allegation made against him, he had failed to provide evidence which would overturn the substantiated DAIG report.
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 Board must agree with the PERSCOM. While the applicant has denied the allegation that he provided alcoholic beverages to a junior female enlisted soldier, he has not provided any evidence which would warrant overturning a DAIG investigation which found that the allegation was substantiated.
2. Neither the applicant’s prior duty performance nor his command’s failure to take punitive action against him as a result of the DAIG investigation establishes his guilt or innocence in the incident.
3. 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
___sk ___ ____inw _ ___kah__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061050 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001061050 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010390
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army IG records are any written or recorded IG work-product created during the course of an IG assistance inquiry, inspection, investigative inquiry, or investigation. Although he contended the allegations are untrue, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence to show he did not know the female Soldier was married during their relationship or that she denied he physically assaulted her.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010350C071029
In regard to the OER for the period ending 29 October 2002, the applicant states his rater and SR were aware of the IG report during this rating period. On 17 March 2003, the applicant appealed the two contested OERs with the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM). However, it appears it was done for his benefit, pending the conclusion of the 99th RSC IG investigation concerning allegations he made against his chain of command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001565
(3) At page 17 of the redacted IG report, the IG pointedly redacted from its report that on 25 July 2012, well before her decision to revoke her recommendation of an extension for LTC F, the applicant received a detailed, factual IG complaint from CPT C detailing alleged specific acts of misconduct by LTC F. Additionally, the applicant was provided a copy of the matters submitted by CPT C in response to the professional responsibility inquiry. The directing authority or command or State IG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609908C070209
The investigation, which was conducted during the late 1993-early 1994 time frame, failed to substantiate any allegations of racial discrimination, but did conclude that the applicant treated his subordinates in an unprofessional manner. On 16 December 1993, the Army Lieutenant Colonel, Combat Arms Command Selection Review Board recommended the applicant for battalion command. He said that, in his professional opinion, the case against the applicant contained unsubstantiated material...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003964
He provided numerous letters of support from Soldiers (general officer ranks and below) attesting: * to his good character and duty performance * it is not consistent with the applicant's character or performance that he would have improperly reprised against MAJ Z____ * the applicant had grounds to negatively evaluate MAJ Z____ for failing to adhere to his stated intent * there was ongoing friction between the applicant and MAJ Z____ * DAIG Case DIH 11-XXXX should be reevaluated 8. Command...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011919
The DAIG did not substantiate that TAG NCARNG violated Army regulations through his actions to separate the applicant involuntarily from the AGR program. The DAIG did not substantiate two separate allegations that TAG improperly reprised against the applicant for making an IG complaint against the officer who allegedly received excess BAH. The opinion states that the DAIG investigation of the allegations of improperly targeted emails stated that this was in violation of Army Regulation 380-19.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011464
The CIG, 79th SSC testified that the email sent by the complainant detailed systemic issues between USARC and the JAG officer. The allegation that the applicant improperly denied the complainant's request for extension of IG duty and deployment, in reprisal for making a protected communication, in violation of DOD Directive 7050.06 was substantiated. The allegation that the applicant had improperly denied the complainant's request for extension of IG duty and deployment, in reprisal for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020938
In his letter he details how, in the case which substantiated an allegation of trainee abuse while he was a DS, he was not afforded an opportunity to address the allegations during the investigation due to a violation of his due-process rights by the FHIG Office. Simply stated, he was directed by the chain of command to conduct the PT on those fields. IG's who conduct investigations or investigative inquiries obtain evidence to determine if the allegations are "substantiated" or "not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001832
On or about 10 January 2003, she received her promotion order. The show cause board stated there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he requested to be relieved from his command and/or failed to prepare his command for mobilization during a crucial time; however, the OSRB did find evidence of a clear and convincing nature that he did request to be removed from command by saying he could not serve for his commanders. Contrary to counsel's contention that the show cause board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022627
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 June 2008, the DODIG informed the applicant that after an extensive review of the additional evidence he provided, it concluded a preponderance of the evidence presented in the case did not support the substantiated reprisal finding. The DODIG indicated that after conducting an in-depth analysis of all evidence and interviewing relevant witnesses, it concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not support the substantiated...