| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Gale J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the security clearance he held, the background investigation conducted on him, and access to classified information level granted him be added to his separation document (DD Form 214).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the level of his clearance and access to classified information level were not designated in his separation document
(DD Form 214). He further states the evidence confirming this information is on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 May 1967, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio Teletype Operator) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SP4).
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), prepared on 3 June 1967 and last audited by him on 10 March 1970, confirms in item
19 (Investigations and Clearances) that he was granted a Secret security clearance based on a National Agency Check that was completed on 23 June 1967. His Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does not contain a copy of his Certificate of Clearance and/or Security Determination (DA Form 873) or any other documents that show he ever underwent a special background investigation (SBI) that led to him being awarded a security clearance with access to crypto level classified information.
The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation, 16 March 1970, does not include a reference to the security clearance he held, the background investigations conducted on him during his tenure on active duty, or the classified information access level he was granted. Further, the DD Form 214 does not contain entry items that would reflect that type of information.
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. The Board notes the applicant’s request that his separation document include an entry that indicates the security clearance he held, the background investigation completed on him, and the classified information access level he was granted. However, it finds no evidence or basis to support granting this relief.
2. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his separation was prepared in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and it included all the required information. Further, a soldier’s security clearance, classified information access level, or the type of background investigation conducted are not items identified for inclusion in separation documents.
3. The evidence of record confirms only that the applicant was awarded a Secret security clearance based on a National Agency Check that was completed on
23 June 1967. His MPRJ contains no other documents or information that suggests that any other background investigation was completed on him or that he was granted a higher level of clearance or access to classified information during his tenure on active duty.
4. Further, even had the applicant provided evidence to show he underwent a more extensive background investigation that authorized him access to a higher level of classified information, this still would not provide a basis for adding this security clearance information to his separation document at this time. Thus, the Board finds no error or injustice related to the omission of this information from his separation document and it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
5. 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.
6. 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__ __RJW__ __GJW___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063697 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/03/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Early out for school |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1021 | 100.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004487C070206
On 17 December 2003, the applicant was counseled regarding the status of his security clearance. On 9 March 2004, the applicant was counseled regarding his promotion. Paragraph 1-16 of the promotion regulation contains security clearance requirements.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006006C070205
William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, there was no record of his having a secret security clearance, a requirement for promotion to MSG. Since JPAS and CCF verified that the applicant had a secret security clearance in 2002, and since CCF verified that the applicant’s secret security clearance was not suspended after 2002, it would be equitable to correct the applicant’s records to show...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005397
f. A letter from the applicant to MG Rhett H________, Commander, HRC, Alexandria, VA, dated 9 December 2005, subject: Request for Assistance with Request for War College Deferment, in which the applicant requests his intervention with the Commander, USA HRC (St. Louis, MO), and assistance in obtaining a deferral from USAWC DEC Class 2007 to USAW DEC Class 2008. g. Headquarters, USA HRC, St. Louis, MO, memorandum, dated 9 August 2006, that shows the CAR denied the applicants request to defer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053276C070420
On 3 January 2001, a lieutenant colonel (LTC) security manager for the TXARNG, recommended in a memorandum to the United States Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), that any of the applicant’s requests that were based on his failure to obtain a security clearance in a timely manner be granted and that the applicant’s appointment date be reestablished as 12 September 1998. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant was unfairly denied the opportunity to be commissioned with his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015123
AHRC stated that the applicant was requesting an adjustment to his MSG DOR from 27 December 2005 to 1 February 2002. Promotions were made through his sequence number on 1 February 2002; however, the applicant did not meet the security clearance requirement for promotion to MSG. AHRC stated that on 18 January 2006, the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 27 December 2005, the day his security clearance was granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066315C070402
The applicant was granted a security clearance on 11 May 2001; therefore, his date of rank is correct. 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: The applicant was granted a security clearance on 11 May 2001; therefore, his date of rank for captain was properly established as the date that he was granted a security...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-030
From June 8, 2000, to September 11, 2002, he was the air station’s Communications Officer and Command Security Officer (CSO), and as such was responsible for the security of the unit’s classified materials and head of the Communications Division, which consisted of himself and one petty officer. The applicant’s OER for the period, June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001, shows that in addition to these collateral duties and his primary service as a first pilot and operations duty officer, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003825
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal Unit Citation. Item 21 of this form shows the request was submitted because the applicant's duty assignment required him to handle classified information up to and including Top Secret. There is no evidence in the applicant's personnel records which shows that he is entitled to receipt of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005016
The applicant requests that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be updated as follows: a. removal of the following documents from his OMPF: (1) DA Forms 5248-R (Report of Unfavorable Information for Security Determination), dated 17 and 22 October 2002; (2) DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (flag)), dated 12 December 2002 and 8 February 2003; and (3) General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 March 2004. b. reinstatement of his security...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015003C070206
The applicant's records contain a 27 August 2004 Memorandum for Record signed by the Commanding General of the Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, it states that the Soldier will be informed of the right to counsel, to demand trial by court-martial, to fully present his/her case in the presence of the imposing commander, to call witnesses, to present evidence, to request to be accompanied by a spokesperson, to an open hearing, and to examine available evidence. Evidence...