| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his current Standard Form (SF) 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), dated September 1996 (sic 31 May 1996), in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be removed and replaced with his SF 86, dated 6 March 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has determined that his current SF 86 contains inaccurate information relating to his history and that his SF 86 dated 6 March 1999, is true and accurate and was used in granting his top secret (TS) clearance. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his SF 86, dated
6 March 1999.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 19 September 1996, with prior military service. He continues to serve and is presently assigned to Fort Richardson, Alaska.
The applicant’s OMPF currently shows his SF 86, dated 31 May 1996.
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was provided by the Chief, Personnel Actions Branch, US Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center.
The applicant was provided 30 days to submit matters in rebuttal to this opinion; however, the applicant had not responded in over 60 days.
The opinion stated that the applicant does not identify what data is incorrectly reflected on the SF 86 so that it can be checked and verified. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), dated 19 September 1996, cannot be altered, as it must remain in its original state. Therefore, it is recommended that his request be denied.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, DASEB, Army Appeals Board, the Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command, or the Official Military Personnel File custodian when documents have been improperly filed, Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC-PDO-PO) as an exception, Chief of the Appeals Branch of the Army Reserve Personnel Center, and Chief of the Appeals Branch of the National Guard Personnel Center.
Table 2 of the regulation pertains to the composition of the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that allied documents will be filed with the DD Form 4 on the Performance Fiche.
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:
1. The Board notes his contention that his current SF 86, dated 31 May 1996, contains inaccurate information relating to his history and that his SF 86, dated 6 March 1999, is true and accurate and was used in granting his top secret clearance. The Board also notes that the applicant has not shown that any error or injustice exists on his current SF 86. Therefore, there is no basis for removing the current SF 86, dated 31 May 1996, and replacing it with the SF 86 dated 6 March 1999, in his OMPF.
2. 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.
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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001066097 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020430 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 267 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085330C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was unlawfully non-selected for promotion to LTC by two Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) convening in December 2000 and May 2001 under 1998 and 1999 criteria, when the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) failed to properly expunge derogatory documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF) microfiche. The applicant appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 1 August 1995 to be retained on active duty as an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008289
The applicant requests removal of unfavorable information from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), which includes the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 16 October 2007 and the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 14 April 2007 through 13 April 2008 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER). i. in Part Vc (Potential for Promotion Narrative), the rater stated: Lapses of sound judgment and making correct decisions affects his potential...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001188
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Counsel requests removal of the applicant's general officer memoranda of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 March 2010 and 21 May 2010, or transfer of the GOMORs to the restricted folder of her official military personnel file (OMPF). The GOMORs are properly filed and counsel did not provide substantial evidence showing the GOMORs served their intended purpose and that their transfer to the restricted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150011627
Statement of Relevant Facts: * the applicant has served his country honorably in an active duty status for over 12 years * his first period of active service was in 1990 after transitioning from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Reserve Officers' Training Corps * In 1991 he entered the inactive Ready Reserve and remained there as he pursued his medical degree * after receiving financial assistance from the USAF, he entered active duty with the USAF as a psychiatrist in 2001; he was released from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000806C070208
The appeal correspondence was directed to be placed in the applicant’s restricted fiche, and stated that promotion consideration was not applicable. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The applicant's contention that the NCOER, even as corrected, would be damaging to her...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00343
Second, he is concerned the Board might consider not granting his request to correct the known errors on the SF-50B as the Board may only correct military records - not civilian records. Based on the evidence of record, had the applicant not been separated, he would have continued to serve in the Air National Guard (ANG). We note applicant’s request that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel three years from the date of the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069200C070402
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 | CY2002 | 2002070865C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Another advisory opinion, from Promotions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command, notes that the applicant's clearance was reinstated on 18 January 2002 and that he was promoted that date because that was the date upon which he became fully eligible for promotion. He was promoted as soon as that investigation was completed and his security clearance was restored.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018519
Counsel also requests, as new issues, that the applicant's rank be restored to specialist/E-4; that all counseling statements indicating the applicant lacked the required security clearance be removed from his military records; that his disability rating be increased to 30 percent (i.e., a medical retirement) or in the alternative, grant him a full and fair Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) hearing; that a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active...