Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | |
Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his name be removed from the subject block of Criminal Investigation (Division) Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) and that he not be "titled."
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that despite the decision of his chain of command to take no action based on this CID report, the report itself continues to unfairly impact both his military career and his civilian job opportunities. He states that this case arose by a statement made by a biased party, that the complainant had ulterior motives when he reported that the applicant had received unauthorized jump pay, and that these motives were based on a previous incident. He contends that he was involved in a CID operation that resulted in a soldier's conviction for attempted murder, this soldier was a friend of the complainant and he is confident that the complainant singled him out because of his involvement with this case.
The applicant goes on to state that many soldiers within the unit received unauthorized jump pay; however, he was the only one who was investigated for this offense. He claims that his chain of command's decision not to take any action reflects their desire that he not be treated differently from other soldiers in his unit in the exact same situation. He contends that because of the recurring threats that he has received stemming from his involvement in the CID operation, he is unable to safely serve at a military installation. The only position in which he can protect himself and his family is that of a recruiter stationed away from an installation. He states that he does not qualify to serve as a recruiter because his name is listed in the subject block of this CID report. He states that if he cannot serve as a recruiter, he has no choice but to separate from the service.
The applicant further contends that it appears as though his commitment to help the Army by assisting CID with an investigation may ultimately destroy any chance he has of a normal life. He states that if it weren't for his involvement, he would not receive daily threats and repeated acts of violence. However, he believes that he did the right thing by helping to apprehend a criminal and protect two lives.
In support of his application, he submits an undated letter of explanation; the first four pages of the CID ROI; and two letters, dated 15 August 2002 and
11 September 2002, from the U.S. Army CID.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1995 and trained as an infantryman.
At the time the applicant submitted his application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, he was serving on active duty in pay grade E-6.
On 15 December 1999, the CID was notified by a CID source that the applicant had committed jump pay fraud.
On 2 December 2000, the applicant was listed in a CID ROI as a subject and charged with failure to obey an order or regulation, fraud and larceny of government funds; the fraud charge was listed as unfounded.
The investigation established probable cause to believe that the applicant committed the offense of Larceny of Government funds, when he received $900 in unauthorized jump pay, knowing he had not completed the required jumps. The applicant also committed the offense of Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation, as he was the unit Training Non-Commissioned Officer and failed to follow a regulation pertaining to submitting pertinent documents to terminate his jump pay.
The investigation further established the applicant did not commit the offense of Fraud as initially reported as he did not make any claims to the U.S. Government in order to continue to receive his jump pay.
The CID Agent's Investigation Report (AIR), dated 26 January 2000, states that the matter pertaining to a possible threat against the applicant was investigated which met with negative results.
The CID AIR, dated 26 January 2000, states that the information pertaining to other soldiers who committed jump pay fraud would be investigated under a separate action.
The CID ROI, dated 2 February 2000, indicates the investigation was terminated when the applicant's unit commander revealed that no action would be taken against the applicant for the listed offenses.
The applicant submitted an appeal to the CID, Army Crime Record Center, requesting that his name be removed from the title block of the CID ROI. On
11 September 2002, the applicant's request was denied.
Army Regulation 195-2 states that requests to amend CID ROI will be granted only if the requester submits new, relevant, and material facts which would warrant such a revision. When the requested amendment is to delete a person from the title block of an ROI, the request will be granted only if it "… can be conclusively established that the wrong person's name has been entered as a result of mistaken identity." In previous cases, the Board has directed removal only when necessary to correct an error or injustice. To prove an error, the applicant must show that there was no information, considering its source, nature, and the totality of the circumstances that would have caused a reasonable investigator to pursue further facts to determine whether a criminal act may have occurred. To remove an injustice, the applicant must demonstrate that the titling decision, which has later been determined to be unfounded, has created harm. When the applicant has established that he has been harmed, the Board first looks at whether it can rectify the injustice by correcting the records related to the outcome of the titling, instead of reversing the titling decision.
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. Titling or indexing alone does not denote any degree of guilt or innocence. The criteria for titling, simply state, is if there is reason to investigate, the subject of the investigation should be titled. This is a very low standard of proof (mere scintilla of evidence), far below the burdens of proof normally borne by the Government in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt), in adverse administrative decisions (preponderance of the evidence), and in searches (probable cause).
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. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that he was the only one who was investigated for jump pay fraud. The CID AIR, dated
26 January 2000, states that the information pertaining to other soldiers who committed jump pay fraud would be investigated under a separate action.
2. The Board considered the applicant's contention that he received daily threats and repeated acts of violence stemming from his involvement in a CID operation. However, the CID AIR, dated 26 January 2000, states that the matter pertaining to a possible threat against the applicant was investigated which met with negative results.
3. Although the applicant has asserted that his case arose by a statement made by a biased party, the issue before the Board is whether or not he was properly titled in a CID investigation. 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.
4. The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CID ROI is purely an investigative determination based upon the existence of credible information that the individual may have committed a criminal offense. As such, it is independent of judicial, non-judicial, or administrative action taken against the individual or the results of such action.
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
FNE____ HOF_____ MJT_____ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2002081356 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20030617 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 126.0400 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010852
The applicant provided a memorandum from the CID dated 8 April 2013 that shows the CID partially granted the applicant's request for amendment of CID ROI Number 2011-CID122-xxxxx-xE. His request to remove his name from the ROI was denied. CID records are not State records;; they are Federal records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003642C070208
The record shows the applicant was a subject of a 7 May 1999 MPR for the offense of making terrorist threats. It further indicates that regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient evidence, the only way to administratively remove a titling action from the Defense Central Investigations Index (DCII) is to show either mistaken identity or a complete lack of credible evidence to dispute the initial titling determination. The evidence of...
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 | CY2010 | 20100017409
Counsel requests the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also referred to simply as CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) for rape be expunged from the applicant's records. The entire military record does not contain any other statements by 2 privates that the female private disclosed the alleged rape events to them on 14 January 2001. A subsequent investigation did not establish sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the private's allegations that the applicant raped her.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054223C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The evidence of record disclosed that the applicant rendered a sworn statement and an affidavit, both of which he knew to be false, indicating that a fraud investigator from MBNA America...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080140C070215
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: Although the applicant’s former battalion commander elected not to take action based on the findings and conclusions of the Article 32 investigation he had initiated, this factor alone does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support removing the applicant’s name from the title block of the CID...
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 | CY2013 | 20130012255
The applicant requests removal of his name from the title block of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) 00XX-12-CIDXXX-87XXX, dated 23 April 2012. Also on 4 May 2012, the CG ordered the applicant to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral and professional dereliction (testing positive during the urinalysis, providing a false...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019169
The applicant requests removal of the charge of rape from the titling block of a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) XXXX-XX-CIDXXX-146604. A memorandum from the Director, Crime Records Center, USACIDC, dated 18 July 2012, subject: Request for Amendment of Record (Applicant), stated that after carefully considering the request and the evidence available, action officers agree correction should be made to the applicant's ROI. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510103C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...