MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 4 September 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002081776

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her name be removed from the title block of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Reports of Investigation (ROI's). The applicant's CIDROI's are dated 28 September 1999, and 26 January 2000. The third report cited by the applicant, dated 7 May 1999, is not a CIDROI; it is a Military Police Report (MPR) created by the military police, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, the allegations made against her at Fort Sam Houston are unsubstantiated and false. She admits in a letter written to the Board that she is guilty of the offense of larceny that took place at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1989. She knows that it was wrong and she has much remorse for her actions. During the time of this offense, she was one of four females assigned to her battery at Fort Sill for advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 39Y (Field Artillery Tactical Fire Direction System Repairer). The situation in the unit was unbearable and two females had already been sexually assaulted. She attempted to get reassigned and after that failed, she attempted to get her security clearance revoked. She knows that it was immature and rash, but at the time she felt desperate. She believes that it is an injustice that she is unable to obtain employment due to a stupid, immature mistake that she made more than 13 years ago. She is a completely different person and believes she deserves decent employment and a chance to provide for her family.

The applicant states the additional allegations originated as a result of a personal relationship that soured or her choice of associates after the relationship soured. None of these additional allegations were substantiated; in fact the Inspector General substantiated her claim of harassment. She recently found the allegations made against her are showing up on the National Agency Records Check and the Fort Hood, Texas, installation check. She was separated with a general discharge (GD) and that GD has been upgraded to fully honorable. Her field of study is psychology and she was considering foster care for abused children, but she has recently been informed that she will not be able to work around children as a result of the allegations made against her.

In support of her request, the applicant submits Army awards certificates; letters of recommendation for the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Enlisted Commissioning Program; a service academic evaluation report; an NCO (non-commissioned officer) Evaluation Report (NCOER), for the period April 1997-March 1998; and a letter of recommendation for induction into an honor society.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 17 January 1989 and she served continuously through a series of reenlistments until she was separated on 11 May 2001. Initially, she enlisted for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 39Y.

On 27 March 1989, the applicant commenced MOS 39Y training at Fort Sill. She did not complete the training and she was never awarded this MOS due to reasons that are not clearly stated in the available record. On 11 August 1989, the applicant was enrolled in training for MOS 92B (Medical Laboratory Specialist) at Fort Sam Houston. In 1990, she completed all training requirements and was awarded MOS 92B. She was then assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, with duties in her MOS. On an unknown date, MOS 92B was re-designated MOS 91K.

In 1996, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sam Houston for completion of advanced training in MOS 91K. In 1997, she completed the required training and was permanently assigned to Fort Sam Houston.

A memorandum from the Department of the Army, Institute of Surgical Research (ISR), Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 5 November 1998, indicates a commander's inquiry was conducted to investigate the applicant's allegations of harassment. The allegations were substantiated. The harassment resulted in negative comments on her NCOER for the period "9804-9808." Further, the memorandum was provided to document that the NCOER lacked objectivity and fairness and did not reflect her true performance.

The MPR, dated 7 May 1999, lists the applicant as the subject for the offense of making terroristic threats (Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ). At 1107 hours, 4 May 1999, Department of Defense (DOD) police were notified that the applicant was threatening to bring a weapon into the ISR, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, and start shooting everyone. The applicant's commander spoke with her concerning the incident and the applicant acknowledged having made the above statement. The DOD police advised the applicant of her legal rights, which she waived and rendered a statement admitting to threats, but that the threats were directed towards only one individual, a female that is named in the report. The applicant was processed and released to her unit for a psychiatric evaluation.

The CIDROI, dated 28 September 1999, titled the applicant for the offenses of false swearing, false official statement, and insurance fraud. On 8 February 1999, the applicant made a sworn statement to military police, which she knew to be false, reporting that her military quarters had been broken into and that items collectively valued at $20,000.00 had been stolen. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database revealed that the applicant reported some of the same items stolen in 1993 when she alleged that items collectively valued at $16,000 had been stolen. The applicant admitted that she had filed a fraudulent insurance claim with State Farm Insurance Company.

The CIDROI, dated 26 January 2000, titled the applicant for the offenses of altering a public record, making a false official statement, and obtaining services under false pretenses. The applicant altered her divorce decree from her first marriage to indicate she had divorced her second husband. The altered document was then submitted to her unit finance clerk. She also claimed her brother's children as her own children for the purpose of obtaining medical care for them. She received medical benefits totaling $780.10, services to which she was not entitled. Additionally according to this ROI, a check of the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, showed a MPR, dated 26 June 1989, revealing the applicant as the subject of larceny of non-appropriated funds (NAF) property at Fort Sill. She received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Her punishment included the forfeiture of $163.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

On or about 12 October 1999, the applicant began convalescent/maternity leave. It was scheduled to end on 23 November 1999. Prior to beginning this period of convalescent leave she was on convalescent leave for 149 days due to her troubled pregnancy.

In January 2000, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-00, for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested a personal appearance before an administration separation board.

On an unknown date, the applicant conditionally waived her right to an appearance before an administrative separation board contingent upon separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-8, AR 635-200, for involuntary separation due to parenthood and that she received a characterization of service of no less than a GD. She was separated on 11 May 2001 under the provisions of paragraph 5-8, Army Regulation 635-200, due to parenthood, with a general discharge.

On 4 August 2003, the above CID ROI's and the MPR were referred to the applicant for comment. She failed to respond.

Army Regulation 195-2 states that requests to amend CIDROI will be granted only if the requester submits new, relevant, and material facts that 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 she 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.

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 decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CIDROI is purely an investigative determination based upon the existence of credible information that the individual so listed may have committed a criminal offense. Given the facts developed in the subject investigations, the Board believes the titling decisions were proper. In each instance, the evidence proved, or the applicant admitted guilt.

3. The applicant's allegation of harassment was substantiated by a commander's inquiry; however, the Board finds no connection between that issue and the applicant's request that she be untitled as a subject of the three police reports.

4. The Board also noted the applicant's submissions in support of her request; however, these documents have no bearing on the matter at hand and do not establish a basis for the removal of her name from the above titling actions.

5. The Board understands the applicant's frustration over having certain fields of employment closed to her as a result of her being titled for offenses under the UCMJ; however, the Board finds no error or injustice in the subject titling actions.

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

__rvo___ __bje___ __fcj___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081776
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030904
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	134.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.