| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that any information in his records that reflect sexual misconduct on his part, or that show that he stole from the government be expunged from his records.
APPLICANT STATES: That he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for misconduct. He states that he did curse his commanding officer, but only after 5 hours of questioning by the CID. He stated what they wanted to hear in order to end the questioning. While in Korea, he was accused of misconduct with female soldiers. He was never involved in inappropriate actions with females. The sexual misconduct information should be deleted. Approximately 18 months after he was discharged, he was questioned about missing items from the Department of Mental Health at Fort Hood, Texas. Information in his records that he stole items from the Department of Mental Health at Fort Hood, Texas, is untrue. He unknowingly received the stolen items, and provided the CID information that led to the recovery of those items.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
There is no information in the applicant's records concerning an investigation into missing items at Fort Hood, or that he stole items from the government. Consequently, the Board will not address this issue.
The applicant entered on active duty in the Army on 20 July 1988 and remained on continuous active duty until his discharge in 1995.
After completing training, he was assigned to the Army Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado, as a behavioral science specialist. In July 1991 he was assigned to Fort Hood. In February 1994 he was promoted to sergeant. In May 1994 the applicant was assigned to the 18th Medical Command in Korea as a resident treatment facility counselor.
On 27 January 1995, in a sworn statement to a CID agent, a female soldier stated that she entered the residential treatment facility for treatment on 9 November 1994. She stated that she had sexual intercourse with the applicant on three occasions in December 1994.
On 1 February 1995, in a statement to a CID agent, a female soldier stated that she had entered the residential treatment facility for alcohol treatment, and that she had engaged in a sexual act with the applicant on one occasion.
On 1 February 1995 the applicant signed a DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) in which he stated that he understood his rights concerning the investigation into the suspected offenses of failure to obey an order or regulation, adultery, and indecent acts with another, and that he was willing to discuss the offenses under investigation and make a statement without talking to a lawyer first and without having a lawyer present with him.
On 1 February 1995, in a sworn statement to a CID agent, the applicant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the one female soldier, and engaging in a sexual action with the other female soldier.
On 27 February 1995 the applicant's commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army. He informed the applicant that he had been found guilty of three counts of adultery, two counts of disobeying an order from a commissioned officer, and one count of leaving his place of duty without authority. He informed the applicant that he was recommending that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant consulted with counsel, stated that he had been advised on the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, its effects, of the rights available to him, and of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He stated that he understood that he was entitled to have his case considered by an administrative separation board. He stated that he voluntarily waived consideration of his case by a board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable that general under honorable conditions. He declined to submit statements in his own behalf. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive.
On 28 February 1995 the applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged for misconduct, and that he receive a general discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant returned to the United States and was discharged at Fort Lewis, Washington on 20 July 1998.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides for the filing in the OMPF of authenticated extracts of completed investigation reports that have resulted in elimination or disciplinary action. It also provides for the filing in the OMPF of case files for approved separations, to include elimination board proceedings and administrative discharge actions.
Army Regulation 600-37 states that completed investigative reports, to include criminal investigation reports, that have resulted in elimination or disciplinary action against the person concerned may be filed in the performance portion of the OMPF without further referral to the recipient.
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 documents contained in the applicant's OMPF are properly maintained. There is no error or injustice in the sworn statements and the administrative board proceedings being maintained in his OMPF.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. 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
__TSK __ __MHM _ __KYF __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084011 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030701 |
| 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. | 134.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709385C070209
Counsel states that the applicant contends that his discharge was materially and legally in error, and unjust, in that: The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; Applicants daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; Applicants plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709385
• The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; • There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; • Applicant’s daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; • Applicant’s plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal trial; • The applicant’s quality of service and performance of duty attest to his good character; and • The board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608904C070209
Following his success before the show cause board, the applicant appealed the OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) and the GOLOR to the DA Suitability Board (DASEB). In a previous appeal denial, the OSRB stated the AR 15-6 investigation found the applicant had committed misconduct and the applicant had not successfully refuted that finding in his appeal. The only evidence supporting the allegation that the applicant asked the female soldier for a date were statements from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710726C070209
The document shows the statement 99.99 percent of falsely accused men would be excluded as the father by the above tests. The CID Report also shows, in various statements made by four females (ages 14, 14, 15,and16 at the time), that the applicant had assaulted a minor female by punching her in the stomach with a closed fist; that he engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with another minor (15-year old) female; and that he assaulted a minor female by grabbing her breast. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710726
A statement made by the mother of the female shows that she told the applicant that her daughter was 14 years old. 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, it is concluded: The evidence of record shows that during that period of time he also associated with friends of the female who were also minors.
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 | CY2008 | 20080017645
The applicant was informed that his misconduct included repeated calls that were not work related to the female enlisted paratrooper after being told to stop, and inappropriate and sexually explicit comments to the same paratrooper regarding taking his clothes off to determine if I was good enough. The GOMOR also states that he then made comments to a female commissioned officer that he would not salute her; that female soldiers are a cancer and need to be weeded out of the Army; and that...
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 | CY2001 | 2001052760C070420
The applicant requests, through counsel, that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be corrected to show he was not discharged but rather remained on active duty; that he was afforded early retirement with corresponding back pay and allowances as if he had not been discharged in 1998; that his discharge cite retirement as the narrative reason and contain no stigmatizing entry as to separation code, reentry code or in any other respect; that he receive such decorations as he would have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004359
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060004359 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states, in pertinent part, that in any case of pretrial confinement, the commander of the person confined will provide a...