RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 December 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000865 


	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.  


Mr. Carl W. S. Chun

Director

Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Chairperson

Mr. James B. Gunlicks 

Member

Mr. Scott W. Faught

Member

	The Board considered the following evidence: 

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the notice of the Central Clearance Facility's (CCF) decision to revoke his security clearance be expunged from his record.

2.  The applicant states that the "affidavit" from D____ B____ proves that the CCF's statement, "you did not provide any documentation to refute the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation," is a false statement and that, therefore, the decision must be removed from his records.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the 12 November 2003 statement from D____ B____ of Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis.  She lists 41 documents that she submitted to the Central Clearance Facility's [on the applicant's behalf].  She received a receipt for them.


COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel submitted no request beyond that presented in the application.

2.  Counsel submitted no argument or documentation beyond that submitted with the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a career Army Reserve (USAR) officer, was a lieutenant colonel when an investigation was held that resulted in revocation of his Notice of Eligibility for Retired Pay at age 60 (20-Year Letter), elimination from the service, and revocation of his clearance.

2.  A 16 July 2003 memorandum from the CCF notified the applicant of intended revocation of his clearance and access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).  It also notified him of his procedural rights.

3.  The CCF's 29 October 2003 memorandum stated, in pertinent part, "We have thoroughly evaluated your response to reference 1.a.  The data furnished in your response are not sufficient to explain, refute or mitigate the factors upon which the proposed action is based.  We have carefully considered your explanation regarding your misconduct in the discharge of your military duties.  While you provided points of contact to corroborate the statements in your rebuttal, you did not provide any documentation to refute the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation that documented an ineligible appointment as a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve, unauthorized wearing of military decorations and awards, misrepresentation of retirement points, and false statements and falsified documents resulting in illegal receipt of VA compensation and USAR pay and allowances.  Your history of falsification and misrepresentation of material facts as an officer in the United States Army casts doubt on your sound judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required for access to classified information. Therefore, CCF revokes your SCI access eligibility and security clearance in accordance with references 1.b and 1.c."

5.  The documents listed in D____ B____'s statement are not available but the list describes documents that include the following items or subjects:

a.   DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty);

b.  award orders and certificates; 

c.  an Officer Evaluation Report for duty with the Office of the Chief of
Public Affairs in 2000;

d.  certificates about service in Kosovo, orders and correspondence about service in Afghanistan;

e.  an ABCMR case; 

f.  a Navy Promotion Board Freedom of Information Act request; 

g.  reports of physical examinations; and

	h.  a certificate and correspondence about public service films featuring the Army.
   
6.  A 28 September 2004 Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence memorandum noted that the applicant appealed his security clearance denial to the U.S. Army Personnel Security Appeals Board and stated, in pertinent part “The board reviewed all information in your case file to include that added during your personal appearance before an administrative judge.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By stating that he "did not provide any documentation" [emphasis added] the memorandum from the CCF may have been inartfully worded.  Nevertheless, a simple review of the topics covered by the documents listed in D____ B____'s statement demonstrates that they could not possibly have overcome all the findings of:

a.  ineligible appointment as a commissioned officer in the USAR;

b.   unauthorized wearing of military awards and decorations; 

c.  misrepresentation of retirement points; and

d.  false statements and falsified documents resulting in illegal receipt of VA compensation and USAR pay and allowances.  

2.  In the above same referenced paragraph, the applicant was notified that “We have thoroughly evaluated your response to reference 1a” and “We have carefully considered your explanation regarding your misconduct”.  Both statements emphasizing a thorough review of the applicant’s case.

3.  The applicant later appealed the CCF decision to the U.S. Army Personnel Security Appeals Board and was notified that the board reviewed all information in his case file to include that added during his personal appearance before an administrative judge.

4.  Clearly, the applicant has not demonstrated that the revocation of his access to SCI and his security clearance was unfounded or should be removed based upon a false document.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JBG ___  __RTD__  __SWF __  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





_     Richard T. Dunbar________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050000865
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20051208
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
134.00
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.