RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010119


      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. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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 under the Privacy Act that Army Board for
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9
June 2005, be removed from the records of the United States Army.

2.  The applicant states that ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated
9 June 2005, contains a false official statement.  As a result, he contends
that ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, should be
removed

3.  The applicant provides a two-page letter which submits and explains his
request, dated 15 July 2005; a copy of a letter addressed to the applicant
from the Department of the Army Inspector General, dated 28 May 2004; a
copy of a memorandum of reprimand addressed to the applicant from the
commander of the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, dated 15 May 2003;
and a copy of ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged error which occurred
on 24 July 2004, the date the memorandum of reprimand was filed by the
Chief of the Army Reserve.  The letter application submitted by the
applicant in this case is dated 15 July 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
ABCMR in Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005.  In this case, the
applicant requested that the memorandum of reprimand, dated 24 July 2004,
be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).




4.  The applicant's records contain memorandum of reprimand signed by the
colonel in command of the United States Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-
PERSCOM) and dated 15 May 2003.  In this memorandum, the commander of AR-
PERSCOM reprimanded the applicant for engaging in a pattern, over a period
of years, of submitting false and misleading information in seeking
official action from the command.  The memorandum continued that the
applicant submitted false and misleading information in applications for
Individual Mobilization Augmentation positions and in applications to
Colonel Command Assignment Selection Boards.

5.  The memorandum also essentially stated that the applicant
misrepresented his civilian education, that he misrepresented himself in
official military photographs, that he manipulated official military
photographs to show award of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and that he
misrepresented himself by erroneously showing in his biographical
information submitted for consideration for various military positions that
he earned several awards that he was not entitled.

6.  In part, paragraph 1d of the 15 May 2003 memorandum by the commander of
AR-PERSCOM contains states the following:

      "In biographical information you [the applicant] submitted in your
OSD IMA [Office of the Secretary of Defense Individual Mobilization
Augmentee] position application and in your 10 December 2001 CCASB [Colonel
Command Assignment Selection Board] application you misrepresented the Army
Superior Unit Award as one of your awards.  This award had not been awarded
to you at the time of those applications."

7.  The memorandum notified the applicant of the intent to file the
reprimand on the Performance Portion of his OMPF and that it was not an
imposed punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) or by reasons of courts martial.

8.  Records show the memorandum was referred to the applicant for comment
and that the applicant responded through counsel.  Counsel requested
removal of the 15 May 2003 reprimand and n the alternative that the
reprimand be placed in the applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket
(MPRJ) in lieu of his OMPF.





9.  In a 24 July 2004 memorandum, the Chief of the Army Reserve stated that
he considered the applicant's misconduct and the applicant's response to
the memorandum of reprimand.  The 24 July 2004 memorandum by the Chief of
the Army Reserve also announced his filing decision.  Specifically he
directed that the 2-page memorandum of reprimand, the applicant's 10-page
response, and the filing memorandum be placed in the Performance Portion of
the applicant's OMPF.

10.  Records show that the applicant applied to the DASEB for removal of
the GOMOR.  The DASEB considered the applicant's request on 12 August 2003.
 The DASEB Decision Summary concluded that the applicant failed to provide
evidence that the GOMOR was either untrue or unjust and recommended that
the GOMOR remain in the applicant's OMPF as filed.

11.  By letter dated 15 January 2005, the applicant requested
reconsideration of the denial of his [3 November 2003] request "for removal
of a false document, a letter of reprimand, from [his] military service
record."  In Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, the ABCMR
considered the applicant's request to remove the 15 May 2003 memorandum of
reprimand by the commander of ARPERSCOM with filing instructions, dated
24 July 2003, by the Chief of the Army Reserve

12.  ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, contains the
following entry in paragraph 2 under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

      "2.  Although the Inspector General Report shows that the applicant
is authorized the Army Superior Unit Award, it is not pertinent to this
case because the GOMOR in question does not address this award.  Therefore,
based on the above, the applicant's contention that the GOMOR contains a
false statement with regard to award of the Army Superior Unit Award is
contradicted by the facts in this case."

13.  Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command message, date/time group
0909462 May 2001, announced approval of the Army Superior Unit Award for
Headquarters, Department of the Army, for the period 1 October 1999 to
1 October 2000.  Among the staff agencies cited in the message for award of
the Army Superior Unit Award were the Public Affairs offices in which the
applicant served during the period 1 October 1999 to 1 October 2000.



14.  Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command message, date/time group
0909462 May 2001, also stated in paragraph 4 that "THIS MESSAGE WILL SERVE
AS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE AWARD OF THE ASUA TO BE ANNOTATED TO MILITARY
PERSONNEL RECORDS PENDING ANNOUNCEMENT IN DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY GENERAL
ORERS.

15.  Department of the Amy General Orders Number 29, dated 31 December 2001
announced award of the Army Superior Unit Award to Headquarters, Department
of the Army, which included the Public Affairs offices in which the
applicant served.

16.  Department of the Army Inspector General letter, dated 28 May 2004,
states in part:

      "Accordingly, we have determined that you were assigned to the Office
of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA) and therefore the general order
awarding the Army Superior Unit Award (AUSA) [sic ASUA]to the OCPA serves
as the authorization document for you to wear AUSA [sic ASUA] in accordance
with Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and
Insignia."

17.  Department of Defense Directive 5400.11-R, dated 31 August 1983,
implemented the Department of Defense Privacy Program.  Section C3.3 of
this directive governs amendment of records and Section C3.3.5 governs the
limits on attacking evidence previously submitted as follows:

      "C3.3.5.1.  The amendment process is not intended to permit the
alteration of evidence presented in the course of judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.  Any amendments or changes to these records are
normally made through the specific procedures established for the amendment
of such records.

      C3.3.5.2.  Nothing in the amendment process is intended or designed
to permit a collateral attack upon what has already been the subject of a
judicial or quasi-judicial determination.  However, while the individual
may not attack the accuracy of the judicial or quasi-judicial determination
under this Regulation, he or she may challenge the accuracy of the
recording of that action."






18.  Army Regulation 340-21 (The Army Privacy Program, dated 5 July 1985,
sets forth policies and procedures that govern personal information kept by
the Department of the Army in systems of records.  Paragraph 2-10 of this
regulation governs amendment of records.  Paragraph 2-10a states that
individuals may request amendment of their records, in writing, when such
records are believed to be inaccurate as a matter of fact rather than
judgment, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete.  Paragraph 2-10b states that
the amendment procedures are not intended to permit challenges of an event
in a record that actually occurred, or to permit collateral attack upon an
event that the subject of a judicial or quasi-judicial action.

19.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 provides that the Secretary
of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s
department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or
remove an injustice.  The law further states that corrections shall be made
by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part
of that military department. This provision of law is the basis for the
operations of the ABCMR.

20.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)
governs the operations of the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-15 of this regulation
provides, in pertinent part, that an applicant may request the ABCMR
reconsider a Board decision.  The regulation states that, if the ABCMR
receives new evidence or new argument, the request will be submitted to the
ABCMR for its determination of whether the new evidence [or argument] is
sufficient to demonstrate material error or injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9
June 2005, should be removed from the records of the Army because it
contains a false official statement.

2.  Review of ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, shows
that it addressed the applicant's request to remove a memorandum of
reprimand prepared, signed and dated 15 may 2003 by the commander of AR-
PERSCOM, with filing instructions prepared, signed and dated 24 July 2003
by the Chief of the Army Reserve.

      a.  This 15 May 2003 memorandum of reprimand reprimanded the
applicant for engaging in a pattern, over a period of years, of submitting
false and misleading information in seeking official action from the
command.  It stated that the applicant submitted false and misleading
information in applications for Individual Mobilization Augmentation
positions and in applications to Colonel Command Assignment Selection
Boards.

      b.  The memorandum of reprimand also essentially stated that the
applicant misrepresented his civilian education, that he misrepresented
himself in official military photographs, that he manipulated official
military photographs to show award of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and
that he misrepresented himself by erroneously showing in his biographical
information submitted for consideration for various military positions that
he earned several awards to which he was not entitled.

      c.  The third and fourth sentences of paragraph 1d of the 15 May 2003
memorandum of reprimand specifically stated:  "In biographical information
you [the applicant] submitted in your OSD IMA [Office of the Secretary of
Defense Individual Mobilization Augmentee] position application and in your
10 December 2001 CCASB [Colonel Command Assignment Selection Board]
application you misrepresented the Army Superior Unit Award as one of your
awards.  This award had not been awarded to you at the time of those
applications."

3.  The applicant in this case has shown by documentary evidence and
argument that that the third and fourth sentences of paragraph 1d of the 15
May 2003 memorandum of reprimand are factually incorrect.  However, the
applicant has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the other
matters addressed in the memorandum of reprimand, dated 15 May 2003, and
the filing instructions by the Chief of the Army Reserve, dated 24 July
2003 are incorrect.

4.  In ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, the analyst
concluded in paragraph 2 under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

      "2.  Although the Inspector General Report shows that the applicant
is authorized the Army Superior Unit Award, it is not pertinent to this
case because the GOMOR in question does not address this award.  Therefore,
based on the above, the applicant's contention that the GOMOR contains a
false statement with regard to award of the Army Superior Unit Award is
contradicted by the facts in this case."

4.  The applicant in this case has shown by documentary evidence that
paragraph 2 under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS in ABCMR Docket Number
AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, is factually in error because the third
and fourth sentences of the memorandum of reprimand do address award of the
Army Superior Unit Award.

5.  As a result of the foregoing, the third and fourth sentences of
paragraph 1d of the 15 May 2003 memorandum of reprimand and paragraph 2
under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS in ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742,
dated 9 June 2005, should be expunged from the memorandum of reprimand and
ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, contained in
Department of the Army records.

6.  Furthermore, paragraph 2 under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS in ABCMR
Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, should be expunged from the
copy of ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, filed in the
Department of Defense Reading Room.

7.  In view of the foregoing, it is appropriate to expunge the third and
fourth sentences of paragraph 1d from the memorandum of reprimand, dated 15
May 2003.  However, there is no basis to further amend or to remove the
letter of reprimand from the applicant's military personnel records.


8.  However, the applicant has not shown by a preponderance of evidence
that any portion other than paragraph 2 under DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS of
ABCMR Docket Number AR20050000742, dated 9 June 2005, contains errors which
warrant removal of this document from the applicant's military personnel
records or overturning the decision of the ABCMR not to remove the 15 May
2003 memorandum of reprimand from the applicant's military personnel
records.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___lb ___  __wdp___  __jbg ___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by (list corrections in this paragraph, this
paragraph with lettered subparagraphs or in a series of numbered
paragraphs).
X.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
(list what was denied).




                                  ____William D. Powers  ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010119                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/07/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  328  |134.0000/Removal of document            |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]