RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 December 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015388


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry J. Stone               |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request 8that
false and misleading statements contained in the 11 February 2004 Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Recommended Decision of
Administrative Judge be removed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the document in question contains
numerous false statements.  He further claims that one false and misleading
statement has already been removed from the document in question.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  DOHA Security Decision Analysis; Army Commendation Medal
(ARCOM) Certificates, dated 14 May 1996, 30 June 1999, and 21 March 2001;
Interview Report, dated 31 July 1990; Chronological Statement of Retirement
Points (AHRC Form 249-2-E); Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Memorandum for Record,
dated 27 October 2005; St John's University Letter, dated 6 July 2006;
DOHA Recommended Decision of Administrative Judge, dated 11 February 2004;
Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) Letters, dated
5 November 2002 and 11 April 2002; Report of Medical Examination
(DD Form 2808), dated 22 April 2004; United States Court of Veterans
Appeals Decision Document, dated 30 March 1995; United States Army Reserve
Personnel Center Letter, Subject-Request for Authority to Accept and Wear a
Foreign Decoration, dated 16 September 1993; United States Air Force Chief,
Force Management Awards List, dated 13 April 2007; Separation Document
(DD Form 214), dated 16 October 2002; and United States Army Records
Management and Declassification Agency Letter, dated 4 May 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20050000865, on 8 December 2005.

2.  During its review of his security clearance removal process, the Board
determined that the applicant had not demonstrated or provided evidence
that showed the revocation of security clearance was unfounded or that
supported removal of any documents related to the security clearance
removal process, which included the hearing document now in question.

3.  On 11 February 2004, a DOHA Administrative Judge published a
recommended decision on the applicant's case.  The Judge determined the
applicant routinely misrepresented his academic credentials, inflated his
accomplishments, and falsified official Army documents to improve his
potential for promotion, and he recommended the United States Army
Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) sustain the denial of the applicant's
security clearance and eligibility for assignment to a sensitive position.


4.  On 28 September 2004, the United States Army Personnel Appeals Board
(PAB) convened to consider his case.  This PAB reviewed all the information
in his case and found the evidence presented did not mitigate his
disqualifying factors and it denied his appeal.

5.  On 4 May 2006, the Chairman of the Privacy Review Board (PRB), United
States Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, notified the
applicant that the Department of the Army (DA) PRB met on 5 January 2006,
to make a determination regarding his appeal of the decision by the United
States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) to neither amend his
investigative records nor to expunge the decision of the Department of
Defense, Defense Legal Service Agency, dated 11 February 2004 from his
military files.

6.  The PRB Chairman further stated that the PRB had extensively reviewed
his request and the supporting documents, and the applicant's appeal to
amend the records was granted in part.  INSCOM was directed to remove
language indicating the applicant "represents on his Army records that he
has a Doctorate Degree" from the "Conclusions" section of the DOHA
Administrative Law Judge opinion.  The PRB's review of the remainder of the
record resulted in a determination that the applicant had failed to provide
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Administrative Law Judge
opinion was otherwise incomplete, untimely, irrelevant, or inaccurate as a
matter of fact, not judgment.

7.  In the 4 May 2006 letter, the applicant was also advised that he had
the right to file a concise statement of his reasons for disagreeing with
this action, and the Army, if it was deemed appropriate, would attach to
his statement or disagreement a brief summary of reasons for refusing to
amend the record.  The applicant was also informed that if he elected to
file such a statement, it would be made available, along with any Army
summary, to all prior recipients for whom an accounting of disclosure was
being maintained as required by the Privacy Act.  Finally, he was informed
that the determination of the Chairman of the PRB constituted a final
decision on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.

8.  The applicant provides a DOHA Security Decision Analysis in which he
requests removal of additional false statements contained the DOHA
administrative judge hearing record that were not removed by the PRB.  He
takes issue with language used in the hearing record and provides the
substitute language he wishes to be used.  He also notes that the amendment
directed by the PRB has not yet been accomplished.

9.  Army Regulation 340-21 (Army Privacy Program) sets forth policies and
procedures that govern personal information kept by the Department of the
Army (DA) in systems of records.  Paragraph 2-11 outlines the procedures
for requesting amendment of a record.  It states, in pertinent part, that
the request must reasonably describe the record to be amended and the
changes sought (that is, deletion, addition, or amendment).  It further
states that the burden of proof rests with the requester; therefore, the
alteration of evidence presented to courts, boards, and other official
proceedings is not permitted.

10.  The Army privacy program regulation further states, in effect, that
the DA PRB will conduct the final appeal review on behalf of the Secretary
of the Army.  If the PRB determines that amendment is justified, it will
amend the record and notify the requester, the Access and Amendment Refusal
Authority (AARA), the custodian of the record, and any prior recipients of
the record.  If the PRB denies the request, it will obtain the General
Counsel's concurrence.  Response to the appellant will include reasons for
denial and the appellant's right to file a statement of disagreement with
the PRB's action and to seek judicial review of the Army's refusal to
amend.  Statements of disagreement will be an integral part of the record
to which they pertain so the fact that the record is disputed is apparent
to anyone who may have access to, use of, or need to disclose from it.  The
disclosing authority may include a brief summary of the Board's reasons for
not amending the disputed record.  The summary will be limited to the
reasons stated to the individual by the Board.

11.  The doctrine of administrative finality derives from numerous Federal
court cases.  It prevents cases and applications from being perpetually
reopened and reexamined.  Once a final administrative authority reaches a
decision approving or ordering an action, the case is closed.  The power of
the official rendering the decision is exhausted concerning that case and
the deciding official can not reconsider the decision, unless an exception
to the doctrine of administrative finality or other legal authority
authorizes reopening the case.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A full, thorough and comprehensive review of the newly submitted
evidence, along with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
administrative judge hearing record and removal of the applicant’s security
clearance has been conducted.

2.  In this case, the evidence of record shows this Board has already
rendered a decision denying the applicant's request related to the removal
of his security clearance.  This included an evaluation of the appellate
process, which included the Administrative Judge's hearing record in
question.  Based on its review, the Board concluded the removal process was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable law and regulation, and that
there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the
applicant's request to expunge the Central Clearance Facility's decision to
revoke his security clearance from his record.

3.  The evidence of record also clearly shows that the PRB had before it
all the facts when it made the final determination on the hearing document
in question and all the relevant facts and circumstances when it rendered
the final decision on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.  This includes
the information now provided to the Board by the applicant.  The PRB review
of the hearing record in question and its decision made on behalf of the
Secretary of the Army was accomplished in accordance with applicable law
and regulation.

4.  This applicant's latest submission to the Board appears to be the
result of his dissatisfaction and disagreement with the decisions regarding
his security clearance previously rendered by the this Board, and with the
PRB decision rendered on his appeal to remove information from the
Administrative Law Judge's hearing record, which was made on behalf of the
Secretary of the Army. The applicant fails to provide compelling evidence
that would support changing the current language contained in the
Administrative Judge's hearing record by substituting his recommended
language.  As a result, absent any evidence of a substantive material error
in the language in question, and given the applicant had the right to file
a concise statement of his reasons for disagreeing with this PRB action,
which would be made available to all prior recipients for whom an
accounting of disclosure was being maintained as required by the Privacy
Act, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting an
exception to the doctrine of administrative finality attached to the PRB
decision in the applicant's case.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__WDP  _  __MJF  __  __SJS__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice related to the language contained in the DOHA
Recommended Decision of Administrative Judge hearing record.  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 or
amendment of the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number
AR20050000865, dated
8 December 2005.




                                  _____William D. Powers___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015388                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/12/11                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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