IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  22 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080013505 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show that his security clearance was not revoked.

2.  The applicant states that although he submitted the documentation required to retain his security clearance, the issue of whether he should retain his security clearance was not resolved prior to him being released from active duty.  He adds the fact that his security clearance was revoked, causing him financial hardship because he cannot find meaningful work.

3.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military records, letters to his elected representative and other agencies, and memoranda of record in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1999 with 4 months and 27 days of prior active service, and 14 years, 8 months, and 2 days of prior inactive service.  He held the military occupational specialties of automated logistical noncommissioned officer and cannon crewmember.

2.  On 21 March 2003, the applicant, then serving at Fort Hood as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, was notified that the U.S. Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (CCF) intended to revoke his security clearance, and of his right to challenge that preliminary decision before a final decision was made.  He was advised in this document that if the preliminary decision became final, he would not be eligible for access to classified defense information.  Attached to that document was a statement of reasons for the revocation of his security clearance.  Those reasons included the applicant:

    a.  being charged with 1st degree reckless endangerment for firing two rounds from a .22 caliber rifle into the wall of a bedroom of children and their mother.  The applicant pled guilty to the reduced charged of 2nd degree reckless endangerment and was found guilty of that offense.  
	
    b.  stating in his SF 86, Security Clearance Application on 15 July 2000 that while he was charged with 3rd degree assault, the charge was dismissed.  Contrary to that statement, he had pled and was found guilty of the offense and sentenced to 3-years probation and 100 hours of community service.

    c.  stating to the Defense Security Service on 31 July and 1 August 2001 that he did not recall committing the two crimes in September 1992 and that he did not fire a rifle in the reckless endangerment crime as charged.

    d.  having 15 delinquent accounts (accounts in which he owned money) subsequent to his 1993 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

3.  Based on those reasons, the CCF concluded the applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations, he had an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and he had a record of serious criminal conduct.

4.  There is no evidence the applicant responded to that notification.

5.  On 9 March 2005, the CCF notified the applicant that since it had not received a response to its 21 March 2003 memorandum, it had revoked his security clearance.  The CCF informed the applicant that he could request reconsideration of its determination if he had not received the CCF's 21 March 2003 memorandum or if it appeared the CCF had not received his rebuttal.

6.  On 4 May 2005, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the CCF's statement of reasons and indicated that he would respond via his security representative within 60 calendar days.

7.  On 10 June 2005, the applicant responded to the CCF.  In his response he said that he had "closed" some of the bills cited, that his $15,000.00 child support bill had to be brought to court to rectify, and he had a hard time getting in contact with the other agencies to which he owes money to make arrangements to pay the bills.
8.  On 20 February 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged due to disability with severance pay.

9.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the CCF which stated that the memorandum of intent to revoke the applicant's security clearance was sent through his unit on 21 March 2003, but when the applicant's unit informed the CCF that the applicant was deployed it held his case in abeyance.  The CCF believes that 2 years was sufficient for the applicant to respond.  The CCF adds that since the applicant does not have a current military status, it has no jurisdiction to grant him a security clearance.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and given an opportunity to respond.  He did not respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The CCF had 15 bad debts and two criminal convictions, one of which the applicant falsely reported as being dismissed.  Such a record could certainly form the basis for revoking a security clearance.

2.  The applicant states that although he submitted the documentation required to retain his security clearance, the issue of whether he should retain his security clearance was not resolved prior to his being released from active duty.  In this regard, the applicant was given 2 years to respond to the CCF's intent to revoke his clearance.  On 9 March 2005, the CCF notified the applicant that his security clearance had been revoked since no response was received concerning the CCF’s 21 March 2003 memorandum.  The CCF informed the applicant that he could request reconsideration of its determination if he had not received the CCF's 21 March 2003 memorandum or if it appeared the CCF had not received his rebuttal.

3.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence that he did not receive the CCF's 21 March 2003 memorandum, and there is no evidence that he ever submitted a rebuttal to that memorandum.  As such, the applicant did not submit anything which would warrant reconsideration of the revocation of his security clearance.  The applicant was discharged on 20 February 2007, his security clearance was revoked almost 2 years prior to his discharge.  Therefore, the applicant's contention that the issue of whether he should retain his security clearance was not resolved prior to him being released from active duty is not convincing.


4.  While it is regrettable that the revocation of the applicant's security clearance has caused him financial hardship, this does not form the basis of correcting the applicant's records to show that his security clearance was never revoked.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X___  ___X___  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.




      _______ _   X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013505



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013505



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1