IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  23 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013697 


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 correction of his records by voiding the actions related to his security clearance determination and discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR); removing the records from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); reappointing/reinstating him as a commissioned officer in the rank of first lieutenant (1LT)/pay grade (O-2) with a date of rank (DOR) of 
1 December 2011; appropriate creditable qualifying service and retroactive payment of all pay and allowances; correction of item 11 (Primary Specialty) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and corrective and/or disciplinary actions against senior Army officers involved in the actions that culminated in his discharge from the USAR.

2.  The applicant states that he was improperly removed from the Chaplain Candidate Program (CCP) and erroneously separated from the USAR.

   a.  Chaplain (CH) Colonel (COL) Stephen B. B--- and CH Major (MAJ) Charles C----- were involved in the process and they violated statutes, regulations, and orders governing chaplain candidate discharges.

   b.  CH (COL) Thomas H. B--------- did not comply with Army regulations by failing to take corrective actions against the chaplains involved in his separation.
   
   c.  Lieutenant General (LTG) Jack C. S----- did not comply with statutes and regulations by failing to discipline the chaplains involved in the separation action and personnel involved in the security clearance process.
   d.  The Army Central Clearance Facility (CCF) did not afford him due process by failing to allow him to review his personnel security investigation (PSI).

   e.  The Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), did not comply with statutes and Army regulations by failing to approve his appeal and revoke his discharge orders.

   f.  He states his DD Form 214 does not accurately show the correct total time of his qualifying service in his two military occupational specialties (MOS).

   g.  In addition, Army officials failed to properly process his request for Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB).

   h.  In his Brief in Support of Application, the applicant sets forth reasons and elaborates on his allegations, the pertinent references, facts, and arguments concerning due process concerning the separation process (including the PSI procedures and his status as a seminary student), the improper separation authority, and adverse actions affecting loss of civilian employment opportunities.

3.  The applicant provides 31 documents, as listed in his application and brief.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) is not an investigative board and it does not impose sanctions against U.S. Army Soldiers for alleged violations of law, regulation, or policy.  Thus, the applicant's request for corrective and/or disciplinary actions against senior Army officers involved in the actions that culminated in his discharge from the USAR will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 February 2003 for a period of 4 years.  He was awarded MOS 75H (Human Resources Specialist) on 
23 June 2003.  (The MOS was subsequently designated MOS 42A.)

3.  He was awarded MOS 27D (Paralegal Specialist) on 29 May 2009.

4.  In February 2010, the applicant was selected for the CCP and he requested separation on 31 May 2010.

5.  A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 
12 February 2003, was honorably discharged on 31 May 2010 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 16-2, to enter an officer training program.  He had completed 7 years, 3 months, and 19 days of net active service this period.
It also shows in item 11:

* 27D2O, Paralegal Specialist - 0 years, 10 months
* 42A1O, Human Resources Specialist - 4 years, 0 months

6.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank of second lieutenant (2LT), on 1 June 2010.

7.  HRC, Fort Knox, KY, Orders D-06-109501, dated 10 June 2011, honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR, effective 10 June 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers).  The orders were issued under the authority of the CG, HRC.

8.  The applicant's AMHRR does not contain a copy of his separation action.

9.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents:

	a.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC, 
Orders 174-532, dated 23 June 2003, that show he was awarded primary MOS 75H1O.

	b.  DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) that shows he completed the Warrior Leader Course on 25 April 2007.

	c.  Adjutant General School, U.S. Army Soldier Support Institute, Fort Jackson, SC, Diploma, that shows he completed the Paralegal Specialist Course on 29 May 2009.

	d.  Headquarters, 99th Regional Support Command (RSC), Fort Dix , NJ, 
Orders 10-195-00079, dated 14 July 2010, that reassigned him from the 
99th RSC Augmentation Detachment to a troop program unit outside the command, effective 14 August 2010.

	e.  Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center, Monterey, CA, memorandum for record, dated 20 January 2011, subject:  Foreign Language Proficiency Test Results, that shows the applicant was tested (by oral proficiency interview), on 19 January 2011, in Uzbek and attained a 2+ speaking proficiency.

	f.  U.S. Army Personnel Security Clearance Facility (PSCF), Adjudication Division, Fort George G. Meade, MD, memorandum, undated, that shows the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), Fort McPherson, GA, was notified that the PSCF had not received a response from the applicant regarding its notification of Intent to Deny Security Clearance, dated 4 August 2010. Therefore, the applicant was denied a security clearance based on the available information.

	g.  Statement of Reasons (SOR) and Statement of Intention, dated
10 September 2010, in response to the PSCF notification, that shows the applicant indicated that he intended to respond to the SOR and requested copies of pertinent documents/records.

	h.  Defense Security Service, Linthicum, MD, letter, dated 28 January 2011, that responded to the applicant's request for records,  It shows that a check of the Defense Central Index of Investigations, using the data the applicant provided, revealed only a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) completed on 28 October 2002.

	i.  Email messages, dated 19 January, 7 and 8 February, and 12 April 2011, subject:  Basic Officer Leaders Course (BOLC) pertaining to the applicant, that show: 

	 	(1)  on 19 January 2011, Master Sergeant (MSG) Stephen A. K------, S-3, Emergency Services Command (ESC), indicated that he approached the applicant about submitting his rebuttal to the intent to deny security clearance.  He indicated that the applicant did not want to renounce his dual citizenship and he was unable to obtain a favorable background check.

	 	(2)  on 19 January, the Supervisory Staff Administrator, 316th ESC Command Group, requested coordination with the G-1 for guidance from Army regulations on how to remove a pre-BOLC officer who cannot obtain a security clearance.  (He suggested that action might have to be taken based on failure to complete BOLC within 3 years.)

	 	(3)  on 7 February, the Senior Human Resources Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), 655th Regional Support Group, contacted the 95th Division (Training) for guidance on the applicant's situation (i.e., he had not completed 
CH BOLC within 3 years, had not renounced his (dual) citizenship, was ineligible for a security clearance, and was approaching his 40th birthday).  

	 	(4)  on 8 February, an NCO in the Office of the Chief of Chaplains (OCCH) advised an NCO in the S1, 316th ESC, that the applicant indicated he had gone through the security process a couple of years ago and (at that time) because he was separating from military service, he did not want to release his dual citizenship status.  He added that because the applicant's situation had changed and he had returned to the Army, he was willing to work with others to resolve the matter.

	 	(5)  on 12 April 2011, CH (MAJ) Allen J. R--- reported to CH (MAJ) C----- and the OCCH that he was informed by the Security Specialist, 99th RSC, the applicant had yet to make any forward progress with his security clearance.

	j.  U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), letter, dated 23 February 2011, that shows the applicant's request for release of his background investigation was received on 19 January 2011 and he was provided documents pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

	k.  A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 1 April 2011, that shows the applicant summarized key points of discussion with MSG Stephen A. K------ on 1 September 2010; between 10 September and 29 October 2010; between 24 September 2010 and 14 January 2011; and on 15 February 2011.  It shows the applicant informed MSG K------ that he intended to prefer court-martial charges against him and he was given 72 hours to submit matters to the applicant.  It also shows there was no plan of action at the time, the Soldier refused to be counselled (and did not sign) the counseling, and was disrespectful in manner in front of his supervisor (Captain M------).

	l.  Headquarters, Department of the Army, General Orders Number 2011-02, dated 4 June 2011, announced the redesignation and assignment of USARC as a subordinate command of U.S. Army Forces Command and that the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR) serves as both a member of the Army Staff and as the Commander, USARC.

	m.  Email messages between the applicant and CH (COL) B---, dated 7 June 2011, that show the applicant was provided the CCP Guidebook, regulatory references, and information for requesting a branch transfer, submitting a letter of resignation, the PSI and procedures, and consequences of a break in full-time status at the seminary.

	n.  An email message from CH (MAJ) C----- to the applicant, dated 7 June 2011, that shows he was following the email exchange between the applicant and CH (COL) B--- and offered additional information to him.  He explained that since the applicant withdrew from Hartford Seminary in the Fall 2010 academic year and had "incompletes," he had essentially been out of school an entire academic year.  He informed him a break in full-time status requires approval from the Army National Guard (ARNG) Staff CH for ARNG Chaplain Candidates and the DACH-RCI Directorate for USAR Chaplain Candidates, and the applicant did not have such approval.  He advised the applicant he was in violation of the CCP Guidebook and Army regulations, and he would be discharged due to non-compliance.

	o.  On 10 June 2011, the applicant requested specific actions from several Army officials.  He outlined his justification for the requested actions, cited violations, and commented on morals.  His memorandum was submitted to the:

* Commander, HRC, requesting revocation of his discharge orders as wrongful and obtained under fraudulent circumstances
* Chief of Chaplains, OCCH, appealing unfavorable actions in the memorandum of notification as wrongful and fraudulent
* CAR, Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), requesting administrative and disciplinary actions against CH (MAJ) C-----
and CH (COL) B---

	p.  Email messages between the applicant and CH (COL) B---------, from
17 to 21 June 2011, that show materials the applicant forwarded in support of the corrected copy of his memorandum submitted in appeal of his discharge were received by the OCCH.

	 	(1)  CH (COL) B--------- asked him for documentation attesting to his current student status and security clearance or investigation.  

	 	(2)  The applicant responded that he didn't understand the need to provide documents to justify the separation action and that, if they weren't in the file, the separation action is wrongful.  He added that if the documents were needed to effect disciplinary actions against those involved, the applicant's memorandum and documents previously provided offered sufficient evidence.

	 	(3)  CH B--------- explained there is nothing in the applicant's file that shows his current full-time student status or actions he took with regard to his PSI.

	 	(4)  The applicant restated his position and asked for confirmation that 
CH B---'s decision was made in accordance with pertinent Army regulations.

	 	(5)  CH B--------- explained that he was endeavoring to assist the applicant and asked for his cooperation.

	q.  OCCH, Washington, DC, Memorandum for Notification, that shows the applicant was discharged from the USAR CCP effective 10 June 2011.  The basis for the discharge was that the applicant failed to notify the CH Candidate Manager (CCM) when he chose not to maintain full-time student status at Hartford Seminary and, after numerous conversations working with personnel security officials, he failed to comply and obtain a security clearance.  The memorandum was signed by CH (COL) Stephen B. B---, Mobilization/Accessions Officer.

	r.  Joint Clearance Access Verification System (JCAVS) Person Summary that shows:

* Due process PSI Adjudication of NAC from OPM:  opened on 2 April 2008 and closed on 22 September 2008
* Army CCF determined Eligibility of Loss of Jurisdiction on 14 June 2011

	s.  An email message, dated 30 November 2011, that his correspondence was forwarded to the Directorate of Investigations of Senior Officials (ISO) and the ISO found an insufficient basis to initiate an inquiry.

	t.  OCAR, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Washington, DC, memorandum to the applicant, dated 1 September 2011, that shows a review of the applicant's discharge revealed that the discharge order issued by the CG, HRC was authorized under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 4-2, that authorizes the Area Commander and CG, HRC to approve the discharge in those instances where it is not necessary to obtain the officer's consent.

	 	(1)  The review also found the applicant was notified of separation due to his failure to notify the CCM when he chose not to maintain full-time student status at Hartford Seminary and for failure to obtain a security clearance.

	 	(2)  He was informed that, while his failure to notify the CCM, by itself, may not meet the full criteria required for separation, the U.S. Army CCF's denial of a security clearance does meet the criteria required and, by itself, is cause for removal under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 4-4b(9), and fully meets the criteria for separation without board action.  Therefore, his discharge is valid.

	 	(3)  The memorandum was signed by LTG Jack C. S-----, CAR.

	u.  United States of America, Merit Systems Protection Board, New York Field Office, Docket Number PH-3330-12-0240-1-1, dated 29 March 2012 and 
9 October 2012, that show the applicant alleged that the Fort McCoy Civilian Personnel Office violated his veterans' preference pertaining to two vacancy announcements.

	 	(1)  It was determined that the applicant was not found to be among the group of best qualified candidates for the USAR Unit Administrator position on vacancy announcement NCDE10672729.  Therefore, although he may have been qualified for the position, his résumé did not reflect the appropriate number of skills matched to be considered among the best qualified.

	 	(2)  It was determined that the applicant:

	 	(a)  was not serving in the USAR to meet the dual service requirement nor did he hold an MOS compatible with the command he was seeking employment from; and

	 	(b)  was denied a security clearance on 14 June 2011; the requirement for a security clearance is essential for the position of Unit Administrator Technician, and the requirement is listed in the vacancy announcement (NCDE10672753).
Therefore, the hiring agency was precluded from considering the applicant's application for employment.

	v.  extracts from the CCP Guidebook that show promotion to 1LT occurs at 
18 months time in grade (TIG) as a 2LT and, unless you have been flagged, your promotion will be automatic.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.

   a.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the Enlisted/Officer Record Brief, separation approval authority documentation, separation orders, or any other document authorized for filing in the AMHRR.

   b.  Paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214) contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214.  It shows for item 11, enter the titles of all MOS's served for at least 1 year and include for each MOS the number of years and months served (for time determination, 16 days or more count as a month; do not count basic and advanced individual training.
11.  Army Regulation 11-3 (Army Foreign Language Program) establishes policies and procedures for the management of Army linguists (both military and Department of the Army civilians), language capable Soldiers, and command language programs.

   a.  Chapter 3 (Proficiency), paragraph 5-3 (Proficiency standards), shows the Army's minimum linguist proficiency standard is level 2 (limited working proficiency) in listening and level 2 in reading or speaking as delineated by the Interagency Language Roundtable.

   b.  Chapter 6 (FLPB), paragraph 6-3 (Criteria for individual Soldier eligibility), provides that a Soldier is eligible to receive a FLPB if all the conditions listed below are met.  It also shows ARNG and USAR Soldiers must be in active status in good standing and must not have been adjudicated unsatisfactory performers in the previous 12 months.  Officers must have completed OBC or be branch qualified to be eligible.

12.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army) establishes responsibility and provides procedures for the appointment of commissioned and warrant officers in the Reserve Components of the Army.

   a.  Chapter 1 (General), paragraph 1-6 (Eligibility criteria), subparagraph h (Security requirements), provides that applicants will have as a minimum a Secret security clearance prior to being tendered an appointment.  As an exception, health professionals, chaplains, and attorneys may be commissioned in the Reserve Components prior to completion of a NAC/Defense NAC Investigation (DNACI) provided that a NAC/DNACI is initiated at the time an application for a commission is submitted; and the applying health professional, chaplain, or attorney agrees in writing that, if the results of the investigation are unfavorable, he or she will be subject to discharge if found to be ineligible to hold a commission.  Under this exception, commissions in the Reserve Components other than the National Guard may be tendered to immigrant alien health professionals, chaplains, and attorneys.  Waivers of above requirements will not be granted. 

   b.  Chapter 2 (Processing), paragraph 2-1 (Applications and allied papers), subparagraph d, provides that a statement that the applicant has a Secret security clearance or in the case of health professional, chaplain, or attorney applicants a statement that the applicant has a Secret security clearance or has an initiated or completed NAC/DNACI, as applicable.  Applicants for appointment as health professionals, chaplains, and attorneys will sign a statement indicating their understanding that if they are appointed before completion of a NAC/DNACI they may be discharged if found to be ineligible for a commission.  Additionally, alien health professional, chaplain, and attorney applicants will have a statement included that they understand they will remain ineligible for a security clearance as long as they remain non-U.S. citizens.

13.  Army Regulation 165-1 (Army Chaplain Corps Activities) prescribes policies on Total Army religious support activities, religious ministries, Chaplain and Chaplain Assistant personnel, Chaplain recruitment, the CCP, policy development, mobilization and readiness, training, moral leadership, management of information, logistics, and resources.

   a.  Chapter 7 (CCP), paragraph 7-3 (Chaplain Candidate Educational and Ecclesiastical requirements), subparagraph d, shows that a break in full-time student status requires approval from ARNG Staff Chaplain for ARNG Chaplain Candidates and from DACH-RCI Directorate for USAR Chaplain Candidates.

   b.  Chapter 6 (Chaplain Recruitment and Accessioning), Table 6-1 (Chaplain Accession Procedure - Accession Requirements for Army Chaplaincy), Additional Requirements, shows Chaplain applicants must obtain a security clearance in accordance Army Regulation 380-67 (Personnel Security Program).

14.  Army Regulation 135-175 provides policy, criteria, and procedures for the separation of officers of the ARNG of the United States and the USAR, except for officers serving on active duty or active duty for training exceeding 90 days.  Chapter 4 (Discharge of Army Reserve Officers) shows in:

   a.  paragraph 4-1 (General), the conditions under which USAR officers may be discharged from their status as Reserves of the Army and prescribes criteria for discharging them.  It shows that a member of the USAR who has at least 
3 years of service as a commissioned officer may not be discharged without his consent, except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary of the Army, by the approved sentence of a court-martial, or as otherwise specifically provided by law.

   b.  paragraph 4-2 (Authority), except as otherwise provided in this regulation, the authority to approve discharge of an officer under this chapter is delegated to area commanders and the Commander, HRC.  They may approve discharge in those instances where it is not necessary to obtain the officer's consent and in those instances where the officer consents in writing to discharge when otherwise a board would be required.
   c.  paragraph 4-4 (Removal from an active status), subparagraph (b), an officer will be discharged for any one of the reasons in paragraphs (1) through (9), without his consent if he has less than 3 years of commissioned service, or with his consent if he has at least 3 years of commissioned service.  Paragraph (9) shows failure to receive a favorable background investigation and/or NAC. Officers who have been commissioned through accelerated processing procedures but whose entry on active duty is delayed pending completion of residency or internship and who subsequently do not receive a favorable background investigation and/or NAC will be discharged.
15.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files, ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.

	a.  Chapter 7 provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the AMHRR.

	b.  Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR.

16.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his records should be corrected by voiding the actions related to his security clearance determination and discharge from the USAR; removing those records from his AMHRR; reappointing/reinstating him as a commissioned officer in the rank of 1LT (O-2) with a DOR of 1 December 2011; appropriate creditable qualifying service and retroactive payment of all pay and allowances; and correction of item 11 of his DD Form 214.

2.  Records show that the applicant was awarded MOS 75H (42A) on 23 June 2003 and MOS 27D on 29 May 2009.  His DD Form 214, issued on 31 May 2010, shows he held MOS 75H2O for 6 years and 4 months and MOS 27D2O for 10 months.
   
   a.  A calculation of the period of time from 23 June 2003 to 31 May 2010 shows that it equates to 6 years, 11 months, and 8 days.
   
	2010  05  31  date of discharge
         - 2003  06  23  date MOS 75H/MOS 42A awarded
         =    06  11  08  total time MOS 75H/MOS 42A held at time of discharge

   b.  A calculation of the period of time from 29 May 2009 to 31 May 2010 shows that it equates to 1 year, 0 months, and 2 days.

	2010  05  31  date of discharge
         - 2009  05  29  date MOS 27D awarded
         =    01  00  02  total time MOS 27D held at time of discharge

   c.  The regulatory guidance for item 11 shows that 16 days or more count as a month.  Accordingly, 15 days or less do not count as a month.

   d.  Thus, it would be appropriate to correct item 11 of his 31 May 2010 
DD Form 214 to show he held MOS 42A for 6 years and 11 months, and
MOS 27D for 1 year and 0 months.

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant attained a 2+ foreign language speaking proficiency.  There is no evidence he completed OBC, that he was branch qualified, or that he was authorized an FLPB.  Thus, there is insufficient evidence to correct his records to show entitlement to an FLPB.

4.  The evidence of record shows the Army CCF, PSCF, conducted a PSI on the applicant, notified him of its intent to deny a security clearance, but did not receive a response from him.  Accordingly, on 4 August 2010, the Army CCF denied the applicant a security clearance based on the available information.

   a.  On 10 September 2010, the applicant indicated he intended to respond to the SOR.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to this Board, to show that he responded to the SOR.

   b.  The Army regulation governing Chaplain accession procedures and accession requirements for Army Chaplaincy shows Chaplain applicants must obtain a security clearance in accordance Army Regulation 380-67.
5.  The applicant was appointed as an Army Reserve officer on 1 June 2010.

   a.  General orders announced that, effective 4 June 2011, the CAR serves as both a member of the Army Staff and Commander, USARC. 

   b.  The evidence of record shows a memorandum was issued by the OCCH notifying the applicant of his discharge from the USAR effective 10 June 2011.

   c.  The approved separation document is not available.  However, orders issued by the Commander, HRC promulgated the applicant's discharge from the USAR effective 10 June 2011.

   d.  The evidence of record shows the authority to approve discharge of a USAR officer (as in the applicant's case) is delegated to area commanders and (emphasis added) the Commander, HRC.

   e.  On 1 September 2011, the CAR informed the applicant that a review of his discharge indicated that the discharge order issued by HRC is authorized and in accordance with the Army regulation where it is not necessary to obtain the officer's consent, and in those instances where the officer consents in writing to discharge when otherwise a board would be required.

6.  The regulations governing the Board's operation require that the discharge process must be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.  The applicant has not provided evidence to overcome that presumption.  Considering all the facts of this case and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's discharge is presumed to have been, and still is, appropriate.

7.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for voiding the applicant's discharge from the USAR, reappointing/reinstating him as a commissioned officer in the USAR effective 11 June 2011, or awarding him qualifying service and retroactive payment of all pay and allowances.

8.  The applicant did not provide evidence with respect to his status as a full-time student at Hartford Seminary for academic year 2010-2011 nor did he provide a response to the notification of intent to deny a security clearance.  Thus, the applicant has failed to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that records relating to the personnel security investigation and separation action are untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting alteration or removal from Army records.  Thus, there is no basis for removing the records from Army record systems.
9.  The applicant was appointed as a 2LT in the USAR on 1 June 2010 and he was discharged on 10 June 2011.  Thus, he did not complete 18 months TIG as a 2LT.  Therefore, he is not entitled to promotion to 1LT.

10.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's 31 May 2010 DD Form 214, as recommended below.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ____X___  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 deleting the entries in item 11 of his 31 May 2010 DD Form 214 and adding the entries:

   27D2O  PARALEGAL SPECIALIST - 1 YRS 0 MOS
   42A2O  HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST - 6 YRS 11 MOS

2.  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 voiding and removing the actions related to his security clearance determination and discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve from Army records systems; reappointing/reinstating him as a Reserve commissioned officer; promoting him to the rank of first lieutenant with a date of rank of 1 December 2011; and awarding him appropriate creditable qualifying service and retroactive payment of all pay and allowances.


      __________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)                                         AR20130013697



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013697



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1