IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013126 


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 reconsideration of his request to remove from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) requesting separation based upon conscientious objection, dated 3 March 2004, and the allied documents, including documents related to the original decision made by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

2.  The applicant states the ABCMR concluded that the conscientious objection application was properly filed in the service folder of his OMPF and that he did not provide compelling evidence in his application to indicate the conscientious objection application was improperly filed.  However, he did not argue that the documents were improperly filed.

	a.  He states the Board did not consider the original argument he presented: specifically, his challenge to the Board to balance the overarching utility of maintaining a record of the denied application for conscientious objector status with the goals and purpose of the records.  He adds the Board is authorized to correct either error or injustice and his request was to correct an injustice.

   b.  With his original application he provided every record he could find that demonstrated his performance while serving on active duty.  The intent was to show the application for separation based on conscientious objector status did not affect his record of military service.


   c.  He states he filed the conscientious objection application on 3 March 2004.  He was removed from his platoon and had several conversations with the battalion chaplain.  Upon deployment, he sought to return to his platoon and he was given the opportunity a month later (on 4 May 2004).

   d.  Before his application was even reviewed by the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB), he had already returned to full duty as a cavalry scout.  He continued to perform his duties until he was released from active duty (REFRAD) in 2008.  He concludes that his entire military career and future prospects related to his military service have been marred by a month of personal confusion.

   e.  He states the version of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) with an effective date of 22 July 2004 should be the standard used by the ABCMR, as opposed to the version of
AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) that had a "major revision" in August 2012 and was used by the ABCMR.

   f.  The governing regulatory guidance provides that documents filed in the service folder of the OMPF "must be permanently kept to – (1) record a Soldier's military service; (2) manage a Soldier's career; and (3) protect the interests of both the Soldier and the Army."  He asserts that the documents in question do not "provide a recordation of his actual service, [do] not benefit the management of [his] career, and [do] not protect [his] interests or the Army's."

   g.  He states the record is an actual depiction of what was going through his mind at the time.  However, the document's title overshadows any information that is located in the document and it depicts a negative connotation.

   h.  He points out that the Board noted his service in Iraq during the period 
15 May 2004 to 13 March 2005 and 1 October 2006 to 30 November 2007.  Thus, he does not believe the conscientious objection application was utilized to manage his career.

   i.  His arguments with respect to his interests and those of the Army were presented in his original request to the Board.  He requests reconsideration of the original argument.

   j.  He states the decision memorandum issued by the President, DACORB, on 30 July 2004, erroneously directed a copy of the case record be included in his OMPF in accordance with AR 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records).  However, at that point, AR 640-10 had been superseded by AR 600-8-104 with an effective date of 22 July 2004.  He adds this lack of currency with the governing Army regulation supports his theory that his conscientious objection application was rushed at all levels of command to ensure his career would be categorically changed and that he was not extended beyond his initial enlistment.  In addition, the ABCMR ignored this administrative error.

   k.  It is the injustice involved in his case that he asks the Board to correct.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of his request for reconsideration.

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20120020314 on 6 August 2013.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 March 2003 for a period of 
5 years.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).  He was promoted to corporal/pay grade E-4 on 
1 October 2004.

3.  A review of the service folder of the applicant's OMPF revealed, in pertinent part, the following documents.

   a.  A DA Form 4187, initiated by the applicant on 3 March 2004 (wherein he requested separation based upon conscientious objection), along with the allied documents, including the DACORB memorandum, dated 30 July 2004.

   b.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows he entered active duty on 13 March 2003, was honorably REFRAD on 12 March 2008 based on completion of required active service, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  He completed 5 years of total active duty service this period.  It also shows in –
   
* item 13 (Decorations, Medal, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the –

* Army Commendation Medal
* Presidential Unit Citation
* Army Good Conduct Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* Iraq Campaign Medal
* Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award)
* Combat Action Badge

* item 18 (Remarks), in pertinent part, he served in Iraq from –

* 15 March 2004 to 13 March 2005
* 1 October 2006 to 30 November 2007

4.  AR 600-8-104, effective 22 July 2004, prescribes the policies governing the OMPF.

   a.  Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF) shows only those documents listed in Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) and Table 2-2 (Obsolete or No Longer Used Documents) are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, the documents will be filed in one of three sections:  performance, service, or restricted.  (The performance section is comprised of performance (P) and commendatory and disciplinary (CD) records.  The service section is comprised of service computation (SC) and general administration (GA) records.)

   b.  Table 2-1 shows the following documents will be filed in the service (GA) section of the OMPF –

* applications (approved or disapproved) for classification as a conscientious objector (1-A-O) and allied documents
* applications (approved or disapproved) for discharge as a conscientious objector (1-O)
* approved applications for retention on active duty
* requests for removal of identification from conscientious objector status
   (1-A-O) (1-O)

   c.  The OMPF is defined as a permanent record that documents facts related to a Soldier during the course of his or her entire Army career, from the time of accession into the Army until final separation, discharge, or retirement.
    
   	(1)  The purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, and any other personnel actions.

    	(2)  The OMPF remains in Army control for 62 years from a Soldier's final separation date.  At the end of 62 years, the OMPF is transferred to the control of the National Archives and Records Administration as a public record.
   
   d.  Paragraph 2-4 shows that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed or moved to another part of the file unless directed by an appropriate authority.

5.  As a matter of information, AR 640-10, with an effective date of
18 September 1989, was superseded by AR 600-8-104 on 27 May 1992.  These two regulations provided policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  Both regulations show the very same filing instructions pertaining to the records under review as outlined in the version of AR 600-8-104 cited above.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his request for removal of the conscientious objection application and allied documents, along with the original decision of the ABCMR, that are filed in his OMPF should be removed as a matter of justice because the documents do not provide an accurate record of his service, they do not benefit the management of his career, and they do not protect his interests or the interests of the Army.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant applied for conscientious objector status and separation from the Army.  His application was processed through the chain of command and the DACORB denied his application.  Accordingly, the application and allied documents were filed in the service folder of his OMPF.

   a.  It is acknowledged that the DACORB decision memorandum references an Army regulation governing the filing of documents in the OMPF that had been superseded.  That Army regulation instructed that applications (approved or disapproved) for classification or discharge as a conscientious objector will be filed in the service (GA) section of the OMPF.

   b.  The evidence of record shows that the version of the Army regulation governing the filing of documents in the OMPF in effect at that time of the DACORB decision shows that applications (approved or disapproved) for classification or discharge as a conscientious objector will be filed in the service (GA) section of the OMPF.

    	(1)  The filing instructions for the records in question in the erroneously cited AR and in the version of the AR in effect at the time were the same.

   	(2)  The records in question are properly filed in accordance with the filing instructions of the governing AR that was in effect at the time of the DACORB decision.

   c.  Thus, it is concluded that the administrative error (i.e., the reference to
AR 640-10) in the DACORB memorandum, dated 30 July 2004, was harmless.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to the Soldier's military service, including personnel actions.  The documents under review provide a record of the personnel action the applicant initiated and the decision the Army rendered with respect to his application.  As such, it documents facts related to the applicant during a period of his military service.  Thus, despite the applicant's contention, removal of the documents would not be in the best interest of the Army.

4.  Considering all the evidence and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law, and regulations, the applicant provides insufficient evidence and argument to warrant removal of the documents from his official records.

5.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice at the time (emphasis added), there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  While it is understandable the applicant desires to have the documents removed from his military records, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army's records.  Thus, the documents should not be removed.

6.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief and there is no injustice found in this case.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120020314, dated 6 August 2013.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20140013126



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013126



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1