IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  9 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013317 


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:

	a.  removal of a certificate of achievement, dated 12 October 2006, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and

	b.  removal of his undated statement submitted with his request for discharge from his OMPF.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  Another Soldier's social security number (SSN) is visible on a redacted copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Orders 24-11, dated 24 January 2002.

	b.  There is no doubt a certificate of achievement, dated 12 October 2006, is a clerical error.  He was discharged on 30 January 2002.

	c.  The statement he submitted with his request for discharge was drafted on or about mid April 2001.  Note that he stated, "Statement of defense for consideration by legal counsel."  He stated that because at the time he was principally relying on the possibility that the document would be considered as evidence by counsel (which he believes it was not but merely placed in his file for future reference).  Since no special or general courts-martial ensued, the only logical possibility was utilization for the purpose of seeking an upgrade to the character of discharge.  However, upon review it would seem likely that for evidentiary purposes the information in the document is incomplete regarding the scope of events and of a subjective nature.  So, at best, the probative value of this document is irrelevant and, at worst, from the standpoint of the remote date at which it was composed, it could be construed as prejudicial.

	d.  The suggestive remarks purporting allegations of homosexuality and perceived similar conduct are patently false and baseless.  There is no merit to the allegations whatsoever.

	e.  He strongly feels the reason he was absent without leave (AWOL) was the result of a mental health issue which was subsequently diagnosed within 1 year of his discharge.  A neuropsychologist believes his condition developed while he was serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* orders, dated 24 January 2002
* certificate of achievement
* undated statement

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  He provided a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility Orders 24-11, dated 24 January 2002, from an unknown source.  These orders show five Soldiers were reduced from specialist to private effective 15 January 2002.  Apparently, these orders were redacted for personally identifiable information (PII) purposes and sent to the applicant per his request.  However, one Soldier's SSN is visible on these orders.  Based on today's standards, the Army redacts PII in documents provided to others and it appears the SSN of another Soldier's was inadvertently not redacted.  This oversight was noted.  This issue will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 September 1999 for 4 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 51B (carpentry and masonry specialist).

4.  His records show he was AWOL:

* from 21 December 2000 to 28 January 2001
* from 29 January 2001 to 22 March 2001
* from 5 April 2001 to 13 April 2001

5.  Charges were preferred against him for the AWOL periods on 18 April 2001.

6.  On 18 April 2001, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and given a discharge UOTHC, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge UOTHC.  He elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated:

	a.  On or about 12 December 2000 he was granted leave for 7 days which concluded on 19 December 2000.

	b.  Upon return to his unit, he overheard a conversation relating to his person wherein several Soldiers made suggestive remarks purporting allegations of homosexuality and perceived similar conduct.

	c.  Since it is a widely-accepted truism that the aforementioned conduct, whether actual or perceived, is stringently admonished by service personnel, he believes such intimations had been disseminated base-wide which created an environment which was not only virulent but engendered the sufficient possibility of physical reprisal.  In addition, such conditions ultimately led to his decision to be AWOL and subsequently delayed his ability and desire to out-process in a timely manner.

7.  On 15 January 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.

8.  On 30 January 2002, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 2 years and 25 days of creditable active service with 102 days of lost time.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.

9.  A review of the performance folder of his OMPF in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) revealed a copy of the certificate of achievement in question.  This certificate shows the applicant was awarded this certificate for meritorious achievement for the period 6 February to 1 December 2006.

10.  A review of the service folder of his OMPF in iPERMS revealed the case files for approved separations (his discharge packet).

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  It states 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, administrative remarks, and any other personnel actions.  The regulation states case files for approved separations (include elimination board proceedings, administrative discharge actions, resignations instead of board action, or separations for the good of the service) and all allied documents will be filed in the service folder of the OMPF in iPERMS. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Since the applicant was not serving on active duty in 2006, the certificate of achievement contained in his OMPF is clearly a mistake.  Therefore, per the applicant's request, this certificate of achievement should be removed from his OMPF.

2.  His request to remove the statement he submitted on his behalf with his request for discharge from his OMPF was noted.  However, this statement was part of his discharge proceedings and is properly filed in his OMPF.  Since the governing regulation states case files for approved separations and all allied documents will be filed in the service folder of the OMPF in iPERMS, there is insufficient evidence on which to remove this statement from his OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  __X______  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 certificate of achievement, dated 12 October 2006, from his OMPF.

2.  The Board further determined 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 removing his undated statement he submitted with his request for discharge from his OMPF.



      ____________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)                                         AR20140013317



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013317



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1