RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050017494


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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, that a Report of Return of Absentee
(DD Form 616) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF),
and that he be reconsidered for promotion by a Stand-By Advisory Board
(STAB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that February 1989, he was discharged
from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in order to enlist in the
Regular Army.  He claims that he received orders to report to Fort Jackson,
South Carolina on
10 March 1989 and promptly reported there for processing in preparation for
movement to his permanent duty station in Germany.  He claims that an
erroneous set of orders was published that ordered him to report to
Fort Jackson on 1 March 1990, which was almost a year later.  At this time,
he was already serving at his permanent active duty station in Germany.
However, these erroneous orders resulted in his being reported AWOL and
eventually as being DFR.

3.  The applicant states that in 1991, while he was enroute from Germany to
his next duty assignment at Fort Irwin, California, he was detained in New
York by the Immigration and Naturalization Service based on a Federal
warrant for desertion.  After a short period of detention, the issue was
cleared up and he was released and the warrant cleared.  He claims that
Deserter Control issued a letter that indicated the entire incident was
erroneous and this letter was placed in the R-Fiche of his OMPF for
clarification because of the persistence of the Federal warrant.  He states
that in February 2005, while he was deployed in Afghanistan, his sergeant
major (SGM) reviewed his OMPF in order to see if there were any errors in
his promotion packet.  At this time, the SGM alerted him to the fact that
the DD Form 616 was filed in the disciplinary section of the P-Fiche of his
OMPF. He claims his understanding was that the DD Form 616 was only to be
retained in the R-Fiche of his OMPF; however, at some point it was filed in
both the
R-Fiche and P-Fiche.

4.  The applicant contends he should be allowed to be fairly compared with
his peers for promotion, and that he believes that past promotion board
members may have not had the time to fully appreciate that the DD Form 616
documented an erroneous AWOL and DFR report, and did not represent an
actual period of AWOL.  He now asks that the DD Form 616 and all related
documents be removed from his OMPF and that his records be presented to a
STAB for reconsideration for promotion based on this material error, which
could have been a factor in his not being selected for promotion.

5.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement; DD Form 616 and related documents;
Personnel Action (DA Forms 4187) AWOL and DFR;

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 27 February 1987, the applicant enlisted in and entered the USAR.
He served in that status until being honorably discharged on 27 February
1989, in order to enter active duty in the Regular Army (RA).

2.  On 28 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the RA for four years
and entered active duty.  He has continuously served on active duty through
the present day, and is currently assigned to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama and
holds the rank of staff sergeant (SSG), which he attained on 1 January
1997.

3.  On 27 April 1990, the Commander, 120th Adjutant General Battalion
(Reception), Fort Jackson, submitted a DA Form 4187 reporting a duty status
change on the applicant from “Attached Not Joined” to “Absent Without
Leave”, effective 2400 hours on 1 March 1990.

4.  On 27 April 1990, the Commander, 120th Adjutant General Battalion
(Reception), Fort Jackson, submitted a DA Form 4187 reporting a duty status
change on the applicant from “Absent Without Leave” to “Dropped From Unit
Rolls”, effective 0001 hours on 31 March 1990.

5.  On 31 May 1990, the Commander, 120th Adjutant General Battalion
(Reception), Fort Jackson, submitted a Deserter/Absentee Wanted By The
Armed Forces (DD Form 553) to the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center
(EREC), Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.

6.  On 1 October 1991, EREC completed a USAEREC Form 15 (NCIC Action) form
confirming the applicant had reported for active duty on 28 February 1989
and had been present for duty or in an authorized duty or leave status
continuously from that date.  It further indicated that the applicant’s
AWOL and DFR was erroneous.

7.  The P-Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF contains a copy of a DD Form 616,
dated 1 October 1991, which contains entries confirming the applicant’s
AWOL and DFR were erroneous, and that he had reported for active duty on 28
February 1989, and had been in a present for duty, or authorized duty or
leave status since that date through the present date.  The DD Form 553
submitted by Fort Jackson accompanies this form.

8.  The R-Fiche of the applicant’s OMPF contains the DD Form 616, along
with the Charge Sheet (DD Form 458), and the USAEREC Form 15 explaining the
circumstances surrounding the erroneous AWOL and DFR reports on the
applicant.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (MILITARY PERSONNEL INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT/RECORDS) prescribes the policies and mandated operating tasks
for the Military Personnel (MILPER) Information Management/Records Program
of the Military Personnel System.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the OMPF
and Table 2-1 outlines the composition of the OMPF.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the DD Form 616 will be filed in the P-Fiche and that
allied documents will be filed on the R-Fiche.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that the DD Form 616 and all allied documents
on file in his OMPF be removed, and that his corrected record be presented
to a STAB for promotion reconsideration was carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief in
this case.

2.  By regulation, the DD Form 616 is to be filed in the P-Fiche and all
allied documents are to be filed in the R-Fiche.  The DD Form 616 and
allied documents in question make clear the applicant’s reported AWOL and
DFR were erroneous, and that he had been serving on active duty during the
period he was reported AWOL and DFR.  These documents serve to clarify his
status during this period.

3.  The evidence of record fails to show that these documents have, or will
impact his ability to be promoted.  They are clearly supportive of his
position and there is no evidence that suggests promotion board members
have, or will ignore the clarifying comments included in the DD Form 616
and allied documents in question.

4.  Further, removing these documents could negatively impact the applicant
if the AWOL and DFR issue ever resurfaced and there was no longer a
clarifying explanation on file, as is provided in the documents in
question.  Therefore, given the documents are properly filed in accordance
with the governing regulation, and absent any evidence that they have, or
will serve an injustice upon the applicant, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___JTM _  __LMD __  ___DLL_  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board
determined during their review that the evidence presented was sufficient
to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends as a matter of compassion that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  Moving the DD Form 616 and DD Form 553, currently on the P-Fiche,
to the R-Fiche;

      b.  Inserting in the P-Fiche in place of the DD Form 616 and the DD
Form 553 a non-prejudicial statement that clearly identifies that there was
an erroneous report of absence; and

      c.  Referring the applicant to a Stand-By Advisory Board for
consideration for promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC)/E-7 following
completion of the above actions.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was
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
expunging the DD Form 616 and related documents from the OMPF.




            ____John T. Meixell______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017494                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/02/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |Grant Partial                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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