PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041430

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, a retroactive commissioning date and active duty date with pay. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his security clearance was delayed for over two years even though the information contained in the security clearance packet did not change from when he initially filled it out in 1996.  These problems in processing his security clearance resulted in a delay in his being commissioned and in his entry on active duty.  In support of his application, he encloses a copy of two Inspector General (IG) memorandums, one from the First ROTC Region IG at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and the second from the Cadet Command IG at Fort Monroe, Virginia.  He also provides a copy of his Cadet Record Brief (CRB) and a copy of his active duty order.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that, subsequent to his appointment as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), he was ordered to active duty on 13 June 1999 to attend the Infantry Officer Basic Course (IOBC) at Fort Benning, Georgia and continues to serve on active duty at this time.

5.  The applicant’s CRB indicates that his security clearance packet was submitted on 10 December 1997 and that he graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology and completed his Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet requirements on 13 December 1998.  

6.  Order Number 158-2-A-861, dated 7 June 1999, issued by Headquarters First Region (ROTC), United States Army Cadet Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, ordered the applicant to active duty, effective upon his appointment in the USAR, to attend the IOBC at Fort Benning, Georgia.  His report date was established as 13 June 1999.

7.  On 7 April 2000, the IG of the First ROTC Region published a memorandum outlining the findings of his investigation pertaining to the processing of the applicant’s security clearance packet.  The IG attached the applicant’s CRB and stated that the information contained therein indicated that the applicant’s security packet was submitted on 10 December 1997.  Normally this should have been more than sufficient time to process the clearance in order for the applicant to be commissioned upon his graduation date in December 1998.  

8.  The First ROTC Region IG further explained that at the time the applicant’s clearance packet was submitted, the Defense Security Service (DSS), which is the activity that conducts security records checks, was undergoing a conversion from manual packets to electronic versions of most of the paperwork.  In Cadet Command they found this resulted in security clearance processing for manual packets taking much longer than the historical norm.  
9.  The First ROTC Region IG concluded his comments by indicating that had the applicant’s security clearance been processed under normal conditions he would have been commissioned in December 1998, when he graduated.  This would have allowed him to comply with his original active duty reporting date of 
25 January 1999,  which was six months earlier than his ultimate reporting date to active duty of 13 June 1999.  Finally, the IG determined that there was no indication that the applicant withheld information or tried to evade any issues raised during the security clearance process.  In fact, the IG commented that the applicant had been very straightforward throughout the entire security clearance process. 

10.  On 15 April 2000, the Cadet Command IG from Fort Monroe, Virginia issued a memorandum containing his recommendation in regard to the applicant’s application to this Board.  In it he recommended that the applicant’s date of rank be adjusted to the date of his graduation and that he be provided back pay, given the circumstances of the case.  The IG further commented that the applicant’s security clearance was delayed through no fault of his own which caused him not to be commissioned when he initially became eligible.  

11.  The Cadet Command IG indicates that the reason for the delay in the applicant’s commissioning was due to a series of mistakes at all security clearance processing levels, which caused the applicant extreme financial hardship during that period.  The IG also comments that through all this the applicant stayed the course when others would have given up and maintained an excellent attitude.  The IG concludes his memorandum by stating that it would be in the best interest of the Army to correct this unfair situation with the award of back pay and a date of rank adjustment.  

12.  In connection with this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Chief of the Accessions Branch at the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  This opinion indicated that the applicant’s appointment date should be adjusted to his date of graduation.  However, there should be no authorization granted for a change to the applicant’s active duty date.  The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion in order to afford him an opportunity to respond.  On 10 October 2000, he telephonically contacted a Board staff member to indicate he concurred with the comments and recommendations contained in this advisory opinion.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After carefully examining the evidence or record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board concludes that the partial relief recommended in PERSCOM advisory opinion is warranted in this case.  

2.  The evidence or record clearly shows that the applicant’s appointment date was unjustly delayed as a result of the inordinate amount of time it took to complete his security clearance processing.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s USAR appointment date and date of rank as a 2nd Lieutenant to 13 December 1998, the date he initially became eligible for commissioning.  

3.  Although, the applicant could have entered active duty in January 1999 had his clearance been processed, he did not actually enter active duty until June 1999.  In the opinion of the Board, the relief provided in the preceding paragraph sufficiently addresses the injustice served on the applicant in this case and there is no basis to provide him back pay and allowances for active duty service he did not actually perform.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the appointment date and date of rank as a 2nd Lieutenant in the USAR of the individual concerned is 13 December 1998.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___fe ___  __lem___  ___hbo__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Fred Eichorn_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041430	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  224	112.0200	
2.  297	128.1400	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.