MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           15 November 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061050

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		                         Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		                         Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that all record of the unsubstantiated allegations made against him concerning his supplying alcoholic beverages to a junior enlisted female soldier be removed from any and all Army records which could be accessed in the processing of his application for active duty under the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.

APPLICANT STATES:  That because there was no proof of any wrongdoing on his part, no action was taken against him as a result of the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) inquiry which found that he supplied alcoholic beverages to a junior enlisted female soldier. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 31 July 2000, the applicant, an enlisted reservist in pay grade E-7 assigned to a troop program unit as a drilling reservist, was notified that he was not selected for recruiter duty in the AGR program because of unfavorable information which was provided by the DAIG during a background screening check.  It was explained to him that this unfavorable information would disqualify him for recruiting duty for 3 years from the date of the incident.

The applicant requested a copy of the unfavorable information and was provided a DA Prototype 1559-E (a form used to summarize the findings of an IG inquiry or investigation).  In that form it was stated that the investigator substantiated that the applicant provided alcohol to a junior enlisted female soldier, and recommended that the applicant’s higher headquarters follow-up on the DAIG inquiry with a formal investigation, and that the applicant be counseled concerning providing alcoholic beverages to junior enlisted soldiers.

The applicant appealed his failure to be selected for recruiting duty, stating that he was innocent of any wrongdoing.  He then presented his recollection of what occurred on the day in question, stating that a junior enlisted female soldier drank excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages in the dining facility for which he was responsible.  That overindulgence resulted in her inability to work the following day due to a severe hangover.  He maintained that he had not supplied that soldier with the alcoholic beverages.  He continues that although he was questioned about the incident the following day, when no further action was taken against him he assumed that no adverse information was generated against him as a result of the incident.  In support of his appeal he submitted numerous letters attesting to his performance of duty and ethics.

On 16 January 2001, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denied the applicant’s appeal, stating that while the applicant clearly denied the allegation made against him, he had failed to provide evidence which would overturn the substantiated DAIG report.
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board must agree with the PERSCOM.  While the applicant has denied the allegation that he provided alcoholic beverages to a junior female enlisted soldier, he has not provided any evidence which would warrant overturning a DAIG investigation which found that the allegation was substantiated.

2.  Neither the applicant’s prior duty performance nor his command’s failure to take punitive action against him as a result of the DAIG investigation establishes his guilt or innocence in the incident.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sk ___  ____inw _  ___kah__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061050	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001061050	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.