MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           14 January 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070865

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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:  That his date of rank as a staff sergeant (SSG) be backdated from 18 January 2002 to 1 June 1999.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his company commander was responsible for the delay in restoring his security clearance and thereby precluding his timely promotion.

In support of his request he submits a memorandum of support from a lieutenant colonel, apparently his current commander, who mirrors the applicant's contention.  

A memorandum from a civilian security assistant states that the applicant submitted his "file on 25 Jun 98 and to no fault of his own [it] has been in due process since." 

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 17 January 1996.  On 13 November 1996, while serving as a sergeant, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for making a false official statement [to the effect that he was divorced] stealing $13,160.75 in government funds and bigamy.  The record of the NJP is currently filed in the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

The available copy of the applicant's OMPF is devoid of any information relating to either his promotion to SSG or his security clearance. 

During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Central Personnel Security Facility.  It reports that he was notified of intent to revoke his security clearance because of the above mentioned NJP incident.  He failed to respond by the 1 June 1998 deadline and his clearance was revoked.  The applicant requested reconsideration on 25 June 1998 but his submitted comments concerning financial difficulties were deemed to require a new investigation.  Upon completion of that investigation a secret clearance was issued on 18 January 2002.

Another advisory opinion, from Promotions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command, notes that the applicant's clearance was reinstated on 18 January 2002 and that he was promoted that date because that was the date upon which he became fully eligible for promotion.  The deputy chief of the Promotions Branch notes "There is no documentation in the applicant's record that indicates a letter of endorsement, signed by the commander, was required by the clearance facility."

In rebuttal to the advisory opinions, the applicant submits copies of two memoranda from the Personnel Security Clearance Agency.  One, dated 2 March 1998, states, in part, "Commander's recommendation should be added to individual's statement of rebuttal."  The second, dated 27 April 1998, states in part "SUBJECT has been advised that his response must be endorsed…by HIS immediate supervisor through command channels.…"  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The contentions of the applicant including his rebuttal of the advisory opinions and those of his supporters have been noted, but there is no substantiating evidence to show that the period of time required to complete the security clearance investigation was in any way lengthened by the commander's failure to act.  The civilian security assistant clearly states that the applicant's appeal was submitted on 25 June 1998.  She makes no mention of any delay caused by the company commander.  

2.  The applicant's security clearance was revoked because of his own misconduct.  A new investigation was deemed necessary because of his assertions of financial problems.  He was promoted as soon as that investigation was completed and his security clearance was restored.  This was the earliest date that he was fully eligible for promotion.

3.  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.

4.  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

_MKP___  __JLP___  __MMB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070865	
SUFFIX		
		
	20030114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.