MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032432

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 her name be removed from the title block of a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation report. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was unjustly titled on a CID report and accused of committing an offense for which she was not guilty.  She further states that she is a government civilian residing in Germany with her family and that as a result of her being titled, she will lose her government job and be returned to the United States with no place to go.  She goes on to state that she is active in the church and her community and that the unjust accusations against her have placed an unnecessary burden on her and her family.  In support of her application she submits an extensive packet which includes the CID report.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant is a Department of the Army civilian who has provided the documents necessary to adjudicate the case.

On 17 December 1998 the applicant was titled in a CID report of investigation along with several other individuals and the investigation established probable cause to believe that the applicant had committed the offense of aggravated assault on 17 May 1998.  It also established probable cause that other members who were also titled had committed offenses as well.

On 5 June 1998 the applicant’s father was directed to prepare a request for early return of the applicant (family member) due to her involvement in a serious incident in the community which resulted in her being titled by the CID for aggravated assault.  The applicant was also barred from all installations and facilities in the command.  The applicant’s father indicated in his response that he did not concur with the decision of the commander and elected to submit an appeal through the next higher commander.

Based on information submitted on behalf of the applicant by her father, the action to return the applicant to the United States was suspended by the commander on 9 July 1998, pending the outcome of the investigation. 

The applicant was notified on 17 September 1998 that her employer intended to separate her from employment within 7 days, due to involvement in an incident in which she was charged with aggravated assault.  Her actions constituted employee misconduct under employee standards of conduct and warranted termination of her employment.  She was afforded the opportunity to appeal and apparently chose not to do so.  The applicant was terminated on 29 September 1998.

The applicant submitted an appeal on or about 19 October 1998 to the Criminal Investigation Command – Army Crimes Record Center requesting that her name be removed from the title block of the CID report.

On 29 October 1998 the commander notified the applicant’s father that the CID investigation had been completed and that after reviewing the evidence in the case, his daughter (the applicant) was to be returned to the United States no later than 10 November 1998.  He /(the applicant’s father) was again afforded the opportunity to appeal the commander’s decision.  An appeal was submitted on 8 November 1998.

On 14 January 1999, the CID command informed the applicant that her request to have her name removed from the title block was denied due to the fact that there was not a case of mistaken identity involved and therefore was no legal basis to do so.

The Area Commander denied the applicant’s appeal and barred the applicant from all military communities in US Army Europe (USAREUR) on 4 May 1999.

The applicant submitted her appeal to the Board on 8 July 1999 and indicated that she was a government civilian (GS-4) working in the Army Community Services office in the same location as the incident occurred.  There is no indication in the available evidence to explain why she was not returned to the United States as the commander directed.

Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5505.7 serves as the authority and criteria for CID titling decisions.  It states, in pertinent part, that titling ensures investigators can retrieve information in a report of investigation of suspected criminal activity at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes.  Whether to title an individual is an operational decision made by investigative officials, rather than a legal determination made by lawyers.  Titling or indexing alone does not denote any degree of innocence.  The criteria for titling are a determination credible information exists that a person (a) may have committed a criminal offense or (b) is otherwise made the object of a criminal investigation.  In other words, if there is a reason to investigate, the subject of the investigation should be titled.  

The DODI also directs that judicial or adverse actions shall not be taken solely on the basis of the fact that a person has been titled in an investigation.  By implication the DODI does not prohibit consideration of titling in making judicial or administrative decisions, but does prohibit using titling as the sole basis for those decisions.  Once an individual has been titled, the only basis to remove a name from the title block of a report is if it involves a case of mistaken identity.

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

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contention that she was unjustly titled by the CID without ever having been proved guilty, is without merit.  Individuals who are the subject of an investigation are titled without regard to innocence or guilt.  All of the individuals involved in the alleged incident were titled yet not all were deemed to have committed an offense.

3.  Although the applicant has asserted her innocence throughout the entire process, the issue before the Board is not one of guilt or innocence, but whether or not she was properly titled in a CID investigation.  Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board finds that she was properly titled, that there is no case of mistaken identity, and that there is no basis to remove her name from the title block of the investigation.  

4.  In regards to the applicant’s innocence, there is insufficient information in the evidence made available to the Board to ascertain with any degree of certainty if the CID erred in its assessment of the applicant’s involvement and the Board will not attempt to second-guess investigators on the scene.  Inasmuch as the Army has a need to maintain such records and since it is clear that the applicant was the subject of an investigation, the Board finds no error or injustice in titling the applicant as a subject of an investigation. 

5.  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___  ___eja___  ___inw __  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032432	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  328 	134.0000/REM CID TITLE	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.