ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 16 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014591 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * restoration of his rank to Staff Sergeant (SSG) * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * letter from Army Review Board Agency * initial DD Form 149 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * page 1 of form PNG2627 (Record of Proceedings for Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP)) * self-authored letter regarding his security clearance * memorandum requesting expedited adjudication * two DA Form 4836 (Developmental Counseling Form) * letters of reference for character * memorandum subject Intent to Revoke Security Clearance * Statement of Reasons for revocation of security clearance * letters of recommendation * self-authored appeal to the NJP * enrollment in Structured-Self Development (SSD) 3 * excerpt from AR 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) * email regarding Trial Defense Services (TDS) * suspension of security clearance * excerpt regarding limitations on NJP * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * self-authored letter regarding counseling form and FLAG * applicant's resume * applicant's biographical sketch * Enlisted Record Brief * script for NJP * three DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) * appointment of investigating officer * findings and recommendations of the investigating officer * character reference * email to ARBA regarding security clearance FACTS: 1. The applicant states: * he was reduced for inefficiency * he has very little paperwork regarding the reduction * the paperwork was restricted so it would not hinder his career * he received an honorable discharge from the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 26 October 2017 so he could enlist in the Air National Guard * he obviously is not a threat * he believes the only way he will get his security clearance back is to have the grade reduction reversed * he wants to continue serving and it has been extremely hard for him because of the reduction * he included the information he sent to the security office for the Board's consideration * he feels he was reduced to cover up facts * he had done an Inspector General (IG) complaint and exposes some unjust thing that were going on * he does not have a copy of the IG inspection and was never given the results or the outcome * he does know some high ranking people involved in the inspection were moved * he feels it was a political move in retaliation for the complaint that exposed some people 2. The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's review: * a letter from ARBA stating he needed to request correction of records through his state Adjutant General prior submitting a request to ARBA * his initial request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records wherein he asks for his security clearance to be reinstated and his rank to SSG be reinstated * his DD Form 214 for his service in Romania from 29 October 2014 through 23 July 2015 * page 1 of his NJP * a request to expedite the adjudication regarding the applicant's security clearance * a counseling form informing the applicant his security clearance was suspended * reference letters to the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF) * email traffic regarding enrollment in SSD 3 stating he did not have a reservation to take the SSD 3 course * a memorandum informing the applicant of the intent to revoke his security clearance * a statement of reasons for revocation of his security clearance * letter of recommendation for employment * an excerpt from AR 600-8-2 regarding flags * email exchange regarding trying to contact TDS * a memorandum informing the applicant of a suspension to his security clearance * a printout regarding limitations on NJP regarding double punishment being prohibited * his removal flag * a counseling statement, dated 22 May 2016, informing the applicant he was flagged for a commanders investigation on 24 November 2015 * a self-authored letter stating he disagreed with the time line of the counseling form and the flagging action * a counseling statement dated 22 May 2016 stating his security clearance was still suspended * a self-authored not regarding the allegations of forgery * the applicant's resume * the applicant's biographical sketch * the applicant's enlisted records brief dated 5 June 2016 * the NJP script showing the charges of submitting a false certificate and submitting false documents to the promotion board * character reference letter 3. In an email to ARBA to add additional facts to his application, the applicant states: * he received his Top Secret security clearance on 7 November 2018 * this is important because after the Department of the Army Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) completed their investigation they found in his favor * this could be due to the paperwork he submitted showing the company commander saying he was going to do one thing and then did something else * he also let DoD CAF know he was willing to take a polygraph * since the DoD CAF investigative board found in his favor he feels this Board has due diligence to reverse the punishment of his NJP 4. The applicant was promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG) in the Pennsylvania ARNG on 26 March 2013. In December 2015, two sworn statements were written in regards to the applicant. The statements say, in part: * the author of the statement received information the applicant may have forged his SSD 3 certificate * the applicant had a completion certificate but there was no record of him being registered for the class or had even started the class * it appeared someone in the applicant's deployed unit either mistakenly or on purpose coded him as having completed the Advanced Leaders Course * he was coded as having completed the course while he was still attending the course * the applicant had submitted the SSD 3 certificate in preparation for the promotion board * based on discussion with other members of the unit, it appeared the applicant or someone else forged the SSD 3 certificate and submitted them to the unit so he would be eligible for the promotion board 5. The commander of the applicant's unit appointed an officer to investigate the allegation of falsification of official documents. After completion of the investigation on 17 December 2015, the investigating officer found the applicant falsified his SSD 3 certificate and submitted it for inclusion into his permanent file. He concluded it was impossible for the applicant to have completed SSD 3 as presented on his certificate and recommended administrative reduction due to inefficiency as a noncommissioned officer or NJP. 6. The applicant was flagged prior to the investigation by the investigating officer; however, the applicant did not provide, and his service records are void of, the initial flagging action. He does provide the flag removal, dated 22 May 2016 which states the flag was removed because the case closed unfavorably. 7. The applicant provides the front page of his NJP and the NJP script. The applicant did not provide, and his service records are void of, the punishment portion of his NJP. The applicant's NGB Form 22 (National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service) lists him as a Sergeant with the date of rank of 22 May 2016, the day he received his NJP. His discharge orders also list him as a Sergeant. 8. The applicant appealed his NJP on 5 June 2016. The appeal states, in part: * he was punished on 24 November 2015 for falsification of documents and participating in the promotion board with the falsified documents * his punishment was reduction to Sergeant * the punishment given was unjust and disproportionate to the acts of misconduct he was alleged to have committed * he was punished by two commanders for the same offense * his company commander suspended his security clearance and recommended revocation of it in retaliation of an IG complaint he filed regarding proper notification process in a timely manner * he requested the punishment be reduced by suspending the punishment for 6 months or no reduction at all based on the punishment he already endured. 9. Block 9 of the NJP indicates the appeal was denied. 10. The applicant states his NJP was as a result of retaliation for an IG complaint he submitted. His records are void of, and the applicant did not provide, evidence of the IG complaint or the outcome of the IG complaint. 11. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted Soldiers in promotion, appointment, reduction, and discharge. It states commanders may reduce Soldiers for the following reasons: a. Inefficiency. Inefficiency is defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the Soldier concerned lacks the abilities and qualities required and expected of a Soldier of his or her rank and experience. Commanders may consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. b. Reductions for misconduct. If appropriate an Article 15 may be used to effect reductions for misconduct. 12. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request. Supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, the circumstances of his promotion and reduction by NJP, the absence of evidence of an IG complaint or the outcome of an IG complaint, evidence of registration for or completion of SSD 3, the flag removal and his rank at discharge from the ARNG. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s and determined that his rank at separation was not in error or unjust. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 3. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ? REFERENCES 1. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted Soldiers in promotion, appointment, reduction, and discharge. It states commanders may reduce Soldiers for the following reasons: a. Inefficiency. Inefficiency is defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the Soldier concerned lacks the abilities and qualities required and expected of a Soldier of his or her rank and experience. Commanders may consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. b. Reductions for misconduct. If appropriate an Article 15 may be used to effect reductions for misconduct. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR), the regulation under which this Board operations, provides that ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly brought before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice, and to direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that a material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. AR20180014591 2