IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 April 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008194 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of derogatory information (in effect, Brigade Commander’s Determination about Falsified Training Certificates, and allied documents) from the restricted folder of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552). FACTS: 1. The applicant states the derogatory information filed in the restricted folder of her AMHRR should be removed as the investigation findings were inconclusive. The investigation packet should not have become part of her permanent records. Per the Acquisition Support Center G-1, only a letter would become part of her permanent records, not the entire 254-page investigation. The documents should be removed "due to the unprofessional scar left on her options and professional progression to maximize her talents and expertise in her military career." She has not been able to apply for career-broadening assignments; special duties; or Headquarters, Department of the Army, selected opportunities because of the improper submission of these documents. 2. The 402d Army Field Support Brigade (AFSB) memorandum (Duty Appointment as Investigating Officer (IO)), 6 November 2013, appointed an IO to conduct a Commander's Inquiry to: a. review the applicant's military files that were updated prior to the November 2013 promotion cut-off scores published on 24 October 2013; b. determine if the questionable documents were used in a false or faulty manner to gain points for promotion; and c. determine whether the applicant would still make the cut-off score for promotion to staff sergeant if the documents were removed from her promotion packet. 3. The U.S. Army Materiel Command memorandum (Findings and Recommendations for a Commander's Inquiry into Falsified Training Certificate Submitted by (Applicant)), 25 November 2013, summarizes the findings and recommendations by the IO. a. The IO found: (1) The applicant submitted at least six documents in support of her promotion that contained signatures that were not the signature of the person who was purported to have signed the certificate. (2) The applicant used the subject documents to gain points for promotion. As they were found to be fraudulent, they were submitted to falsely gain points for promotion. (3) Even without the fraudulent documents, the applicant would have met the cut-off score for promotion. (4) Some of the training certificates submitted are for courses that do not exist in the Army Training Requirement and Resources System (ATRRS) and do not appear in the applicant's ATRRS record. (5) The applicant rendered a false official statement by providing a sworn statement that she received the above-referenced exhibits after she completed the training. False official statements are those made by a person who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official statement knowing it to be false. The applicant signed her official statement knowing she did not attend the referenced training and the signatures on her certificates were falsified. Because these signatures are fraudulent, there is no evidence that she attended and successfully completed the subject training. b. The IO recommended: (1) not promoting the applicant to staff sergeant; (2) imposing whatever adverse administrative action or nonjudicial punishment the commander deems necessary against the applicant; (3) removing the falsified documents from the applicant's promotion packet and permanent record; and (4) conducting training for personnel in the 402d AFSB on promotion packet audits and the importance of ethical conduct in public service. 4. The 402d AFSB memorandum from the brigade commander (Re-Opening of Commander's Inquiry Pursuant to Rules for Courts-Martial 303, Uniform Code of Military Justice), 12 February 2014, re-opened his initial Commander's Inquiry. The IO was directed to address the following questions and issues, and obtain statements from additional witnesses to: a. determine how the applicant's previous unit(s) maintained and issued training certificates; b. determine whether the applicant's previous unit(s) maintained sign-in rosters or training logs for training conducted by the unit and, if so, obtain the rosters and logs associated with the fraudulent training certificates identified in the applicant's promotion packet; c. ask the applicant how she received the suspected fraudulent certificates and who issued them to her. Additionally, ask her why the certificates identified as fraudulent are not in her ATTRS records; and d. if the applicant identifies Soldiers or civilians who attended the training courses with her, obtain their contact information and conduct follow-up interviews with those personnel to confirm whether the applicant attended the training. 5. The U.S. Army Materiel Command memorandum from the IO (Findings and Recommendations for a Commander's Inquiry (Continuation) into Falsified Training Certificate Submitted by (Applicant)), 23 April 2014, summarizes the findings and recommendations by the IO. a. The IO found: (1) Based on the sworn statements received from the applicant's previous units, training records are maintained for 1 year and Soldiers are issued original certificates upon completion of unit training. (2) A Soldier from the applicant's previous unit stated that when the unit-level training is conducted, the unit maintains sign-in rosters and a tracking log, but the unit had no records from 2007 to substantiate the training the applicant stated she completed there. (3) The applicant provided a sworn statement that she completed the training in question and was issued the certificates from the training room upon moving from the units, but she was not issued original copies. She also stated she was not aware that the training certificates were forgeries and she did not knowingly submit falsified training documents. b. The IO recommended: (1) removing the falsified documents based on sworn statements from the applicant; (2) issuing a reprimand or other administrative action to the applicant as the command sees fit; (3) conducting monthly birth-month audits by the brigade S-1 section to alleviate incidents like this from occurring in the future; and (4) training for all human resource personnel on ATRRS. 6. The 1st Sustainment Command (Theater) memorandum from the administrative law attorney (Legal Review – Commander's Inquiry into (Applicant's) Training Certificates), 24 April 2014, states she reviewed the preliminary inquiry into the reported offenses regarding the applicant's falsified training certificates. She deemed the investigation to be legally sufficient and the evidence supported the findings and recommendations. 7. The 402d AFSB memorandum from the brigade commander (Brigade Commander's Determination about Falsified Training Certificates), 9 May 2014, directed removal of six documents from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File due to fraudulent signatures. He further issued her a letter of concern. 8. Her service records are void of documentation that directs filing the investigation in her AMHRR. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The evidence of record shows a Commander’s Inquiry was conducted to look into allegations of promotion documents fraud. Although the inquiry did not conclusively determine whether the applicant violated any rules, regulatory guidance states documents determined to be fraudulent through an investigation will be labeled "fraud document." The documents must meet AR 15-6 requirements to be labeled as fraudulent. The investigation will be filed with the documents. A memorandum will be submitted, signed by the official records custodian or a designated representative. Based on regulatory guidance, the Board determine the contested documents are properly filed. 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. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers), 2 October 2006, established procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive. This regulation or any part of it may be made applicable to investigations or boards that are authorized by another directive, but only by specific provision in that directive or in the memorandum of appointment. In case of a conflict between the provisions of this regulation, when made applicable, and the provisions of the specific directive authorizing the investigation or board, the latter will govern. Even when not specifically made applicable, this regulation may be used as a general guide for investigations or boards authorized by another directive, but in that case its provisions are not mandatory. a. Paragraph 1-5c (Preliminary Investigations) stated an administrative fact-finding procedure under this regulation, whether designated as an investigation or a board of officers, may be conducted before, concurrently with, or after an investigation into the same or related matters by another command or agency. b. Paragraph 1-6 (Function of Investigations and Boards) stated the primary function of any investigation or board of officers is to ascertain facts and to report them to the appointing authority. It is the duty of the IO or board to ascertain and consider the evidence on all sides of each issue, thoroughly and impartially, and to make findings and recommendations that are warranted by the facts and that comply with the instructions of the appointing authority. c. Paragraph 4-1 (Composition) stated informal procedures may be used by a single IO or by a board of two or more members. One officer is not designated a board unless procedures are formal. d. Paragraph 4-2 (Procedure) stated an informal investigation or board may use whatever method it finds most efficient and effective for acquiring information. Information may be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), 2 October 2020, sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensures that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensures that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Paragraph 3-2 (Polices) states unfavorable information will not be filed in the AMHRR unless the recipient has been given the opportunity to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and a reasonable amount of time to make a written statement in response. b. Paragraph 3-3 (Filing of Information Exempt from the Referral Procedure) states the following information may be filed in the performance folder of the AMHRR without further referral to the recipient: (1) Records. Records of courts-martial and courts-martial orders, and records of proceedings pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. (2) Proceedings of Boards of Officers. It must be clear that the recipient has been given the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses on his or her own behalf. (3) Completed Criminal Investigative Reports. These include criminal reports (or authenticated extracts) that have resulted in adverse administrative or disciplinary action against the person concerned. The investigative report will be referenced when it is not practical to include the entire report (or an extract). (4) Certified Judgments of Civilian Criminal Convictions (to Include the Record of Arrest) or extracts thereof may be included in the AMHRR. The certified judgment of conviction may include the record of arrest. Records consisting solely of minor traffic violations are not to be filed in the AMHRR. (5) Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Administrative processing and the appeal of evaluation instruments are governed by Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). (6) General. Other unfavorable information of which the recipient had prior official knowledge and an adequate opportunity to refute. c. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) states once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), 7 April 2014, prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. a. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. b. Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) contains the list of all documents approved by Department of the Army and required for filing in the AMHRR and/or interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System. Records of civil convictions are filed in the performance folder. Documents determined to be fraudulent through an investigation will be labeled "fraud document." The documents must meet Army Regulation 15-6 requirements to be labeled as fraudulent. The investigation will be filed with the documents. A memorandum will be submitted, signed by the official records custodian or a designated representative. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220008194 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1