IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001002 APPLICANT REQUESTS: • removal of her General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), 18 June 2015, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) • a Special Selection Board for Promotion to captain (CPT) • reinstatement of her security clearance • reinstatement in the U.S. Army Reserves • her name removed from the titling block of the Report of Investigation (ROI), 2 January 2014 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) • Supplemental Statement, 5 October 2022 • Tab A – 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support) Memorandum (GOMOR), 18 June 2015 • Tab B – ROI – Final, 2 January 2014 • Tab C – Marriage License, 20 February 2016; Driver License, 26 August 2021; Board of Correction of Military Record, Final Audit Report, 7 October 2022 • Addendum to Supplemental Statement, 14 February 2023: Tab D – Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Letter, RE: Review of Law Enforcement Report, 4 January 2023 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant defers to counsel. Counsel states no probable cause existed then or now to conclude the applicant committed the alleged offenses in the ROI nor the subsequent GOMOR. He further states: a. In 2009, the applicant was an untrained private that had not yet attended basic training. She was titled for allegedly stealing $4,000.00 for her recruiter by entering personally identifiable information into the Recruiter Assistance Database. She was never charged. She was not discharged. She received zero dollars from the alleged fraud. There can be no doubt that the applicant, as a private and new recruit, did exactly what she was instructed to do by her recruiters/noncommissioned officer (NCOs) for their sole benefit, without knowledge that they were using her to commit fraud. b. On or about 2 January 2014, the applicant was titled for alleged violations of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1028A (Aggravated Identity Theft), Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1343 (Wire Fraud), Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 641 (Theft), and Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 371 (Conspiracy). c. The CID investigation looked into multiple subjects and recruits over a 2-year period of time. The applicant was one of the Recruiting Assistants involved minimally in the investigation as it pertained to only two recruits – J____ P____ and C____ P____, here forth referenced as the P____ brothers. The NCOs/recruiters involved used multiple recruiting assistants to complete the fraud that they orchestrated. The applicant was an unknowing pawn, manipulated into a scheme she knew nothing about. d. The titling action, as it pertains to the applicant, was based exclusively off the statements of the P____ brothers, who claimed they had never spoken to her while being recruited. It appears they went through the enlistment process in 2009. The investigation began in 2012. The P____ brothers were being asked to recall events from 3 years earlier involving their enlistment process. e. Their memory was faulty. The applicant had worked with them. The P__ brothers were referred by her in 2009. Due to the length of time that had elapsed, e-mail traffic between her and the P__ brothers was not available. Many young adults often discontinue use of old e-mail addresses as the graduate to more professional addresses and domains. f. There was never a hearing, court-martial, or other confrontation where the P____ brothers were given an opportunity to see the applicant or to be confronted on their memory of the recruiting process. Those details have been lost to time. g. Upon instruction of her recruiter, the applicant entered the P___ brothers’ data as ordered. Her recruiters reportedly received a monetary bonus. The applicant received no monetary benefit. There was no evidence that she accepted any funds because she, in fact, did not. It defies logic and reason that she would agree to commit fraud with her recruiter for no compensation. That faulty logic alone defeats probable cause in this case. As stated above, "probable cause" is a totality of the circumstances analysis that requires a determination to be reasonable and based on all available evidence and considerations. It is not reasonable to conclude that the applicant committed fraud knowingly without ever receiving compensation or the promise of compensation. h. The applicant later commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. i. On 18 June 2015, the applicant, as an officer, received a GOMOR. The GOMOR alleged the applicant "conspired with a recruiter and stole $4,000.00 from the US Government when [she] entered or caused to be entered on [her] behalf, personally identifiable information of recruits you did not in fact recruit into the Army Reserve Recruiting Assistance Program database." j. After commissioning, the applicant subsequently received a GOMOR as an officer for allegations from when she was a private. That GOMOR served as a basis for denying her promotion to CPT and resulted in her separation from the U.S. Army Reserves for non-selection. k. Not only was the alleged conduct over a decade old, preventing her from meaningfully responding to the allegations, but even if true, she was a young private manipulated by sophisticated and experienced senior NCO recruiters. There is no justice or equity in punishing and reprimanding her a decade later under those circumstances. 3. She enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 19 June 2009 and signed a Senior Reserve Officer’s Training Corps Cadet Contract, earning a bachelor’s degree. 4. On 26 April 2013, she executed an oath of office and was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the grade of second lieutenant. She was assigned to 328th Combat Support Hospital, a U.S. Army Reserve troop program unit (TPU). 5. ROI – Final, 2 January 2014, shows an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant and Specialist (SPC) M___ D___ conspired with Sergeant First Class (SFC) N___ H___, a recruiter, and stole from the U.S. Government when they entered the recruits’ personally identifiable information (PII) into the Army Reserve Recruiting Assistance Program system claiming they nominated them for enlistment. The recruits stated they were self-referred and only provided their PII to SFC N___ H___. They did not know SPC M___ D___ nor the applicant. SPC M___ D___’s bank records also reflect large cash withdrawals subsequent to the payments from DOCUPAK. It was noted that SPC M___ D___ and SFC N___ H___ were initially investigated under another ROI. Assistant U.S. attorney opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant, SPC M___ D___, and SFC N___ H___ committed the offenses of theft, aggravated identity theft, fraud, and conspiracy. 6. 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support) memorandum (GOMOR), 18 June 2015, shows on 2 January 2014, CID determined that the applicant conspired with a recruiter and stole $4,000.00 from the U.S. Government when she entered, or caused to be entered on her behalf, personally identifiable information (PII) of recruits she did not in fact recruit into the Army Reserve Recruiting Assistance Program database. She was reprimanded for this misconduct. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 22 September 2015 and elected to consult with counsel and submit a statement on her behalf. 7. On 19 October 2015, in rebuttal to her GOMOR, counsel for the applicant stated that she has maintained from the very beginning of the investigation that she is innocent of any wrongdoing. The evidence submitted is not legally sufficient to establish that she violated any of the criminal sections of Title 18 the GOMOR references. Each agency that would have otherwise been responsible for prosecuting the applicant declined the opportunity. In other words, the commanding general is being asked to reprimand the applicant for criminal activity and accept the conclusion provided by CID that has been rejected by every other law enforcement agency that ever looked at it. 8. 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support) memorandum (Filing Determination for Memorandum of Reprimand Issued to Applicant), 3 March 2016, shows that after carefully considering the reprimand issued to the applicant, the commanding general concluded that the facts support the issuance of the GOMOR. He ordered the GOMOR be filed permanently in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File. 9. She entered active duty for training from 14 July to 22 September 2016 and completed the Health Services Administration Basic Officer Leader Course. She was released from ADT to the control of her TPU. 10. On 26 April 2019, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command published Orders B-04-902868 promoting her to first lieutenant (1LT) effective 21 September 2016. 11. On 24 August 2021, Headquarters, 88th Readiness Division, informed her by memorandum (Non-Selection for Promotion After Second Consideration) that she had been considered twice for promotion to CPT by the Army Reserve Components Selection Board, and, unfortunately, were not selected. Her transition from an active status was mandatory. 12. On19 January 2022, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command published Orders 22-019-00010, honorably discharging the applicant from the USAR on 1 March 2022 under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers) for being twice non-selected for promotion to CPT. 13. CID letter, 4 January 2023, shows that in July 2022, CID began a thorough review of investigations previously initiated and conducted into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in various Army Recruiting Assistance Programs. It further shows this review determined that, based upon the information available to CID in relevant files, there is an insufficient basis upon which to title or index the applicant in law enforcement databases for any offense related to Army Recruiting Assistance Programs. As relates to subject law enforcement report, CID has removed her name and identifying information from law enforcement systems, to include the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index (DCII) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Interstate Identification Index. 14. CID memorandum (Request for Sanitized Removal of Titling ROI and/or Military Police Report – Applicant), 10 April 2023, shows the Army Review Boards Agency was provided the most current, sanitized ROI – 1st Final Supplemental, 6 January 2023, regarding the applicant. In the supplemental report it shows that a subsequent review of this investigation by a CID Headquarters Review Team and Headquarters Counsel Office determined there was no probable cause to believe the applicant committed a crime because there was a misunderstanding of the contract requirements and the implementation procedures at the time of the initial work on this investigation. An administrative error occurred in the applicant of the credible information standard of Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 5505.07 (Titling and Indexing Subjects of Criminal Investigations in the DOD) in the initial titling of the applicant. Therefore, she is being deleted from the title block of the ROI. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. a. The evidence shows the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer (2LT) on 26 April 2013. She was eligible for promotion to 1LT on 25 Aril 2015. However, a January 2014 CID investigation resulted in the applicant being titled of Aggravated Identity Theft, Wire Fraud, Theft, and Conspiracy. As a result, she received a GOMOR on 18 June 2015 and her promotion to 1LT was delayed until 21 September 2016. Additionally, she was twice considered and not selected for promotion to CPT – presumably as a result of the derogatory information in her file- which also led to her discharge from the USAR on 1 March 2022. b. In July 2022, CID began a thorough review of investigations previously initiated and conducted into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in various Army Recruiting Assistance Programs (RAPs). This review has determined that, based upon the information available to CID in relevant files, there is an insufficient basis upon which to title or index the applicant in law enforcement databases for any offense related to RAP. As it relates to subject Law Enforcement Report, CID has removed the applicant’s name and identifying information from law enforcement systems, to include the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index (DCII) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Interstate Identification Index (Ill). c. GOMOR: The finding of the CID, reversing its decision and unsubstantiating the allegations against applicant, and withdrawing/amending her titling decision and specifically finding that the evidence does not support the allegations, means the GOMOR was given in error. Since the contested GOMOR was based exclusively on the now unsubstantiated CID investigation, the Board found it appropriate to remove this GOMOR from her official record. d. 1LT Grade: The Board also agreed that had it not been for the CID investigation in January 2014 and resultant titling action, the applicant would have been promoted to 1LT on 25 April 2015. Therefore, the Board determined her promotion order to 1LT should be corrected to show this effective date and date of rank. e. CPT Grade: The Board is aware that the reason for the applicant’ non-selection is unknown; however, the Board also agreed that it is reasonable to presume the applicant might have not been selected for promotion to CPT as a result of the derogatory information in her file. The adjustment of her DOR to 1Lt and removal of the GOMOR from her official service records qualifies her for promotion consideration to CPT by a special selection board under the appropriate year criteria. f. Reinstatement: The Board determined that based on the results of the special selection board, if selected for promotion, the applicant’s discharge order 91 March 202) should be voided and the applicant should be reinstated without a break in in service and with service credit and pay between discharge and reinstatement. g. Security Clearance: The Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for managing security clearances. The defense activity known as Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) is part of the Defense Security Service (DSS), an agency of the. DISCO processes and adjudicates Personnel Clearances. If the applicant is reinstated into the USAR and requires a security clearance, she may resubmit the necessary application through her security manager. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 xx: xx: xx: GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. Removing the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and any allied documents from her official military personnel file. b. Amending Orders B-04-902868, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command to show her effective date and date of rank for promotion to 1LT as 25 April 2015 vice 21 September 2016, with entitlement to back pay and allowances. c. After removal of GOMOR and adjustment of her 1LT DOR: (1) Submitting the applicant’ record before a special selection board for promotion consideration to CPT by the earliest eligible year criteria, based on her now-corrected DOR. (2) If selected for promotion: • remove the non-selection memorandums from her official records • void/revoke her discharge order from the USAR (1 March 2022) • reinstate her into the U.S. Army Reserve (effective 1 March 2022) • award her service credit and pay for the period from date of discharge to date of reinstatement • promote her to CPT effective the date the respective selection board was approved. (3) If not selected, inform the applicant of her non-selection. 8/8/2023 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. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), 10 April 2018, sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensured that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensured 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. Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files) states an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. b. Paragraph 3-5 (Filing of Nonpunitive Administrative Memoranda of Reprimand, Admonition, or Censure) states nonpunitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure in official personnel files, such as a memorandum of reprimand, may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 (Appeals). 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 Management 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. Paragraph 3-6 (Authority for Filing or Removing Documents in the AMHRR Folders) 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. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), 9 September 2020, prescribes policies, operating rules, and steps governing promotion of Army commission and warrant office on the Active Duty List. Chapter 6 (Special Selection Boards) states special selection boards may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA) determines that one or more of the following circumstances exist: a. Administrative error. An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled bord because of administrative error. b. Material Unfairness. (1) The action of the promotion board that considered the officer from in or above the promotion zone was contrary to law in a matter material to the division of the board or involved material error of fact or material administrative error. (2) The board that considered the officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it for its consideration material information. 5. Army Regulation 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities), effective 9 July 2014, prescribed policies and procedures pertaining to criminal investigations, crime prevention surveys, protective service missions, force protection and antiterrorism efforts and the collection, retention, and dissemination of criminal information. Chapter 4 provided guidance for investigative records, files, and reports. a. Paragraph 4-4 prescribed guidance for individual requests for access to or amendment of CID Reports of Investigation (ROIs). Requests to amend CID ROIs will be considered only under the provisions of this regulation. b. Paragraph 4-4b stated requests to amend or unfound offenses in CID ROIs will be granted only if the individual submits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant revision of the report. The burden of proof to substantiate the request rests with the individual. Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted if it is determined that credible information did not exist to believe the individual committed the offense for which titled as a subject at the time the investigation was initiated, or the wrong person's name has been entered as a result of mistaken identity. The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CID ROI is an investigative determination that is independent of judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action taken against the individual or the results of such action. Within these parameters, the decision to make any changes in the report rests within the sole discretion of the Commanding General, CID. The decision will constitute final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army with respect to requests for amendment under this regulation. 6. DODI 5505.07, 28 February 2018, establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for a uniform standard for titling and indexing subjects of criminal investigations by the DOD. a. Paragraph 1.2a states DOD components authorized to conduct criminal investigations, as outlined in DOD Instruction 5505.16 (Investigations by DOD Components), will title and index subjects of criminal investigations as soon as the investigation determines there is credible information that the subject committed a criminal offense. Indexing in the DCII may be delayed until the conclusion of the investigation due to operational security. b. Paragraph 1.2b states victims and incidentals associated with criminal investigations can be titled and indexed. c. Paragraph 1.2c states titling and indexing are administrative procedures and will not imply any degree of guilt or innocence. d. Paragraph 1.2d states once the subject of a criminal investigation is indexed in the DCII, the information will remain in the DCII, even if the subject is found not guilty of the offense under investigation, unless there is mistaken identity, or it is later determined no credible information existed at the time of titling and indexing. e. Paragraph 1.2e states if a subject's information requires expungement from or correction in the DCII, DOD components will remove the information as soon as possible. f. Paragraph 1.2f states judicial or adverse administrative actions will not be taken based solely on the existence of a titling or indexing record in a criminal investigation. g. Paragraph 3.1 states a subject is titled in a criminal investigative report to ensure accuracy and efficiency of the report. A subject's information is indexed in the DCII to ensure this information is retrievable for law enforcement or security purposes in the future. h. Paragraph 3.2 states a subject who believes he/she was incorrectly indexed, as outlined in paragraph 1.2.d., may appeal to the DOD component head to obtain a review of the decision. i. Paragraph 3.3 states when reviewing the appropriateness of a titling or indexing decision, the reviewing official will only consider the investigative information at the time of the decision to determine if the decision was made in accordance with paragraph 1.2.a. j. Paragraph 3.4 states DOD components that conduct criminal investigations will make appropriate corrections or expungements to criminal investigative reports or the DCII as soon as possible. 7. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, effective 1 January 2021, authorized appropriations for Fiscal Year 2021 for military activities of the DOD, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Section 545 stated: a. Policy and Process Required. Not later than 1 October 2021, the Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain a policy and process through which any covered person may request that the person's name, personally identifying information, and other information pertaining to the person shall, in accordance with subsection c, be corrected in, or expunged or otherwise removed from, the following: (1) a law enforcement or criminal investigative report of the DOD or any component of the military department; (2) an index item or entry in the DCII; and (3) any other record maintained in connection with a report described in paragraph (1), or an index item or entry described in paragraph (2), in any system of records, records database, records center, or repository maintained by or on behalf of the military department. b. Covered Persons. For purposes of this section, a covered person is any person whose name was placed or reported, or is maintained: (1) in the subject or title block of a law enforcement or criminal investigative report of the DOD (or any component of the military department); (2) as an item or entry in the DCII; or (3) in any other record maintained in connection with a report described in paragraph (1), or an index item or entry described in paragraph (2), in any system of records, records database, records center, or repository maintained by or on behalf of the military department. c. Elements. The policy and process required by subsection (a) shall include the following elements: (1) Basis for correction or expungement. That the name, personally identifying information, and other information of a covered person shall be corrected in, or expunged or otherwise removed from, a report, item or entry, or record described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) in the following circumstances: (a) probable cause did not or does not exist to believe that the offense for which the person's name was placed or reported, or is maintained, in such report, item or entry, or record occurred, or insufficient evidence existed or exists to determine whether or not such offense occurred; (b) probable cause did not or does not exist to believe that the person actually committed the offense for which the person's name was so placed or reported, or is so maintained, or insufficient evidence existed or exists to determine whether or not the person actually committed such offense; or (c) such other circumstances, or on such other bases, as the Secretary may specify in establishing the policy and process, which circumstances and bases may not be inconsistent with the circumstances and bases provided by subparagraphs (a) and (b). (2) Considerations. While not dispositive as to the existence of a circumstance or basis set forth in paragraph (1), the following shall be considered in the determination whether such circumstance or basis applies to a covered person for purposes of this section: (a) the extent or lack of corroborating evidence against the covered person concerned with respect to the offense at issue; (b) whether adverse administrative, disciplinary, judicial, or other such action was initiated against the covered person for the offense at issue; and (c) the type, nature, and outcome of any action described in subparagraph (b) against the covered person. (3) Procedures. The policy and process required by subsection (a) shall include procedures as follows: (a) procedures under which a covered person may appeal a determination of the applicable component of the DOD denying, whether in whole or in part, a request for purposes of subsection (a); (b) procedures under which the applicable component of the military department will correct, expunge, or remove; take other appropriate action on, or assist a covered person in so doing, any record maintained by a person, organization, or entity outside of the military department to which such component provided, submitted, or transmitted information about the covered person, which information has or will be corrected in, or expunged or removed from, military department records pursuant to this section; (c) the timeline pursuant to which the military department, or a component of the military department, as applicable, will respond to each of the following: • a request pursuant to subsection (a) • an appeal under the procedures required by subparagraph (a) • request for assistance under the procedures required by subparagraph (b) (d) mechanisms through which the military department will keep a covered person apprised of the progress of the military department on a covered person's request or appeal as described in subparagraph (c). 8. Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officer), 30 March 2020, prescribes the policies, criteria, and procedures governing the separation of Reserve officers of the Army. Paragraph 4-3a(5)(b) stated 1LT who has completed his or her statutory mandatory service obligation will be discharged for failure to be selected for promotion after second consideration by a DA Reserve Component selection board no later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the President approves the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time, unless the officer is retained. 9. Army Regulation 380-67 (Personnel Security Program), 24 January 2014, establishes policies and procedures that ensure that acceptance and retention of personnel in the Armed Forces and U.S. Army, acceptance and retention of civilian employees in the DOD and DA, and granting members of the Armed Forces, Army, DA and DOD civilian employees, DA and DOD contractors, and other affiliated persons access to classified information and assignment to sensitive position are clearly consistent with the interest of national security. Paragraph 2-1 (General) states only U.S. citizens shall be granted a personnel security clearance, assigned to sensitive duties, or granted access to classified information unless an authority designated has determined that, based on all available information, there are compelling reasons in furtherance of the DOD mission, including, special expertise, to assign an individual who is not a citizen to sensitive duties or grant a limited access authorization to classified information. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//