IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 24 May 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220004036


APPLICANT REQUESTS:

*	Removal of his name from the title block of a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 
Command (CID) Law Enforcement Report (LER), or, alternatively, correction of 
the LER to reflect the allegations were unfounded 
*	Correction of a DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary or 
Administrative Action), dated 21 December 2018 and pertaining to the applicant, 
so that it shows the applicant did not receive a general officer memorandum of 
reprimand (GOMOR) for the alleged offenses listed in the CID LER
*	Permission to appear personally before the Board

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Enclosure 1 – Request to CID (i.e., U.S. Army Crime Records Center 
(USACRC))
*	Enclosure 2 – CID (USACRC) Response
*	Enclosure 3 – BOI (Board of Inquiry) Transcript
*	Enclosure 4 – CID Investigation
*	Enclosure 5 – Non-Prosecution Memorandum
*	Enclosure 6 – GOMOR
*	Enclosure 7 – Rebuttal Matters
*	Enclosure 8 – GOMOR Filing Decision
*	Enclosure 9 – DA Form 4833
*	Enclosure 10 – 26 April 2021 CPT (Captain) S__ Memorandum
*	Enclosure 11 – Initiation of Elimination Memorandum
*	Enclosure 12 – Findings and Recommendations
*	Enclosure 13 – HRC (U.S. Army Human Resources Command) Memorandum




FACTS:

1.  The applicant states, as his counsel notes in his brief, there was never any credible 
information to support the applicant's titling, nor was there valid proof to substantiate a 
case against the applicant. The DA Form 4833 and CID's LER both contain numerous 
inaccuracies, the greatest of which was the report that he received a GOMOR for the 
criminal offenses identified in the LER; in fact, his chain of command took no action of 
those allegations, and the GOMOR he received was for lesser misconduct. 
Nonetheless, the misstatements in the DA Form 4833 resulted in an invalid report to the 
National Crime Information Center, and this, along with the unsubstantiated titling, 
caused the applicant and his career great harm. 

2.  Counsel states:

	a. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5505.07 (Titling and Indexing in 
Criminal Investigations), in effect as of February 2018, outlines the following for 
DOD investigative entities:

		(1)  Titling is, "Placing the name and identifying information of a person, 
corporation, other legal entity, or activity in the title block of a criminal investigative 
report." 

		(2)  DOD investigative entities are to "title . . . subjects of criminal investigations 
as soon as the investigation determines there is credible information that the subject 
committed a criminal offense." 

		(3)  Credible information is defined as "Information disclosed or obtained by a 
criminal investigator that, considering the source and nature of the information and the 
totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained criminal 
investigator to presume the fact or facts in question are true."

	b.  Army Regulation (AR) 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities), dated 21 July 
2020, paragraph 4-4b (Individual requests for access to, or amendment of, U.S. Army 
Criminal Investigation Command law enforcement reports – Amendment of CID 
Reports), states, "requests to delete a person’s name from the subject block will be 
granted if it is determined that credible information did not exist to believe that 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."

	c. Counsel argues credible evidence to support the criminal allegations against the 
applicant did not exist at the initiation of CID's investigation and are not present now. 
"Given the totality of the circumstances at the time of the titling action, as well as the 
source and nature of the information, [applicant's] name should not have been placed in 
the subject block of the noted LER."

	d. Counsel offered the following background information:

		(1)  The applicant and _ (subsequently identified as the victim) married in August 
2015; emotionally abused the applicant throughout their 
8-month marriage by threatening him, throwing objects at him, and being emotionally 
manipulative. The applicant filed for divorce in May 2016, and this angered; shortly 
thereafter, in June 2016, she filed a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging 
aggravated assault and rape. 

		(2)  In early June 2016, told a co-worker the applicant had physically and 
sexually abused her; later that same day, reported her allegations to her battalion 
commander and went to CID for an interview. Despite claiming assault and sexual 
abuse earlier to her co-worker and battalion commander, would not let CID video record 
her interview, and she refused to make a written sworn statement. 

		(a)  In her interview, lleged the applicant had forced her to have sexual 
intercourse on several occasions and touched her in a manner that inflamed a pre-
existing injury; she additionally disclosed she and the applicant were going through an 
acrimonious divorce. The CID Special Agent's (SA) notes are the only record of 
CPT N__'s oral statement, in contravention of CID's own regulations that require such 
interviews, involving victims of rape, to be recorded.

		(b)  s refusal to permit the recording of her interview, added to her disclosure of a 
spiteful divorce, provide CPT N__ with a clear motive to fabricate her claims, and CID 
erred when it deemed her accusations as credible. Additionally, said she had told three 
people of the applicant's alleged crimes: her co-worker, her battalion commander, and 
her mother; such statements are hearsay, and, apart from _'s statement, constitute the 
only other proof of the applicant's alleged misconduct. Further, made the foregoing 
three disclosures just prior to giving her CID interview. 

		(c)  Not only is the timing of s outcries questionable, but provided differing stories 
to each of the three witnesses. CPT N__ told her mother the applicant had once forced 
her to perform oral sex in January 2016, and she then told her battalion commander 
that, in January 2016, she and the applicant had been having consensual sex, which 
turned non-consensual (even though the applicant andhad spent only a portion of one 
day in the same state during January 2016). To her 
co-worker, claimed the applicant had forced her to have sex on numerous occasions.  

		(d)  never provided, nor was CID able to uncover (after a months' long 
investigation) any independent corroboration of claims; additionally, offered no proof of 
her supposed "pre-existing injury," and crucial details in her accusations were directly 
disproven. For example, told CID that the applicant had been sexually violent with 
previous sexual partners; CID located and interviewed those former sexual partners and 
both women affirmed claims were false. In addition, the applicant's co-worker told CID 
behavior had seemed unstable and displayed "very concerning" behavior at work, and 
he opined eeded help, either on her own or command-directed. 

		(e)  In his interview with CID, the applicant was forthcoming about the issues in 
his marriage to, and he acknowledged that, "while he and sometimes had had rough 
sex, it had always been consensual, and it had been at the behest of " The applicant 
denied ever sexually or physically abusing 

		(3)  CID's investigation interviewed two noncommissioned officers (NCO) who 
worked with the applicant and, apart from the interviews of the aforementioned "outcry" 
witnesses and the applicant's two former sexual partners, CID performed very little 
further investigative activity. Nonetheless, the trial counsel declared there was sufficient 
probable cause to warrant the applicant's titling but strongly recommended the 
command not pursue either court-martial charges or administrative action against the 
applicant due to the lack of evidence. 

		(4)  Subsequently, the Commanding General (CG), Military District of 
Washington (MDW) assumed jurisdiction over the applicant's case to ensure any 
decisions made were unbiased; the commander agreed with the trial counsel and chose 
not to pursue either Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or administrative 
separation action against the applicant and opted instead to issue the applicant a 
GOMOR for striking in the face and engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship 
while married. In his rebuttal, the applicant submitted lengthy documentary evidence to 
show emotional abuse, and he continued to deny having struck in the face. Following a 
review of the applicant's rebuttal, the CG, MDW directed the GOMOR's filing in the 
applicant's local personnel file. Counsel notes the DA Form 4833 associated with the 
applicant's case incorrectly states the command issued the applicant a GOMOR for 
rape and aggravated assault.

		(5)  In March 2020, the Army selected the applicant for promotion to major (MAJ); 
however, the Secretary of the Army directed the applicant's removal from the promotion 
list, and the applicant's command initiated a board of inquiry, all based on the inaccurate 
DA Form 4833 and LER. Counsel argues the initiation of a board of inquiry violated 
paragraph 1-2f (Policy), DODI 5505.07, in that the regulation specifically states judicial 
or adverse administrative actions will not be taken solely on the basis of a titling action.
		(6)  The applicant's board of inquiry convened in August 2021; the government 
called no witnesses and did not testify. The board found the preponderance of evidence 
did not support separating the applicant and recommended the applicant's retention; in 
February 2022, HRC closed the applicant's case. On 11 February 2022, the applicant 
asked CID to remove his name from the LER's subject block; on 23 February 2022, CID 
denied the applicant's request, citing the lack of "new or relevant" evidence. 

	e.  Counsel concludes an unbiased evaluation of the evidence will show CID lacked 
sufficient evidence to title the applicant.

		(1)  Counsel quotes DA Pamphlet (DA PAM) 190-45 (Army Law Enforcement 
Reporting and Tracking System), wherein paragraph 2-2f (Format of the LER – 
Paragraph 5, Subject/Suspect) states, "when there is an identified person of interest 
and there is not credible information in accordance with AR 190–45, then the person will 
be added as an entity into ALERTS, but not as a subject, and they will also be fully 
identified in the Report Summary of the LER with a brief explanation as to why credible 
information does not exist to believe the person committed the cited offense(s)." 

		(2)  Counsel adds, there is "ample evidence that within the Army, being titled 
carries an extremely negative connotation. Use of the Defense Central Investigations 
Index (DCII) and Army CRC entries within DOD for other than investigative or law 
enforcement purposes is routine. Because titling is accessible by non-law enforcement 
organizations, it is used for Army personnel decisions such as security clearances, 
promotions, assignments, schooling, and even off-duty employment...organizations 
make personnel or other decisions based solely on whether a DCII or CRC search 
reveals a 'hit' on an individual." In those cases where individuals are placed in the 
subject block based on unfounded or unsubstantiated allegations, they suffer an 
unwarranted stigma that extends beyond the military; civilian agencies also have access 
to the DCII, and the record is maintained there for 40 years. 

		(3)  Counsel restates the basis for the applicant's requests, contending 
CID lacked credible evidence to support the applicant's placement in the subject block, 
and, as such, the Board should direct its removal and amend the DA Form 4833 to 
reflect that the applicant received no administrative action based on the allegations 
listed in LER. 

3.  The applicant provides a redacted copy of CID's LER and DA Form 4833; trial 
counsel's legal opinion; applicant's GOMOR, with associated documents; board of 
inquiry proceedings, with findings and recommendations; and USACRC's response to 
the applicant's request for removal from the subject block. 

	a. The CID LER, dated 11 April 2017, includes redacted statements from mother, 
and her co-worker; in addition, the report contains redacted Agent's Investigation 
Reports (AIR).

		(1)  A redacted AIR, dated 3 June 2016, states:

		(a)  On 2 June 2016, told her battalion commander that her spouse (the 
applicant) had sexually assaulted her in January 2016, and she indicated this type of 
incident had occurred multiple times. On 3 June 2016, the CID SA interviewed, who 
affirmed she did not want to have the interview video-recorded but would proceed 
without her Special Victim Counsel; a person from the MDW Office of the Staff Judge 
Advocate was present during the interview. 

		(b) told the CID she had been recently arguing with the applicant, and she 
noticed a change in his behavior after visiting him at; the applicant began treating her 
like an object and, as a result, she decided not to join him when he visited his family. In 
January 2016, and the applicant started having consensual sex, but, during the sex, the 
applicant went into a rage, pinned her down, and grabbed and held her head, neck, and 
face, intentionally exacerbating a 
pre-existing injury; the applicant ignored her requests to stop. went on to state this type 
of thing had occurred multiple times and sometimes the applicant would stop when 
asked him to, and other times he just ignored her requests; she described other times 
the applicant behaved violently during sex. reported she could not sleep and suffered 
from physical, mental, and emotional pain due to the way the applicant treated her. 

		(c)  After coordinating with local police and law enforcement in (where some of 
the incidents allegedly occurred), a check of the Army Law Enforcement Reporting 
Tracking System (ALERTS) and the Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting 
(CLEAR) databases revealed the absence of derogatory information about eh applicant.

		(2)  On 7 July 2016, s mother stated she began to notice her daughter "seemed 
out of sorts" and asked if anything was wrong; started crying and said the applicant had 
hurt her. 's mother noticed a bruise on Cface and suggested her daughter and the 
applicant should go to counseling. Later, in March 2016, CPT N__ offered more details 
about the applicant's physically and sexually abusive acts, telling her mother, at first the 
applicant was sweet but then started hurting her by pinning her down with his knees, 
then intentionally choking her during oral sex. 

		(3)  On 7 July 2016, co-worker described how, on 1 June 2016, CPT N__ came 
to him and started talking about how her husband was physically and sexually abusing 
her; he encouraged her to report what had occurred, and she agreed. 

		(a)  The overall abuse, as told to him, came in the form of "rough and 
nonconsensual sex that would always begin consensual." stated her husband's abusive 
behavior escalated when she discovered what she believed was his infidelity; the 
applicant was a social worker, and he appeared to be having relationships with at least 
two Soldiers, one of whom he was supposedly treating "off-the-books." In addition, 
thought her husband might have had an affair while he was in his Career Course at 

		(b)  Prior to disclosing her abuse, CPT N__ had acted emotionally withdrawn and 
often unapproachable; CPT N__'s co-worker asked two fellow CPTs who knew CPT 
N__ at their Career Course, and they stated they assumed that CPT N__'s behavior 
was simply her personality. He also noticed that CPT N__ seemed to lack the ability to 
trust; she made comments like, "all men are liars" and "there are no good men in the 
world." After CPT N__ shared what she was experiencing, she treated her co-worker 
with hostility and declared she was certain he had betrayed her trust by telling other 
people about her situation. 

		(c)  As a result of the stress she was experiencing, CPT N__'s duty performance 
deteriorated, and she was unable to remain focused on even simple tasks; she also had 
emotional breakdowns and, in her own words, she told him that she felt like she was 
losing control. He added, "I feel that CPT N__'s behavior has become very concerning, 
and I hope, throughout this investigation, she can get the proper help, willingly or 
command-directed, in order to truly get past this." 

		(4)  A redacted AIR, dated 8 July 2016, reported the results of CID's interview of 
the applicant:

		(a)  On 8 July 2016, CID advised the applicant of his rights; he waived his rights 
and provided a video-recorded statement. The applicant affirmed he had married CPT 
N__ in August 2015, and, while she was away at school, he had allowed CPT N__'s 
daughter and mother to stay at his Tacoma, WA residence. 

		(b)  The applicant acknowledged having had sexual intercourse with CPT N__ 
but maintained all relations were consensual; he further elaborated that CPT N__ liked, 
"hard sex," and she would tell the applicant to "go harder" during intercourse. According 
to the applicant, they had had "hard sex" from the start of their relationship, and this 
continued to escalate during their marriage; at no time did CPT N__ attempt to get away 
from him, to tell him to stop, or say he was hurting her. 

		(c)  At a later point in the questioning, the applicant requested a lawyer, and CID 
ended the interview. 

	b. On 22 January 2018, after reviewing CID's LER pertaining to the applicant, 
CPT I__ W__, Trial Counsel, provided a legal opinion; he advised not prosecuting the 
applicant at a court-martial and not pursuing administrative separation, but he did 
recommend the issuance of a GOMOR for adultery. He wrote that the level of 
misconduct reported in the LER "will likely not warrant elimination in the eyes of a BOI."

	c.  On 16 August 2018, the CG, MDW issued the applicant a GOMOR, citing CID's 
LER that showed, in January 2016, the applicant showed had struck his wife in the face, 
and had engaged in an inappropriate and sexual relationship, between November 
2015 and June 2016. On 30 August 2018, the applicant submitted his rebuttal, in which 
he denied assaulting his spouse but acknowledged having had an inappropriate 
relationship. He provided numerous arguments to counter the abuse allegations, and he 
maintained, while participating in the inappropriate relationship, he and the other person 
had kept their affair private and had only become involved with each other after they 
both had experienced emotionally abusive relationships. On 30 November 2018, the 
CG, MDW directed the temporary placement of the GOMOR in the applicant's local 
personnel file for a period of 18 months.  

	d.  DA Form 4833, dated 21 December 2018 and signed by a Chief Warrant Officer 
Three (CW3), lists the applicant under "Offender Information" and identifies the offenses 
as four specifications rape (Article 120, UCMJ) and one specification of aggravated 
assault (Article 128, UCMJ); the action taken is reflected as "Administrative," in the form 
of a reprimand. The form offers no details as to what the reprimand specifically 
addressed. 

	e. On 31 August 2021, a board of inquiry convened to determine whether the 
applicant should be retained or administratively separated; the board heard the 
testimony of defense witnesses and the applicant's unsworn oral statement.

		(1)  In his unsworn statement, the applicant described his background and how 
he met _. 

		(a)  He detailed events during their marriage, and indicated, after only a few 
months, he told his wife he wanted a divorce; at that point, she became more volatile, 
never hitting him but throwing things at him and at his dog and damaging his car. 

		(b)  While he was stationed at Fort Belvoir, VA, they would have intermittent 
contact, usually of a sexual nature; when he told her that it was "officially over" she 
became very angry and threatened him, saying, "You f__ed up now, I'm going to get 
back at you, and just you wait." Not long after that threat, the applicant learned she had 
accused him of sexual assault, and, as a result, the applicant was denied a lot of 
opportunities. 

		(c)  He later transferred to Korea, reconnected with the woman with whom he 
had had the affair, and they got married; they were now expecting their first child. The 
applicant told the board, "I think I committed adultery due to mitigating circumstances." 
"The infidelity didn't have to happen, but I still would have ended up breaking it off with 
[the other person] because the issues with) were entirely separate. She (admitted to her 
own infidelity." 

		(2)  After deliberations, the board of inquiry found that the preponderance of the 
evidence did not support either the derogatory information stated in CID's LER, or that 
the allegation the applicant engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer. The board 
recommended the applicant's retention at his then-current duty assignment.

	f. On 10 February 2022, the applicant filed a request with USACRC to remove his 
name from the subject block of CID's LER.

	g. On 18 February 2022, HRC issued a memorandum closing the applicant's 
elimination action.

	h. On 23 February 2022, USACRC denied the applicant's request to remove his 
name from the title block, stating the applicant had failed to provide the new or relevant 
information needed to warrant the amendment of the LER. Apparently citing the version 
of DODI 5505.7, dated 7 January 2003, USACRC advised the applicant that:

		(1)  "Organizations engaged in the conduct of criminal investigations shall place 
the names and identifying information pertaining to subjects of criminal investigations in 
title blocks of investigative reports. All names of individual subjects of criminal 
investigations by DOD organizations shall be listed in the [Defense Clearance and 
Investigations Index] DCII…Titling and indexing in the DCII shall be done as early in the 
investigation as it is determined that credible information exists that the subject 
committed a criminal offense."

		(2)  "Credible information is information disclosed or obtained by an investigator 
that, considering the source and nature of the information and the totality of the 
circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained investigator to presume that 
the fact or facts in question are true."

		(3)  "Titling an individual or entity is an operational rather than a legal decision. 
The acts of titling and indexing are administrative procedures and shall not connote any 
degree of guilt or innocence. The listing of a subject’s name and other identifying 
information in the DCII indicates only that a report of investigation concerning that 
person or entity has been created."

		(4)  "Once a person is properly titled and indexed in the DCII, that person's name 
will only be removed in the case of mistaken identity; i.e., the wrong person's name was 
placed in the report of investigation as a subject or entered into the DCII or if it is later 
determined a mistake was made at the time the titling and/or indexing occurred in that
credible information indicating that the subject committed a crime did not exist." 

		(5)  "However, you have the right to challenge the investigative findings of the 
report of investigation pursuant to Army Regulation 195-2, paragraph 4-4b, which 
provides, in part:"

		(a)  "Requests to amend…USACID LER 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." 

		(b)  "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 that the individual 
committed the offense for which titled as a subject…Within these parameters, the 
decision to make any changes in the report rests within the sole discretion of the 
Director, USACID."

		(6)  "DODI 5505.11 (Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission 
Requirements) establishes policies and procedures for reporting criminal history data to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC), 
Identification Division of the FBI, for all military service members and civilians 
investigated by DOD criminal investigative organizations for commission of certain 
offenses. Those subjects who have resultant judicial, non-judicial military proceedings, 
or where a servicing Staff Judge Advocate or legal advisor found probable cause 
existed to believe the subject has committed the offense in which they were titled, will 
remain in NCIC."

		(7)  "A check of NCIC reflects that you are listed as the subject in the above 
referenced LER. The disposition correctly reflects "Administrative Action, Reprimand.” 
Consistent with DODI 5505.11, retention of this criminal history data in the NCIC does 
conform to DOD policy."

4.  A review of the applicant's service record shows:

	a. On 28 September 2004, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years; 
at his entry on active duty, he held the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4. Upon 
completion of initial entry training, the Army awarded him military occupational specialty 
42A (Human Resources Specialist). 

	b. On 13 February 2008, the applicant immediately reenlisted for 5 years, and, on 15 
July 2009, he extended his enlistment by 7 months so he would have sufficient 
remaining service to complete the "Green to Gold" program. 

	c. U.S. Army Cadet Command Orders, dated 1 April 2011, ordered the applicant to 
active duty, upon his acceptance of an appointment in the Regular Army as a Medical 
Service Corps officer; the orders showed he was to report for Basic Officer Leader 
Course, on 13 July 2011, and he had incurred a 6-year service obligation. 

	d.  On 20 May 2011, the Army honorably discharged the applicant so he could 
accept a commission in the Army; his DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 years, 
7 months, and 23 days of net active duty service; item 13 (Decorations, Medals, 
Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) listed the following:

*	Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award)
*	Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award)
*	Valorous Unit Award (2nd Award)
*	Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
*	 National Defense Service Medal
*	Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
*	Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars
*	NCO Professional Development Ribbon 
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral "2"
*	Parachutist Badge
*	Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Component Bar
*	Marksmanship Qualification Badge 

	e. On 21 May 2011, the applicant graduated with a master's degree in Social Work; 
that same date, the applicant executed his oath of office as a Regular Army 
commissioned officer in the Medical Service Corps. Effective 1 May 2015, HRC Orders 
promoted him to CPT/O-3.

	f. On 26 October 2020, the Secretary of the Army directed the applicant's removal 
from the Fiscal Year 2020 MAJ Medical Service Corps Promotion List; in addition, the 
Secretary of the Army ordered HRC to initiate elimination proceedings against the 
applicant. 

	g. The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Social Work Researcher, 
and he holds the rank/grade of n the Medical Service Corps.

5.  Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a 
hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a 
panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR.

6.  Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) 
does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in 
application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its 
own merits. In determining whether to grant relief BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect 
for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity 
of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental 
acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of 
punishment. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service 
member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive 
a more favorable outcome.

7.  Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not 
intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will 
determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it 
supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the 
applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the 
petition.  

8.  The applicant requests, in effect, the Board's reconsideration of the CG, USACIDC's 
decision (acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army) to deny the applicant's request 
for removal of his name from the title block of a CID LER. In the alternative, amend the 
LER to show the allegations were unfounded.

	a.  DODI 5505.07 dated 27 January 2012 and in effect when the CID initiated the 
applicant's investigation, prescribed policy and procedures for individuals named in 
criminal investigative reports or indexed on the DCII to obtain a review of such actions. 

		(1)  DOD law enforcement organizations will placed the names and identifying 
information of persons under criminal investigation in the title blocks of investigative 
reports, and all listed names will be added to the DCII. Titling and indexing will occur as 
soon as the investigation determines that credible information exists to show the person 
being titled committed a criminal offense.

		(2)  Once the person is indexed in the DCII, he/she will remain, even if the 
person is found innocent, with the following exceptions:

*	Cases of mistaken identity, i.e., the wrong person's name was entered in the 
title block
*	Subsequent determination finds titling the individual was a mistake and no 
credible information existed indicating the individual committed a crime

		(3)  When reviewing the appropriateness of a titling and indexing decision, the 
reviewing official shall consider the investigative information available at the time of the 
initial titling and indexing decision to determine whether the decision was made in 
accordance with the standard requiring credible information to have existed showing the 
individual committed a criminal offense. 

		(4)  The regulation defines credible information as, "Information disclosed or 
obtained by a criminal investigator that, considering the source and nature of the 
information and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a 
trained criminal investigator to presume that the fact or facts in question are true."

	b.  AR 195-2, issued 9 June 2014 and in effect when CID initiated the applicant's 
investigation, established policies and procedures for criminal investigative activities. 
The CG, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) was responsible for 
prescribing policies and procedures for the preparation and maintenance of 
investigative records and reports. With regard to the amendment of USACIDC reports, 
the regulation stated:

		(1)  Requests to amend or unfound offenses in USACIDC 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. 

		(2)  Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted if it is 
determined that, at the time of the investigation's initiation, credible information did not 
exist to believe the individual committed the offense for which he/she was titled as a 
subject. The decision to place a person's name in the title block is an investigative 
determination, which is independent of any judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action 
against the individual.

		(3)  Within the foregoing parameters, the decision to make any changes in the 
investigative report rests within the sole discretion of the CG, USACIDC; such decisions 
constitute the final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. 

9.  With regard to the applicant's request to correct the DA Form 4833, dated 
21 December 2018, the governing regulation, AR 195-2, states:

	a. Commanders and supervisors receiving USACIDC reports for action pertaining to 
a member of their organization will reply through local command channels of the action 
taken using a DA Form 4833. 
	b. For cases involving rape, sexual assault, and other violations of Article 120, only 
O-6 or higher commanders with special court-martial authority will complete the 
DA Form 4833. Changes to administrative actions taken as a result of appellate or other 
action will also be reported to USACIDC; such action is necessary to ensure the 
completion of investigative files, to protect the rights of the individuals involved, and to 
provide commanders with information of force protection and the state of discipline in 
their command. 


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found 
within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was warranted. 
The Board considered regulatory guidance and, in the interest of justice, Public 
Law 116-283, Section 545, which addresses the removal of information from 
investigative reports and other databases. The Board noted inconsistencies in the 
allegations against the applicant and determined that probable cause did not or 
does not exist to believe that the applicant committed the offenses for which he 
was titled. The Board found the legal opine regarding the Report of Investigation
to be compelling. Based on the preponderance of the documentation available for 
review, the Board determined that relief was warranted.

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.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

X	X	X	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 relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing from his Army 
Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the

*	removal of his name from the title block of a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 
Command (CID) Law Enforcement Report (LER), 

*	Correction of a DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary or 
Administrative Action), dated 21 December 2018 and pertaining to the applicant, 
so that it shows the applicant did not receive a general officer memorandum of 
reprimand (GOMOR) for the alleged offenses listed in the CID LER

	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.  DODI 5505.07 dated 27 January 2012 and in effect when the CID initiated the 
applicant's investigation, prescribed policy and procedures for individuals named in 
criminal investigative reports or indexed on the DCII to obtain a review of such actions. 

	a. DOD law enforcement organizations will placed the names and identifying 
information of persons under criminal investigation in the title blocks of investigative 
reports, and all listed names will be added to the DCII. Titling and indexing will occur as 
soon as the investigation determines that credible information exists to show the person 
being titled committed a criminal offense.

	b. Once the person is indexed in the DCII, he/she will remain, even if the person is 
found innocent, with the following exceptions:

*	Cases of mistaken identity, i.e., the wrong person's name was entered in the 
title block
*	Subsequent determination finds titling the individual was a mistake and no 
credible information existed indicating the individual committed a crime

	c. When reviewing the appropriateness of a titling and indexing decision, the 
reviewing official shall consider the investigative information available at the time of the 
initial titling and indexing decision to determine whether the decision was made in 
accordance with the standard requiring credible information to have existed showing the 
individual committed a criminal offense. 

	d. The regulation defines credible information as, "Information disclosed or obtained 
by a criminal investigator that, considering the source and nature of the information and 
the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained criminal 
investigator to presume that the fact or facts in question are true."

2.  AR 195-2, issued 9 June 2014 and in effect when CID initiated the applicant's 
investigation, established policies and procedures for criminal investigative activities. 
The CG, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) was responsible for 
prescribing policies and procedures for the preparation and maintenance of 
investigative records and reports. With regard to the amendment of USACIDC reports, 
the regulation stated:

	a.  Requests to amend or unfound offenses in USACIDC 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. 

	b.  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 he/she was titled as a subject, at the time of the investigation's 
initiation. The decision to place a person's name in the title block is an investigative 
determination that is independent of any judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action 
against the individual.

	c. Within the foregoing parameters, the decision to make any changed in the 
investigative report rests within the sole discretion of the CG, USACIDC; such decisions 
constitute the final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. 

	d. Commanders and supervisors receiving USACIDC reports for action pertaining to 
a member of their organization will reply through local command channels of the action 
taken using a DA Form 4833. 

	e. For cases involving rape, sexual assault, and other violations of Article 120, only 
O-6 or higher commanders with special court-martial authority will complete the 
DA Form 4833. Changes to administrative actions taken as a result of appellate or other 
action will also be reported to USACIDC; such action is necessary to ensure the 
completion of investigative files, to protect the rights of the individuals involved, and to 
provide commanders with information of force protection and the state of discipline in 
their command.

3.  Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a 
hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a 
panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220004036


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1