APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the adverse Academic Evaluation Report (AER) he received as a result of his elimination from the Noncommissioned Officers Academy (NCOA) Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course (ANCOC) for personnel sergeant be removed from his military records.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was singled out from the rest of the class by not being allowed to take a second retest.  He charges that this was a form of bias, that double standards applied to the students as determined by their color.

In support of his application he submits a final reply to his Inspector General Action Request (IGAR), dated 10 March 1995, wherein he alleged, in part, that two soldiers at the NCOA were allowed to take a test three times when he was not.  The Inspector General (IG) found that the applicant was correct, that two students were allowed two retests and he was not, but the NCOA commandant was allowed by regulation to look at the total soldier on a case-by-case basis and allow a second retest to students who are perceived to have outstanding potential to the Army.  As such, the IG determined that there was no impropriety in the NCOA commandant’s actions.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records could not be located.  The information contained herein was derived from documentation supplied by the applicant.

On 24 February 1995, while serving on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve program in pay grade E-7, the NCOA commandant referred an adverse AER to the applicant for comment.  The stated reason for the adverse NCOER was the applicant’s elimination from the personnel sergeant ANOC.  Although the applicant indicated that he elected to appeal that report, there is no evidence that he did so to the NCOA commandant.

Army Regulation 351-1, paragraph 5-30c(4)(g), was changed by a Department of the Army message dated 7 September 1989.  That change reduced the required number of retests a student who fails a test must be allowed from two to one.  The message continues that “The key words in this policy change are may be dismissed.  This gives the NCO academy commandant the flexibility to look at the total soldier on a case-by-case basis to retain those NCO’s who have outstanding potential to the Army.”

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

1.  It appears that the applicant was declared an academic failure of the personnel sergeant ANOC after he failed a test and subsequent retest.  That action was taken in accordance with policy in effect then and now.

2.  It also appears that two other students in the applicant’s class also failed a test and subsequent retest, but were allowed to take a second retest.  This also was provided for under the policy in effect then and now.

3.  Therefore, the Board is left with the applicant’s allegation that he was singled out, that he was not allowed a second retest strictly because of his color.

4.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence that he was singled out for any reason other than the NCOA commandant’s assessment that he did not “have outstanding potential to the Army”, where the other two students were viewed as having such potential.  Therefore, the Board must conclude that the applicant was not given a second retest based on applicable Department of the Army policy and first hand knowledge of his abilities by his instructors.  As such, the applicant allegation of bias is not accepted.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director