ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                           AR2003091588

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            FEBRUARY 24, 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091588

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. Luis Almodova | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | | Chairperson
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | | Member
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | | Member

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER), dated 9 August 1996, be expunged from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes it to be in error because it has the wrong Social Security Account Number (SSN). She states that she was scheduled to go to the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) en route to Korea but had a family emergency and did not attend.  She attended and successfully completed BNCOC on her return from Korea en route to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  She adds that she attended the course during the period 13 July through 2 October 1998.  The applicant also stated that she discovered the existence of the AER in her file on 20 August 2002 because until then she had not reviewed her microfiche record until she received an Army Knowledge On Line account.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of two DA Forms 1059, dated 9 August 1996 and 1 October 1998, and a summary of Creditable Reserve Retirement Points for the period 18 November 1988 through 18 November 1994, in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The AER that the applicant wants removed from her OMPF has the same last name and first name as the applicant in Item 1 (Last Name – First Name – Middle Initial).  The SSN is significantly different from the SSN belonging to the applicant.  The Specialty/MOSC (Military Occupational Specialty Code) shown on the AER is 75D20, the Course Title is BNCOC B (PSC) 15-96.  The period of the report is from: 960715 (15 July 1996) thru: 960809 (9 August 1996).  The duration of the course is from: 960717 (17 July 1996) thru: 960920 (20 September 1996).  Item 13 (Performance Summary) of the AER shows that the attendee failed to achieve course standards and in Item 16 (Comments), a comment was entered to show that the attendee was academically eliminated from the course due to multiple test failures on Review Correspondence.  Item 16 also shows that the attendee of the BNCOC was 63 inches tall and weighed 141 pounds and was within the standards of Army Regulation (AR) 600-9.  The Forwarding address on the AER in Item 18.a. is:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade, APO AP 96205.

2.  A review of the applicant's NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) history before and after the dates shown on the disputed AER, and leading up to the AER 

which the applicant accepts as her own for BNCOC completion, shows the following: 

3.  First NCOER before the disputed AER:  Period covered:  9507 (July 1995) thru 9509 (September 1995); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank:  SGT (Sergeant); Unit of Assignment:  A Battery, Personnel and Support Battalion, Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Height/Weight:  63/145.

4.  The disputed AER:  Period covered:  9507 (July 1995) thru 9509 (September 1995); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  434-**-**** (significantly different from applicant's); Rank:  SGT; Height/Weight:  63/141; and Forwarding address:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade, APO AP 96205.

5.  First NCOER after the disputed AER:  Period covered:  9607 (July 1996) thru 9703 (March 1997); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank: SGT; Unit of Assignment:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade, APO AP 96205-0044; and Height/Weight:  63/135.

6.  Second NCOER after the disputed AER:  Period covered:  9704 (April 1997) thru 9709 (September 1997); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank:  SGT; Unit of Assignment:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade, APO AP 96205-0044; and Height/Weight:  63/135.

7.  Third NCOER after the disputed AER:  Period covered:  9710 (October 1997) thru 9809 (September 1998); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank:  SGT; Unit of Assignment:  Detachment C, 1st Personnel Support Battalion, Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Height/Weight:  63/140.

8.  The AER for the applicant's successful completion of the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course, Class 30-98:  Period covered:  980713 
(13 July 1998) thru 981002 (October 1998); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank:  SGT; Height/Weight:  63/149; and Forwarding address:  Detachment C, 1st Personnel Support Battalion, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

9.  First NCOER after the AER for which the applicant successfully completed the Basic Noncommissioned Officer's Course:  Period covered:  9810 (October 1998) thru 9904 (April 1999); Name:  Same as on DD Form 149; SSN:  Same as on DD Form 149; Rank: SSG (Staff Sergeant); Unit of Assignment:  Detachment C, 1st Personnel Support Battalion, Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Height/Weight:  63/135.

10.  A member of the staff contacted the US Army Records Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, in the processing of this case.

11.  The records available at the NCO Academy, which were provided the Board, show that the applicant was enrolled in Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course, Class 15-96; failed to achieve course standards; and was eliminated.  The record provided shows that an Academic Evaluation Report was completed for the applicant.

12.  On 12 January 2003, a copy of the record of contacts made with the above agencies was sent to the applicant for her notification in compliance with the provisions of Title 10, US Code 1556.

13.  On 20 January 2003, the applicant responded and acknowledged the correspondence.  She also stated in her response that she had tried for 6 years to get the erroneous DA Form 1059 removed from her official military personnel files.  The applicant also stated that she did not have any document in her possession assigning her to Korea in 1996.

14.  The disputed AER shows a forwarding address of:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade.  Evaluation reports that follow the disputed AER show her unit of assignment as:  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Signal Brigade.

15.  A DA Form 1695-E, Oath of Extension of Enlistment, dated 26 November 1996, show that the applicant extended her enlistment of 11 February 1994 for a period of 9 months to meet the service remaining requirements to DEROS (Date Eligible for Return from Overseas) to CONUS (Continental United States).  The applicant's term of enlistment was extended while she was assigned to the 1st Signal Brigade in Korea.

16.  AR 623-1 prescribes the policies and procedures for preparing AERs.  Paragraph 1-13a.(1)(d) requires that reports will be referred to students by the reviewing official for acknowledgement and comment if block 13d. (Failed to Achieve Course Standards) is checked.  If this block is checked, the preparing official should address in block 16 (Comments), whether the deficiency reflects on the character/behavior of the student or lack of aptitude in certain areas.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 prescribes the policies and mandates operating tasks for the Military Personnel (MILPER) Information Management/Records Program of the Military Personnel System.  This regulation provides for the filing of AERs in the performance fiche for soldiers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In her application to this Board, the applicant stated that she was scheduled to attend the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course enroute to Korea, but because of a family emergency, did not attend the course.

2.  Contrary to the applicant's assertions that the AER for the period 15 July 1996 through 9 August 1996, which is filed in her OMPF, is not hers, records at the NCO Academy, Fort Jackson, show that she was inputted into the class, attritted from the class, and the reason was academic failure.

3.  The applicant's AER, for the period 15 July 1996 through 9 August 1996, shows a forwarding address for a unit in Korea.

4.  The applicant's NCOER history, and the oath of extension of her enlistment, shows that she proceeded to Korea from the NCO Academy, Fort Jackson.  She was evaluated in Korea and she extended her enlistment in Korea.

5.  All the evaluation reports reflected upon in this review show the applicant's height to be 63 inches and the weight to fluctuate from a low of 135 to a high of 149 pounds.

6.  The applicant in her response and acknowledgement to the notification under the provisions of Title 10, US Code 1556 stated that she had tried for 6 years to get the erroneous DA Form 1059 removed from her official military personnel files; but, in her application to this Board, she stated that she had only discovered the AER in her file on 20 August 2002. 

7.  Notwithstanding the above, there is no indication in the applicant's OMPF that the AER in which the performance summary was, "Failed to Achieve Course Standards," was referred to her for acknowledgement and comment in accordance with the applicable regulation.  It is for this reason that the AER should be expunged from the applicant's OMPF and not because the AER is not hers.

BOARD VOTE:

mvt_____  lf     _____  rvo_____  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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 expunging the AER for the period 15 July 1996 through 9 August 1996 from the applicant's OMPF and placing an appropriate nonprejudicial statement explaining the absence of the subject academic evaluation report in its place in the applicant's OMPF.

		___Raymond V. O’Connor___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2003091588
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20040224
TYPE OF DISCHARGE |
DATE OF DISCHARGE |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  193 | 11.0000
2.  218 | 111.0200
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |