IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018340 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 21 February 2012, from her official records. 2. The applicant states the AER contains false information and inaccurately represents her both as an officer and person and serves to prejudice her from selection to the next higher grade or when applying to broadening opportunities and will serve to prevent consideration for future promotions. 3. The applicant provides copies of the contested AER, her appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB), Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), Officer Record Brief ORB), and two letters of support. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Military Intelligence branch second lieutenant on 20 August 2010. She was ordered to active duty and was transferred to Fort Huachuca, Arizona to undergo the Military Intelligence Basic Officer Leader Course on 16 February 2011. 3. She completed the course on 17 June 2011 and was issued a DA Form 1059 that indicated she marginally achieved course standards. The AER was referred to the applicant and she elected to submit matters in her own behalf; however, there is no evidence in the available records that shows she did so. 4. She was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 3 April 2012 and is currently serving at Fort Hood, Texas. 5. On 6 October 2014, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) notified her that her appeal to the DASEB was being returned because she did not file her appeal within 3 years of the contested AER. She was advised to apply to this Board. 6. Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the Academic Evaluation Reporting System. It provides, in part, that a DA Form 1059 will be prepared for all commissioned officers taking resident and nonresident Officer Education System courses (regardless of length or component). A copy of the AER will be forwarded for filing in the performance fiche of the individual’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) within 60 days after completion of the report. 7. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the Academic Evaluation Reporting System. It provides, in part, that a DA Form 1059 will be prepared for all personnel taking resident Officer Education System courses. A copy of the AER will be forwarded for filing in the performance section of the individual’s OMPF within 60 days after completion of the report. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that the contested AER should be removed from her OMPF has been noted and appears to lack merit. 2. She contends the AER contains false information and inaccurately represents her; however, neither the evidence of record nor the evidence she submitted with her application sufficiently supports her contentions. 3. Her supporting documents have been noted; however, they do not serve to provide sufficient evidence to support removal of a duly authenticated AER from her OMPF. 4. The Army has an interest in maintaining records of Soldiers who attend formal courses of instruction and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the AER was issued erroneously or that it is unjust for it to remain in her OMPF. 5. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that an error or injustice exists in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant her request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________X__________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018340 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018340 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1