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 commandants 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 applicants 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 NCOs 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 commandants 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 applicants 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
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00844
In addition, her flight commander broke his contract with her not to fly on weekends and to not schedule her to fly on the same day as a major academic test. He told her that the standard was to recommend students for elimination with three academic failures while at the same time he recommended another individual for reinstatement. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066607C070402
The applicant states, in effect, that the subject AER was improperly prepared; that Army Regulation (AR) 623-1, Academic Evaluation Reporting System, prohibits references to "incomplete punitive or administrative action" in the comment portion of the AER. On 18 August 2000, the applicant petitioned the USAEREC to have the subject AER corrected by removing mention of the UCMJ action. By placing the corrected records of the individual concerned before an appropriate board for reconsideration...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013563
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006500
The applicant requests, in effect: * correction of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 20 January 2004, to show that it is no longer considered a referred report * removal of the AER Referral Memorandum from the Chief of Evaluation and his rebuttal statement from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * promotion reconsideration to major (MAJ) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) criteria 2. The applicant states: *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059304C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) be expunged from his record; that he be given an opportunity to take an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) when medically qualified; that if he passes the APFT his record reflect satisfactory completion of class #25 of the United States Army Sergeants Major Course (SMC) on 16 June 2000; and that all records subsequent to 16 June 2000 which are adverse and which were the result of the AER be expunged from his record to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082864C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) dated 24 January 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067670C070402
He contends that the review board did not have the original copy of his work to compare with his resources and therefore, relied on insufficient evidence when ordering his dismissal for plagiarism. In item 16 (Comments), the preparing official indicated that the applicant was dismissed from the USASMC for misconduct for plagiarism under the provisions of Army Regulation 351-1 (Individual Military Education and Training), paragraph 5-30. By a memorandum dated 12 July 2001, the U.S. Total...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067016C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her records be corrected by reinstating her promotion to pay grade E-7 with all back pay and allowances effective 1 September 1997, and that she be given approval to attend the Total Army School System (TASS) Battalion Institutional Training Courses for the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) Phases 1 and 2. DISCUSSION : Considering...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087464C070212
The applicant requests that the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 19 October 2000, [herein identified as the "contested AER"] be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant effective 19 December 2001. That so much of the application as it relates to complete removal of the contested AER be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074856C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that the AER in question contained a material error, was inaccurate, or was unjust. Although he did not appeal the report to the ESRB, his appeal and rebuttal was reviewed, considered, and denied by two NCO Academy commandants.