2.  The applicant requests that a service school academic evaluation report (AER), DA Form 1059, be removed from her official military personnel file (OMPF).   

3.  The applicant states that the 1059 is over 5 years old (as of January 1996).  She had already completed a basic NCO course (BNCOC), and found no regulation requiring her to attend another BNCOC.  She was under the impression that she was attending the course as a sit-in.  Because of the overstrength in military occupational specialty (MOS) 74F, software analyst, she was reclassified from that MOS over four years ago, into her previous MOS of 71M, chaplain assistant.  She had previously completed the BNCOC for that MOS.  She strongly feels that this AER (for the software analyst BNCOC) has prevented her promotion.

4.  The applicant completed the senior chapel activities specialist, MOS 71M, BNCOC in January 1986.

5.  In December 1986 the applicant completed an information systems officer course at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

6.  On 21 September 1987 the applicant completed a 100 hour AC/DC principles and reactive circuits course at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

7.  On 21 April 1988 the applicant completed an 80 hour bits and bytes course of instruction at Fort Gordon. 

8.  A 8 December 1989 AER from the computer school at Fort Gordon, indicates that the applicant attended the programmer analyst course, MOS 74F, from 27 September 1989 to 
8 December 1989, successfully completing that course.

9.  An NCO evaluation report for the period June 1989 to 
May 1990, and one from June to August 1990 indicate that her duty MOS was 31Y40, telecommunications system supervisor, and her duty title was that of an operations NCO.

10.  An NCO evaluation report covering the period from September 1990 to December 1991 shows her duty MOS as 74F and her duty title, programmer/analyst.  Her rater stated that she was proficient in her MOS and was frequently selected to accomplish difficult and time sensitive tasks.  11.  Her senior rater stated that she was technically proficient and continued to strive for improvement.  She was not rated in the top block for potential, but considered fully capable.

12.  A 20 November 1990 AER from the software analyst, MOS 74F, BNCOC at Fort Gordon, Georgia, shows that she was administratively released from the course because she failed written and hands-on portion [of the course], with a recommendation that she be allowed to work in her MOS before attending the course again.

13.  Two NCO reports covering a one and a half year period from January 1992 to June 1993 show her duty MOS as 71L30, and her duty title as a postal supervisor.  The applicant was reclassified and awarded a primary MOS of 71M30 on 
22 April 1993.  Her secondary MOS, 74F30, was withdrawn.  NCO reports beginning in July 1993 show her working in her reclassified MOS, 71M30.

14.  On 7 October 1992 the applicant appealed her AER.  She stated, in effect, that because of overstrength in MOS 74F at Fort Gordon, she did not have the opportunity to work in that MOS, and coupled with the fact that she was recently awarded the MOS, hampered her ability to complete the BNCOC. She stated that the AER shows she was meeting course standards with the exception of the written and hands-on portion; however that report shows she received a satisfactory rating in written communication, and there was no hands-on portion at that time.  On 26 July 1994 the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) notified the applicant that an enlisted special review board denied the applicant’s appeal of her AER, stating that there was no justification for altering or withdrawing the report from her official file.  That agency stated that a copy of the memorandum [notifying the applicant that her appeal had been denied] would be filed on the performance portion of her OMPF.

15.  On 31 December 1992 the applicant wrote the president of the Sergeant First Class (SFC) promotion board, providing the same information and reasoning as furnished to the EREC.

16.  A 26 June 1993 Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) memorandum indicates that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SFC by an enlisted standby advisory board, using CY 93 promotion criteria.

17.  Army Regulation 640-10 prescribes the policies and procedures for the control of documents and the identification of documents authorized for filing in personnel records.  That regulation states that service school academic evaluation reports will be filed in the performance fiche of a soldier’s official file.

18.  Paragraph 4-2 of the aforementioned regulation states, in effect, that the performance fiche is the section of the OMPF (official military personnel file) used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  The performance fiche is routinely used by career managers and selection boards.  Documents placed on this fiche are limited to those that provide evidence of a member’s demonstrated performance.  These documents are used for evaluation and selection purposes.

19.  That paragraph continues by saying that the restricted fiche is the OMPF section for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  Documents on this fiche are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a member’s service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and corrections to other parts of the OMPF; and are kept to protect the interest of the member and the Army.

20.  Paragraph 4-4 states that documents once placed in the OMPF becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records.... 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has not shown that the AER contained any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  It was correctly filed on the performance fiche of her OMPF.
2.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board that the AER was unfair or unjust, and that the report represented other than an objective and valid appraisal of her demonstrated performance during the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing the report from her official file. 

3.  There is some merit, however, in the applicant’s contention that she failed the course because she did not work in her 74F specialty prior to attending BNCOC.  The Board notes that the applicant worked as a telecommunications system supervisor in MOS 31Y40 for over a year immediately prior to her attendance at the 74F BNCOC.  The Board also takes note of the comment made on her academic evaluation report - that she should be allowed to work in her MOS before attending the course again.

4.  The academic report is now almost seven years old, and records the applicant’s school evaluation in a specialty that she no longer maintains.  She was reclassified and awarded a 71M specialty, chaplain assistant, in 1993.  All career decisions, promotion, assignments, schools, and so forth, concerning the applicant will be made based on her 71M specialty.

5.  Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this Board that the academic evaluation report serves no useful purpose for career managers and selection boards.  However, although improper for viewing by career managers and boards, the report should be permanently kept to protect the interest of the applicant and of the Army.  Consequently, this report should be transferred from the performance to the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

6.  In all fairness to the applicant, it would then follow that the EREC memorandum notifying the applicant that an enlisted review board had denied her appeal of the AER, should also be transferred to the restricted portion of her OMPF.

7.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  Transferring the DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Report, for the 74F30 software analyst course, BNCOC at Fort Gordon, Georgia, dated 20 November 1990, from the applicant’s performance to her restricted fiche, and

     b.  Transferring the EREC memorandum, dated 
26 July 1994, which denied the applicant’s appeal of the aforementioned AER, from her performance to her restricted fiche.
                  
2.  That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON