APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be allowed to graduate from the US Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC); that the general officer letter of reprimand (GOLOR) that was placed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be expunged; that the Academic Evaluation Report (AER) for the period 940625-950602 be corrected to reflect that he achieved course standards, that his leadership was satisfactory, that he demonstrated potential for higher schooling, and that any mention of a CGSC Misconduct Board be deleted; and, finally, that the personnel flag imposed against him on 5 February 1996 be removed.

APPLICANT STATES:  That as a CGSC student, he was accused of plagiarism on a take-home examination after his examination was compared with, and found similar to, a second student’s examination; that he did not plagiarize the second student’s work as he completed his examination more than 2 weeks before the second student was even issued the same examination; that there is no justification for the CGSC Misconduct Board’s determination that “. . . there was sufficient evidence that outside, i.e., not original thought, occurred in the preparation of the answers.”; and, finally, that he was singled out for retribution because he is black, a member of a black collegiate fraternity, and had been given a key role in a CGSC exercise.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In a memorandum to the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command, Subject:  Rebuttal Recommendation for Involuntary Release from Active Duty and Request for Separation Board, that, in effect, the CGSC Misconduct Board had no evidentiary basis to conclude that the applicant had “cheated” on his examination and that the Board improperly shifted the burden of proof to the applicant to prove that he was innocent.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was born on 26 January 1959 and was appointed a Second Lieutenant in the Regular Army on 19 December 1981 following completion of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program at Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi.  Upon completion of the Infantry Officer Basic Course and Officer Rotary Wing Aviator Course, he was assigned to an aviation unit, with duty as an aviation team leader.

The applicant remained on continuous active duty and rose to the rank of major on 1 December 1993.  Although he completed CGSC by correspondence on 15 November 1994, he was selected to attend the CGSC Resident Course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for the academic year 1995 (940801-950602).  He reported to Fort Leavenworth on/about 25 June 1994.

On 13 January 1995, the members of the applicant’s staff group were issued a take-home exam for Course C530, Theater Operations, with instructions that it be completed by “100 percent individual effort”; no collaboration was allowed. The subject of the examination was “Operation Torch,” the Allied invasion of North Africa during World War II.  The completed exam was due on 24 January 1995.

On 10 February 1995, a second staff group was issued the same C530 exam with a due date of 21 February 1995.  One of the members of this staff group was a Black officer who had worked with the applicant at HQDA and who was a member of the applicant’s college fraternal organization.  Because of similarities between the answers on three exams in this staff group, collusion was suspected and an Article 15-6 investigation was conducted  to determine the extent of the collusion, if any.  All C530 exams were reviewed.

Following the investigation, the applicant’s exam and that of his friend in the second staff group were found to be identical in many respects.  For example, question number 4 read, “An understanding of the concept of culmination is critical to success in operational warfare.  What do the planners see as possible Allied culminating points?  What is (are) implied as the enemy culminating point(s)?  How effectively does the plan address this concept in relation to preventing Allied culmination and inducing the enemy to culminate?”  The following identical answers (except where parenthetically indicated) were found on each exam.

ALLIED CULMINATING POINTS:

a.  Force Buildup - the ability for the Allied Forces to buildup in order to secure Tunisia and defeat the German (Germans) could result in culminating if the forces were not established quickly enough.

b.  Rapidly resupply and movement of equipment and supplies to support the Allied Forces - logistics operations were critical for the Allied because of the heavy armored force maintenance and sustainment.  Pushing supplies and equipment maintenance requirements to the forces helped maintain the Allied Forces momentum.  The Allied Forces attack could have culminated if the supplies and maintenance were stopped.

ENEMY IMPLIED CULMINATING POINTS

a.  The enemy’s most critical culminating point were the Axis LOCs.  Control of his LOCs and disrupting his resupply to the Axis would cause his forces to culminate.

The Allied Plan did not effectively address this concept in relation to preventing Allied culmination and inducing the enemy to culminate.  But the culminating points were address to some degree in the Allied operation.  The Allied Force did not allocate additional forces to this area of the operation (operations).

All other questions reflected identical, or near identical answers, including misspellings and syntax errors.  Even the structure of the responses was nearly identical.

As a result of the review of the C530 exam, the applicant, his acquaintance, and two other Black officers were brought before a CGSC Misconduct Board, with the applicant and his acquaintance being reviewed by the same board.  The original allegation necessitating the Misconduct Board was a violation of plagiarism rules. Following the board hearing, the board members reached the conclusion that plagiarism did occur, but that it could not be determined who copied from whom. This decision was reached because the board members felt that the numerous occurrences of exact, or near exact, duplication of answers provided sufficient evidence that “outside, i.e., not original thought, occurred” in the preparation of the answers.  The CGSC Misconduct Board recommended that both officers be dismissed from CGSC with no opportunity to graduate.  As a note, the other two Black officers who faced a similar board were also recommended for dismissal from the course.

The Acting Deputy Commandant of CGSC notified the applicant in writing that the CGSC Misconduct Board had found him guilty of violating CGSC academic standards and had recommended his dismissal.  He further stated that, although not specifically recommended by the Misconduct Board, he intended to issue a letter of reprimand for inclusion in the applicant’s OMPF.  The letter of reprimand, which was attached for comment and/or rebuttal, stated that the applicant had, against specific instructions, collaborated on the C530 exam, thereby having cheated.

The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Acting Deputy Commandant which was considered and rejected.  The proposed letter of reprimand and the rebuttal thereto were forwarded to the Commanding General (CG), US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth for his review and final action.  The CG met with the applicant on 23 June 1995 and also considered a second written rebuttal, dated 1 July 1995.  After hearing from the applicant and considering all written documentation, the CG determined not to issue the Acting Deputy Commandant’s letter of reprimand, but to impose his own letter of reprimand instead.  In so informing the applicant, the CG summarized that the applicant could not explain the striking similarities between his and his fellow student’s exams until offering, at the very last opportunity, that perhaps “. . . [the fellow officer] may have stolen his [applicant’s] answers  by one of four means:  going through his trash at his home in Leavenworth; copying his examination answers from his notebook; copying his file from his laptop computer; and, somehow stealing the examination booklet after it was turned in.”  The CG pointed out that, before the Acting Deputy Commandant, the applicant was specifically asked if there was any way someone could have gained access to his laptop computer, and he was adamant that no one could have done so.  The CG postulated that, if someone had stolen the applicant’s answers from his trash, notebook, or after turn-in, it would not account for the “. . . identical mistakes in spelling, grammar, and usage [as would occur when someone had access to a computer file].”  He, therefore, found the applicant’s last gasp attempt at an explanation to be incredible.

The CG, in a letter of reprimand dated 23 June 1995, informed the applicant that a CGSC Misconduct Board found that he had cheated on a take home exam; that his and his fellow student’s answers were substantially the same, to include identical spelling and syntax errors; and that during all opportunities to do so, he failed to explain these similarities as anything other than “coincidence.”  He indicated that he was withdrawing the Acting Deputy Commandant’s proposed letter of reprimand because the applicant’s rebuttal of that letter focused upon the narrow definition of plagiarism and never adequately addressed the key issue of two substantially identical exams.  The CG specifically stated that the applicant was being reprimanded for “cheating” and added “It is clear from the evidence that you either supplied [the other officer] with your answers or you both copied from the same source. . . . Regardless of which occurred, your actions constitute cheating [emphasis added].”
The letter of reprimand was filed in the applicant’s OMPF; he was dismissed from CGSC and given an adverse AER.  He was then transferred to Korea, arriving on/about 13 July 1995.  While in Korea, he was notified by the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that he was being recommended for involuntary release from active duty because of the GOLOR filed in his OMPF.  On 21 October 1996, a board of officers met to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the Army.  This Show Cause Board recommended that he be retained; determined that he did not fail a course at a service school for academic reasons; and that, because the CGSC Misconduct Board had failed to prove plagiarism, he did not engage in conduct unbecoming an officer, nor did he commit acts of personal misconduct.

However, the board of officers made additional findings and recommendations. In a memorandum to the CG, Eighth US Army, dated 9 January 1997, the Show Cause Board found that the C530 exam on which the applicant was accused of cheating, and which the CGSC felt had been compromised, had been given the following year.  They added that it was incomprehensible why a suspected compromised test was administered a second time.  The board also determined that the applicant’s answers were substantially similar to those of his fellow student, but that the applicant completed and submitted his test first.  They added that the CGSC Misconduct Board had failed to show how the applicant had cheated.  Finally, the board of officers turned its attention to a piece of evidence presented by the applicant during his show cause hearing.  This piece of evidence--a written summary of a chapter of the text, Lifeblood of War, purportedly completed by the applicant in November 1994 and used as the basis for his C530 exam answers--was determined to be “highly suspect.”  The board stated that “[the applicant] conveniently demonstrated . . . that the bulk of his answers on the C530 exam came from the summary. . . . [that the applicant] did not provided [sic] this summary to any authority until he included it in his appeal to his Show Cause notice to PERSCOM.  Adding to the suspect nature of this summary is how amazingly prescient [the applicant] was in November 1994.  The summary tracks precisely the answers to the first four questions on C530.  Almost eighty percent of [the applicant’s] examination answers for the first four questions were taken from the summary.  The amount of detail contained in the summary that would be subsequently required to answer the test questions three months later is unbelievably skewed.  The similarities between the summary’s content and organization and that of his and [the other accused student’s] answers on C530 appear implausible to have been coincidental.”  The board of officers concluded that the applicant either fabricated the summary after the fact to bolster his assertions before the show cause board and other tribunals, or he was aided in the preparation of his notes in November 1994 by an unauthorized source [the previously compromised C530 exam].  They recommended that their concerns over this summary be transmitted to CGSC and to PERSCOM for inclusion in any subsequent actions pertaining to the applicant.

In the processing of this case, advisory opinions (COPIES ATTACHED) were obtained from the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) and the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB).  The OSRB reviewed the AER and noted that the applicant had not previously appealed the document.  However, the AER was reviewed and determined to be a fair evaluation of the applicant’s performance during the period in question.  The OSRB further noted that the applicant had numerous opportunities to refute the allegations which led to the contested AER.  The DASEB reviewed the current application before this Board and found no justification for removing the CG’s letter of reprimand.

The CGSC Student Handbook defines plagiarism as “. . . presenting someone else’s ideas, words, data, or work as one’s own.  PLAGIARISM IN ANY FORM IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!  Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

	(a)  presenting as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

	(b)  presenting another’s writing or idea as one’s own.

	(c)  copying words from a source without identifying those words with quotation marks and/or endnotes.”

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

1.  The applicant and a second student submitted C530 exams that were so similar as to be nearly identical.  This similarity led the CGSC to charge the students with plagiarism and to convene a Misconduct Board.  The exams were presented to the Misconduct Board as prima facie evidence that the two students had committed plagiarism.  When asked, they could not explain the similarities by any other means than coincidence.

2.  This Board believes that the CGSC erred in charging both students with plagiarism.  Given the fact of two nearly identical exams, the CGSC should have charged the students with cheating by not doing individual work.  This Board further believes that the Misconduct Board correctly found both students guilty of cheating, but should not have defined that cheating in terms of plagiarism, at least in the case of the applicant, who was the first to complete the exam.  It is apparent that the Misconduct Board attempted to correct this error by stating that it could not be determined who copied from whom (or what), but it was equally apparent that the exams did not represent individual effort and/or original thought.

3.  The CG, US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, after receiving the Misconduct Board’s report and a proposed letter of reprimand written by the Acting Deputy Commandant, met with the applicant and also reviewed written rebuttal submitted by him.  Concerned that the applicant had failed to understand the true nature of the problem, the CG chose to personally issue the letter of reprimand, correcting the Misconduct Board and the Acting Deputy Commandant by making it perfectly clear that he was reprimanding the applicant for cheating by collaborating, not plagiarism.

4.  The Show Cause Board found the CGSC Misconduct Board’s finding that the applicant committed plagiarism to be unsupportable.  The board recommended, therefore, that the applicant be retained on active duty.  However, based upon a “highly suspect” piece of evidence submitted by him during his Show Cause hearing, the board questioned the applicant’s integrity by accusing him of either fabricating the evidence or of having received, and used, a copy of the compromised C530 exam months before completing it in January 1995.

5.  Notwithstanding the results of the Show Cause Board, this Board believes that the applicant and his fellow student collaborated to complete their C530 exams and that both individuals are, therefore, guilty of cheating; the applicant’s dismissal from CGSC and his AER [which merely states that the applicant was the subject of a misconduct board] remain valid; and that the GOLOR remains especially appropriate.  The flagging action of 5 February 1996 was lifted on 5 May 1997 upon completion of the Show Cause Board.

6.   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