MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 27 March 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051513

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

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson
Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member
Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         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:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) retest under controlled conditions, the results of which shall be utilized to meet the APFT requirements of the U. S. Army Sergeants Major Course (USASMC) Class #25. That his dismissal from the USASMC class ending date 16 June 2000 be expunged from his records. That his Academic Evaluation Report (AER) for this course be corrected to show “Achieved Course Standards” in item 13; “yes” in item 15; and by deleting all references to failure in items 13, 15, and 16. That his reduction to E-8 be voided and his rank of Sergeant Major (SGM), E-9 be restored.

APPLICANT STATES: The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant was dismissed from the USASMC solely on the basis of a maladministered push-up portion of the APFT. He passed all other portions of the course so there is no need to redo the entire course. During the two years he was participating in the nonresident phase of the course he was also doing APFTs which he always passed. His noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) for the periods ending May 1998, October 1998, and October 1999 also show that he ran first in a marathon, represented the 98^th Division in the Army 10-mile run in Washington, D. C. for three years, and ran and placed well in other races. His APFT score card dated 2 October 1999 shows he completed 45 push-ups, 42 sit-ups, and ran the 2 miles in 14:00 minutes.

Upon arrival at the USASMC on 3 June 00 the applicant was given an APFT. He completed 27 push-ups (the minimum required to pass was 30), 38 sit-ups, and ran 2 miles in 14:14. He immediately protested the push-up score as noted on his scorecard. Counsel requests Board note that while the number of push-ups in the 3 June 2000 test is significantly under the 2 October 1999 APFT, the sit-ups and the run numbers are completely consistent between the two tests. He was retested on 14 June 2000. The observer failed to sign the test results and again failed to credit the applicant with 30 push-ups. Once more, however, his sit-ups and run were consistent with the 2 October 1999 results. This second APFT failure resulted in his dismissal from the class although he completed the entire academic portion satisfactorily. There is a certain intellectual absurdity about denying a soldier the rank of SGM when he was promoted in 1998, spent two years on a nonresidency course, two weeks in a residency course, and satisfactorily completed everything except at worst three push-ups.

There remains a very real basis for granting relief. There was only one observer whose subjective opinion formed the sole basis for determining whether a successful push-up had been done. Contrary to the practice at other service

---

schools, there was no video taping of the push-ups or a second observer to memorialize the evidence for any future dispute resolution. The absence of any means to confirm the observer’s scoring was an abject failure of command. It is clear the applicant is physically fit and capable of doing 30 push-ups. The 14 June 2000 test is irrelevant. It is unsigned and contrary to regulation. Further, on 3 June 2000 the applicant passed the test but was wrongfully failed.

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

The applicant was promoted to SGM in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 16 January 1998. He enrolled in the USASMC nonresident phase around March 1998. On 1 March 2000, he completed all the academic requirements necessary to attend the 2-week resident phase beginning on 3 June 2000.

The applicant arrived at the USASMC and was administered an APFT. The Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, DA Form 705, shows that he completed 27 push-ups for 57 points (60 points is a passing score). He was retested on 14 June 2000. His DA Form 705 shows that he completed 25 push-ups for 54 points. This portion of the DA Form 705 was not signed by the “NCOIC/OIC.”

The applicant’s AER for the period ending 16 June 2000, item 13, shows that he failed to achieve course standards. Item 15 shows that he did not demonstrate the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training. Item 16 contains the comment, in explaining item 15, that he failed to a achieve course standards for APFT reasons. He was counseled that due to his APFT failure he would be dismissed from the USASMC and reduced to Master Sergeant. He appealed. He stated that prior to doing the push-ups he asked his grader how many he needed. The grader stated that he could not see. He did not have his glasses on. The applicant wanted to know how someone could score his push-ups if he could not see. His required minimum was 30 repetitions. He did 25 but two were not counted. The grader stated he had not gone down far enough. He then did five more. The grader stated he could not count the last two because he was “swaying.” So he did one more repetition for a total of 27 that were counted and a total of 31 repetitions. He never failed an APFT in the past. He felt that basing his academic standing on the subjective grading of the APFT was unfair and not a true reflection of his military career.

The applicant’s appeal was denied and his enrollment in the USASMC was terminated.

Field Manual 21-20 provides guidelines for developing programs which will improve and maintain physical fitness levels for all Army personnel. Chapter

---

14 discusses the APFT in detail. It states that all soldiers in the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve must take the APFT regardless of their age. The APFT is a three-event physical performance test used to assess muscular endurance and cardiorespiratory fitness. The test sequence is the push-up, sit-up, and 2-mile run. The order of events cannot be changed. Push-ups measure the endurance of the chest, shoulder, and triceps muscles. One event supervisor must be at the test site and one scorer at each station. Instructions for performing a “good” push-up are “…Begin the push-up by bending your elbows and lowering your entire body as a single unit until your upper arms are at least parallel to the ground. …Your body must remain rigid in a generally straight line and move as a unit while performing each repetition. At the end of each repetition, the scorer will state the number of repetitions you have completed correctly. If you fail to keep your body generally straight, to lower your whole body until your upper arms are at least parallel to the ground, or to extend your arms completely, that repetition will not count…” Sit-ups measure the endurance of the abdominal and hip-flexor muscles. The 2-mile run tests cardiorespiratory endurance and the endurance of the leg muscles.

Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes policy governing the classification, advancement, promotion, reduction and grade restoration of applicable USAR soldiers. In particular part it states that promotion to SGM is conditional upon the soldier enrolling in and successfully completing the USASMC within 36 months from the effective date of the promotion order under the USASMC corresponding studies or within 18 months from the effective date of the order under the USASMC resident course. If the soldier fails to meet these conditions, or is subsequently denied enrollment or becomes an academic failure or does not meet graduation requirements, the soldier is subject to reduction.

Phone conversations between an analyst with the Board and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Institutional Training Division and the USASMC indicates that it is not a common practice at service schools to videotape any portion of the APFT.

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

1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

---

2. The applicant knew when he was conditionally promoted to SGM that one of the requirements to keep that promotion was that he successfully complete USASMC. As a senior NCO, he should have known that one of the graduation requirements for any NCO Educational System course is to pass the APFT.

3. The applicant’s NCOERs indicate that he was a very good runner. However,
running, i. e., having good cardiorespiratory and leg muscle endurance, does not automatically translate into having good chest, shoulder, and triceps muscles endurance, i. e., those muscles tested by the push-up. (Nor does it automatically translate into having good endurance of the abdominal and hip-flexor muscles as measured by the sit-up.) The fact that on his 2 October 1999 APFT the applicant scored 100 points on the run but only 77 points on the push-ups and 70 points on the sit-ups confirms that he was not “very” good on either the push-ups or the sit-ups.

4. It appears the 3 June 2000 APFT was properly administered in accordance with Field Manual 21-20. Only one grader is required. Videotaping is not required (nor is it common practice at other service schools to use videotaping).

5. It appears the 14 June 2000 APFT was properly administered in accordance with Field Manual 21-20. The Board concludes there was no conflict with the applicant’s grader not being able to read the small print on the scorecard without reading glasses and yet score his push-ups with no problems. His grader’s poor reading vision would not negate his having sufficient visual acuity to observe and grade his push-ups.

6. The Board concludes that the “NCOIC/OIC’s” failure to sign the DA Form 705 is a harmless error. The applicant knew he had not successfully completed enough push-ups to pass. He stated in his appeal that he did 25 push-ups but was told 2 were not counted, so he knew he needed 7 more. He did 5 more but was told 2 of those did not count so he knew he needed 4 more. He stated he did 1 more for a total of 27 that were counted with a total of 31 repetitions that he completed. However, as a senior NCO he knew that the only figure that mattered was the 27, a failing score. The Board concludes that, as a senior NCO, had he actually been able to complete 30 “good” repetitions of the push-up he would have completed about the 45 repetitions he completed in October 1999 to ensure that the minimum number were counted as “good.”

7. 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

__rwa___ __alr___ __gjw___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051513
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010327
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	111.01
2.	129.02
3.
4.
5.
6.