PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 6 February 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051813


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

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson
Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member
Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests that he be allowed to continue to serve on active duty in order to have 20 years of active federal service for retirement purposes.

3. The applicant states that he was twice a non-select for promotion to major, and on his scheduled release from active duty he will have 17 years, 11 months, and 20 days of active federal service, 10 days shy of 18 years, which would enable him to be retained with 20 years of service.

4. He states that he is a Reserve officer with a basic active service date (BASD) of 11 March 1983. Because of his two time non select for promotion, he will be separated on 1 March 2001. He states that he served the Army faithfully for almost 18 years. He was promoted to staff sergeant in four years and served in leadership positions until his selection and graduation from Officer Candidate School in 1989. He has always asked for and received difficult duty positions, having been in deployable units for eight of the last eleven years. He has had three trips to Southwest Asia and a tour in the Balkans. He has never shied from responsibility.

5. The applicant states that he made one error in judgment in 1997, resulting in a field board inquiry to show cause for retention on active duty. He was retained on active duty with no change in assignment. He states that he assisted a classmate on his homework assignment in 1997 while attending the DOD Defense Information School, resulting in a violation of the plagiarism rule. They were both dropped from the course with negative Academic Evaluation Reports, resulting in the show cause board. He believes that this was the reason he was not promoted to major.

6. The applicant submits letters of support from the recruiting operations officer and the professor of military science of Marion Military Institute, the applicant’s duty location; and from the commander of the Second Region (ROTC) of the Army Cadet Command.

7. The applicant’s military records show that the applicant graduated from Purdue University in 1981 with a Bachelor of Science degree. He enlisted in the Army for three years on 11 March 1983 in the grade of E-3. The applicant served as enlisted soldier until his discharge in 1989 in order to accept a Reserve commission. His enlisted record shows that he was promoted to Staff Sergeant on 1 March 1987, some four years after his enlistment. His record also shows that he received numerous certificates of achievement, certificates of appreciation, and letters of commendation during his enlisted service. He participated in various events, receiving sports awards and run for your life certificates. He completed the primary leadership development course (PLDC), exceeding course standards. An administrative NCO, he completed the infantry NCO basic course. In 1984 he completed the Army precommission course. The applicant received five evaluation reports while serving as an NCO, receiving the highest possible ratings on each report, by rating and endorsing officials – NCOs, officers, and civilians. The applicant was discharged on 26 January 1989. His DD Form 214 shows that he received two awards of the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, two awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, six awards of the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Unit Award, and two awards from the German Armed Forces, among others.

8. The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 27 January 1989. He completed the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Officer Basic Course on 7 July 1989 at Fort Bliss, Texas, and remained assigned at that installation as an ADA Battery executive officer. His officer record brief (ORB) shows assignments throughout the world, to include Saudi Arabia (three assignments), Fort Polk, Louisiana, Fort Lewis, Washington, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was promoted to Captain on 1 June 1993 and completed the advanced course in July 1993. His ORB also shows that he received three more awards of the Army Achievement Medal, four more awards of the Army Commendation Medal, and one more award of the Meritorious Service Medal, among others awarded since his commission.

9. The applicant received three officer evaluation reports (OER) as a second lieutenant, in which his raters on all three reports stated that he always exceeded requirements and should be promoted ahead of his contemporaries. On the two reports in which he had senior raters, he was placed in the second from the top block, center of mass, in the potential evaluation portion of those reports. As a first lieutenant, he had one report in which the senior rater placed him in the second from the top block, center of mass. In the other nine reports he received, as a first lieutenant and captain, prior to an adverse academic evaluation report (AER) on 13 November 1997, he never failed to receive the maximum ratings from his rating officials, with comments such as - unlimited potential, promote immediately, select for Command and General Staff College ahead of peers, give position of great responsibility, place him in command now, and so on. The three evaluation reports since the AER are no less glowing. Additionally, he has been selected as outstanding young man of America on two occasions by the Outstanding Young Americans organization. In 1998 he was selected to the Commandant’s List at the School of Cadet Command.

10. His 13 November 1997 AER shows that he was administratively dropped
from the Public Affairs Officer Course at the Defense Information School for failure to follow course standards prohibiting plagiarism.

11. On 27 April 1999 a board of inquiry (show cause board) met at Fort Knox, Kentucky to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the Army. The board proceedings indicated that the applicant stated that he and another officer had in effect collaborated in completing a homework assignment during the Public Affairs Course, but adamantly denied copying that officer’s paper, and stated that officer did not likewise plagiarize. The board found that the applicant did commit acts of personal misconduct as substantiated by his referred AER, and did commit conduct unbecoming an officer. Nonetheless, the board recommended that he be retained without reassignment. The appointing authority approved the recommendation.

12. On 9 November 2000 the applicant was notified by PERSCOM that he was not selected for promotion and that he had to be released from active duty on 1 March 2001 (the first day of the seventh month after the Secretary of the Army approves the promotion list. The list was approved during the month of August 2000).

13. On 18 January 2001 orders were published at Fort Knox, Kentucky reassigning the applicant to the Army transition point for transition processing with a reporting date and separation date of 1 March 2001.

14. Army Regulation 600-8-24 provides policies and procedures concerning officer transfers and discharges. Paragraph 5-9 of that regulation states in pertinent part, that commissioned officers on the active duty list twice nonselected for promotion to the rank of captain, major, or lieutenant colonel, will be involuntarily released from active duty or discharged unless they are within 2 years of retirement (completes 18 or more years active federal service on their scheduled release date).

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant made a mistake and was dismissed from the school he was attending, resulting in a referred evaluation report. Undoubtedly, considering his record prior to that incident, his two time nonselection for promotion was because of that incident. His separation was mandated and an outstanding career went by the wayside – due to his own misconduct.

2. Nevertheless, a show cause board, recognizing his misconduct, determined that he should be retained on active duty. This Board can only surmise that the members of the show cause board felt that his superb record was sufficiently mitigating to warrant retention on active duty.

3. This Board feels likewise. The applicant has served his country well as evidenced by his record, both before and after the incident at the Defense Information School. To now separate him, ten days short of having 18 years of active federal service, because of the one blemish on his record is unfair and unjust.

4. Consequently, documents showing that the applicant will be separated from active duty on 1 March 2001 should be amended to reflect that he is selectively continued on active duty in his current grade as an exception to policy, in order to obtain 20 years of active federal service.

5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. showing that the applicant is selectively continued on active duty as an exception to policy in order to obtain 20 years of active federal service; and

b. revoking the Fort Knox order of 18 January 2001 reassigning the applicant to the Army transition point for separation processing. That order is null and void and of no force or effect.

BOARD VOTE:

___tl____ ___rvo__ ___wtm__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051813
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20010206
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 237	136.00
2.	131.10
3.
4.
5.
6.