| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that she be awarded a Masters Degree in Law (LL.M.); that her Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER),
DA Form 1059; and that all references and documents related to this referred AER be purged from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that the research paper she prepared for her LL.M. Degree was unfairly subjected to a different standard (higher scrutiny) than the graded research papers of other students; that all other graded written papers during the course were not identifiable until after the grades were posted; that the same level of scrutiny that was assessed to her paper was also assessed to the papers of other African American students over the past two years; that two of the graders of her research paper were her peers, and not experienced enough to grade her paper without bias as to leveling the playing field for promotions; and that the graders were not competent enough to grade her research paper. In support of her application, she provides a packet containing a copy of her research paper, a sampling of the research papers of some classmates, the worksheets of the graders, the referred AER, her test scores during the 41 week graduate course at The Judge Advocate General’s School (TJAGSA), Charlottesville, Virginia, applicable regulations, a statement of support from a former Judge Advocate General (JAG) school professor and current Director of the Academic Department at the TJAGSA, past evaluation reports, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and the response to her FOIA request.
4. The applicant’s military records show that on 23 May 1984, she was commissioned in the JAG Corps of the United States Army Reserve. She entered active duty on 2 July 1988, and on 1 January 1997, she was promoted to the rank and pay grade of major/0-4 (MAJ/0-4). She is currently still serving on active duty in the Regular Army in that rank and pay grade.
5. On 21 September 1998, the Director, Academic Department, TJAGSA, in a memorandum for the Commandant, TJAGSA, indicated that the applicant’s revised research paper had been graded in accordance with TJAGSA Circular 351-6, paragraph 8b(6), and had received a score of 76. The Director, Academic Department, also stated that a research paper grade below 77 would normally not satisfy the requirements for receiving an LL.M. Degree and he had reviewed the applicant’s paper and agreed that it did not meet the standards required of an LL. M. course of study.
6. The Academic Department Director further advised the Commandant that, he saw no extraordinary circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the degree be conferred on the applicant. He finally recommended that the Commandant declare the applicant a graduate of the 46th Graduate Course, but not confer an LL.M. Degree.
7. On 28 September 1998, the Commandant approved the recommendation of the Academic Department Director, that the applicant be declared a graduate of the 46th Graduate Course, but not receive an LL.M. Degree. An AER pertaining to the applicant was prepared and published accordingly. The AER evaluated the applicant’s performance at the graduate course, for the period 18 May
1997 through 31 August 1998. Item 13 (Performance Summary), contained an evaluation of “marginally achieved course standards.” Item 16 (Comments) contained the following explanation for this evaluation: her “final grade on the major writing project failed to satisfy requirements for receiving an LL.M. Degree.”
8. On 29 September 1998, the contested AER was referred to the applicant for acknowledgement and for her comment pursuant to paragraph 1-13a, Army Regulation 623-1, and she was given seven days to reply.
9. On 11 February 2001, a JAG colonel, who was then serving as a Chief Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Germany, provided a statement to the Board in support of the applicant. It indicated that he gave his wholehearted and unqualified support to the effort of the applicant to correct the record surrounding her graduate research paper. He commented that, he first became aware of the controversy surrounding the applicant’s paper in the fall of 1998. At that time, he was the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) of the 21st Theater Support Command, Germany. He was unexpectedly contacted by a fellow JAG colonel acting in behalf of the applicant, who requested, he review the applicant’s research paper and provide an honest, objective opinion of whether it met the graduate course standards. He agreed to review the research paper, and after thoroughly reading the research paper twice, he found it to be of about average quality as compared to the many, many research papers reviewed by him during his three year tenure as a faculty member at the TJAGSA, from May 1986 through June 1989. In the colonel’s opinion, the applicant’s paper reflected solid, thorough research around a central theme. It was well organized, clearly written, and well developed. Its conclusion was a bit weak, but overall, it was of about the same quality as other graduate course papers. He states that if, he had graded the paper, he would have given it a grade of 80-86 on a scale of 100.
10. Further, the judge states that it is his belief that the paper clearly passed graduate course research and writing standards, and it represents a good example of what we received from graduate course students. He also indicated that it is inexplicable to him why others apparently found the paper unacceptable, and can only say that if the applicant’s paper is unacceptable by graduate course standards, then many of the papers submitted by other graduate course students would also have been unacceptable.
11. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel (DCSPER), Special Review Boards, dated 12 February 2002. This opinion contains a recommendation that applicant’s request of this Board be denied. The case summary, prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), was enclosed with this advisory opinion. It documents the OSRB’s review of the applicant’s case, which was conducted based on her application and request for relief from this Board.
12. In connection with their review, the OSRB contacted the Director, Academic Department, the AER preparing officer. The former Commandant, the reviewing officer on the contested report, and the serving Commandant. All three supported the grade given the applicant on the research paper in question and the decision that was made not to award her the LL.M. Degree based on her failure to achieve a score of 77 on her research paper.
13. The Director, Academic Department and the former Commandant both indicated that the three majors who graded the applicant’s research paper were highly respected members of the faculty, the applicant’s research paper did not receive a higher degree of scrutiny, and that minorities were not evaluated differently. Both confirmed that the standards used in grading the applicant’s paper were established in the governing circular and were the same used for all students.
14. The Academic Department Director also commented that he had read the applicant’s paper himself, and agreed with the evaluation rendered by the three graders, who assigned a score less than 77. Finally, he stated that although it was not an automatic right to receive authorization to rewrite a research paper, the applicant was given a second chance when permission was granted by him, for her to rewrite the paper with a new topic and a new faculty advisor.
15. The former Commandant indicated that the three majors who evaluated the applicant’s research paper were three of the most intelligent on the faculty. They were great teachers and were fair and accurate. He admitted that he did not recall reading the applicant’s research paper, but he had confidence in the process. If the three graders indicated that the applicant did not meet the standard and the Director of the Academic Department agreed, he would have confidence that it was fairly and accurately evaluated.
16. The former Commandant concluded by stating that the fact the applicant was allowed to do a second research paper shows that the school was going the extra mile to help her succeed. He also commented that he could not think of any of the graders not wanting the applicant to succeed, and that he personally placed emphasis on the writing requirement because it was a major component of the LL.M. Degree and the standard was strict.
17. The serving Commandant indicated that it was unusual for anyone to fail the course and that between 1998 and 1999, there were only three officers who did not successfully meet the standard for the LL.M. Degree. One was a white male, who did not graduate from the course, and the other two were African American females, of which the applicant is one. When asked for the race and ethnicity break out of the course, the Commandant indicated that he did not have the data for the applicant’s class. However, he did have the African American break out for later courses as follows: 1998, 3 men and 1 woman; 1999, 3 men and 1 woman; 2000, 4 men and 5 women; and 2001, 2 men and 3 women. He further stated that from what can be determined, the three mentioned are the only ones who failed to receive the LL.M. Degree during the history of the course.
18. The serving Commandant also indicated that after reviewing the applicant’s file, he discovered that the applicant had provided three poorly written drafts of a research paper to her faculty advisor on 15, 19, and 21 May 1998. In each case, the faculty advisor provided her input on what she needed to do to improve her paper. In addition, he found that after her failure, she was given an opportunity to appear before an academic board to contest her grade on the research paper. The academic board recommended not awarding the applicant the LL.M. Degree. These board findings were legally reviewed and the Commandant at the time approved the board’s recommendation that she not be awarded the LL.M. Degree.
19. The OSRB reviewed the third party supporting statement from the colonel, circuit court judge in Germany, which was discussed in an earlier paragraph of this decisional document, and it found that supporting statements are appropriate from individuals who know the situation. In this case, the individual who wrote the statement was a faculty member who graded many research papers in the 1986-1989 timeframe. Nevertheless, the author was not in a position to fully appreciate the expectations of the evaluating officials for the applicant. As such, his statement did not substantiate any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of regularity.
20. The OSRB findings indicate that the burden of proof for the contentions presented in the applicant’s request for relief rests squarely with her. The determination to award the LL.M. Degree must be based on academic performance reflected in the AER. Generally, an AER accepted for filing by Department of the Army and included in the OMPF of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to be the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. This is known as the presumption of regularity. Accordingly, the OSRB concluded that to justify the award of the LL.M. Degree, the applicant must present evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes this presumption of regularity and the regulation requires that this evidence be clear and convincing and must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.
21. The OSRB further found that while the applicant seeks a correction to her military records, she fails to provide the necessary evidence to overcome the regulatory presumption of regularity. She specifically contends that her research paper was unfairly and unduly subjected to a different standard (higher scrutiny) than other student’s graded research papers. The JAG School’s Circular 351-6 established procedures governing the course of instruction and administration of the JAG School Masters Degree Law Program. Paragraph 8a states, in effect, that writing proficiency is a vital component of both officer professional development and an LL.M. Degree course of study. As a result, all candidates for the LL.M. Degree are required to achieve more than the minimum passing standards in the writing program (thesis or research paper). A paper below 77 will normally not satisfy this requirement. All papers below 77 will be referred to the professional writing committee, which provides recommendations to the Director on whether or not the paper satisfies the requirements for the graduate course, the LL.M. program and/or whether the student should be required to rewrite the paper.
22. The OSRB concluded from their review, that the applicant’s research paper did not meet the established school standard. The applicant failed to meet the standard on her first research paper because of plagiarism and incorrect footnoting. She was given a second opportunity to rewrite her paper with a new subject and faculty advisor, in order to give her a second chance to succeed, and the same criteria was applied in evaluating the second research paper submitted by the applicant. She received a graded score of less than 77, the minimum required to receive a LL.M. Degree, and the school was following regulatory guidance in not conferring the LL.M. Degree to the applicant.
23. The OSRB also noted that generally student papers were anonymous to instructors when graded. That is to say, student numbers identified the papers and therefore, authors were not identifiable by name until after the grades were posted. The applicant contends that because names and not student numbers identified the research papers, she was vulnerable to discrimination. However, the OSRB found she submitted no evidence to support this allegation or that proved this discrimination occurred.
24. The OSRB summarized their opinion by commenting that the applicant did not provide, and the OSRB did not find elsewhere, the necessary evidence to recommend that this Board approve the applicant’s request. They finally concluded that there was not sufficiently convincing evidence surrounding the contested AER to support the applicant’s claims.
25. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and the OSRB case summary, in order to be provided an opportunity to respond, which she did on 13 March 2002. In her rebuttal, she states that she submitted the rebuttal with great trepidation that nothing will be done with the specific request she made. She further expressed her disappointment with the OSRB recommendation that her application be denied. She found this conclusion premature because her research paper has not been reviewed and weighed against the other passing research papers belonging to other students for unfairness and heightened scrutiny. The highly scrutinized standard used to grade her research paper is at the heart of her application. It cannot be logically reasoned that her relief request was exhausted by the Board when her research paper had not been analyzed and measured against the passing research papers. She indicates that she has already submitted an analysis of her paper and the analysis of other papers that passed and resulted in the granting of the LL.M. Degree.
26. The applicant also indicated, in addressing the OSRB case summary, that her goal is not to disparage her peers, but rather to simply point out that her graders were her peers and not experienced or competent enough to grade her paper without bias. This claim is based on several factors, not the least of which is that there was behind the scenes activity taken and attitudes expressed by the faculty that dictated to the graders that someone had to fail. She states that of course no one in the school leadership is going to admit to these facts, but this attitude was pervasive.
27. The applicant also stated that the graders were her peers, despite the testimony of the former Director and Commandant. While she admits that the graders were in a superior status at the school, they were faculty and she was a student, they did not go through a rigorous process to be selected for the faculty, and choose to teach at the school, while others like her chose other paths of experience. However, when their files are presented to the promotion board, they are on equal footing with her and are her peers competing for the same promotions.
28. Further, she comments that the TJAG approves all of the assignments for officers in the grades of major, so his approval is routine. She also states that although the former Director of the Academic Department, further claimed that these graders were seasoned, as may be noted, he provided no timeframe for them becoming seasoned. She claims that the reason for this was that two had been at the school for a year prior to her getting there, and the other one had just come to school shortly after her particular class had ended. The Director of the Academic Department characterized them as three of the best, perhaps they were, her purpose is not to malign the credentials of her peers.
29. The applicant goes on to indicate that nevertheless, these officers, the graders, were not professional teachers, who are placed on the faculty for their expertise in teaching and writing. They were volunteers for that particular assignment, given a block of instruction and placed in a classroom to teach. When their time there is complete, they merely rotate to another assignment as does everyone else. She states that her goal is not to detract from the importance of what they do, but to clarify the fact that they have not obtained expertise in the teaching arena as their civilian law school counterparts who are published and have been in their particular profession for years. So to say that they were not her peers was ludicrous.
30. The applicant also states that the former Director finally noted that it was not an automatic right to receive authorization to rewrite a research paper, and that she did not meet the standard on the first research paper because of plagiarism and footnoting it incorrectly. She claims that he reviewed it at the time and determined that she did not commit plagiarism, so making the assertion at this point is a way of defaming her character. The fact behind the plagiarism assertion is that at the time of writing her original paper and although she footnoted, gave the authors credit for their work, and indented the passage that was quoted from the book, she left out some quotation marks. At the time, the Director found this to be an honest mistake, but had her do a second research paper on a totally different topic.
31. The applicant claims that from the outside, it appears that she was given the chance to write a second paper because the school leadership wanted to be fair. In actuality, a white male student the year prior had made the same mistakes in not using quotation marks, but footnoting the authors’ names and instead of him having to rewrite a different paper on a different subject prior to graduation, he was told to just fix the problems in his paper. He did and graduated from the course. She indicates that she presented this fact to the leadership and was given the opportunity to write a new paper in two weeks that originally took months. Although she was told to take more time, her goal was to graduate with her classmates.
32. The applicant claims that the OSRB summary also notes that the current serving Commandant reviewed her file and found the academic board recommended not awarding her the LL.M. Degree on the second paper. The fact is that the board gave her four weeks to re-work her second research paper because it accepted her arguments at the hearing. She claims that she thought her slate was clean, so she reworked the paper. This is the paper that she is presenting to this Board.
33. The applicant comments that given the history behind her paper, the fact that an academic board had convened, only the second of its kind in course history, the gossip, and the discontent of some faculty members with the decision of the academic board; her reworked paper presented a problem and was graded in a hostile environment. Although the raters had not graded her research paper before, they were very much a part of the small school community and likely made a decision in regard to her situation before grading her paper. This made it highly suspect that she would receive a fair rating.
34. The applicant states the OSRB summary ends with a letter that she provided, which it dubs as a third party letter, that speaks highly of her research paper and her. The case summary also comments that the third party is a former faculty member from 1986-1989. However, it discounts this letter of support by saying that the author is not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the evaluating officials, and as such, it did not substantiate this evidence as sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of regularity. The applicant points out that unfortunately, what the OSRB case summary conveniently leaves out is that the author of this letter is the current Deputy Commandant and Director, Academic Department, TJAGSA. He is the official currently responsible for making these determinations, and the current deputy to the serving Commandant, who was contacted by the OSRB.
35. The applicant goes on to state that the author of the letter, who is housed with the Commandant, could easily have been contacted and interviewed, given he is serving in a position where he can fully understand and appreciate the expectations of the evaluating officials. Where she was ignorant of the facts of things going on around her, he had been in the Corps longer and knew quite well the intricate workings of the systems, to include the politics that goes on. She goes on to quote the comments he made in his letter that indicate that he believed that the incident was not so much about the quality of the applicant’s paper, as it was about an academic atmosphere looking to find someone to fail, perhaps to prove to the accrediting committees that the school had tough academic standards. This serving academic Director has a bigger picture of the JAG Corps than she, and he knew, where she was unaware, that there was an African American student before her and several after her who either did not pass or had trouble passing, which caused him much consternation because two thirds of the officers not receiving the LL.M. Degree were minorities.
36. The applicant further commented that the scoring standard used at the school was more subjective than strict and the personnel who scored her paper were subject to the controversy surrounding her at the school during this period. This she claims, made it highly suspect that she would receive a fair and impartial rating on her research paper, as evidenced by the fact that her research paper failed by only one point, which is insulting given the subjective nature of the scoring standard at the school and the controversies that surrounded her at the time.
37. In addition, the applicant claims that the reason she applied to this Board was to get her research paper reviewed, and after a thorough review, she was sure that her application would have been accepted for correction. Her only desire was to have this Board, a neutral entity, review her research paper in light of the other papers and make a simple call. She indicated that she was providing an evaluation of her grades at the course in question to show she was successful in the course and her evaluation reports to show she has had a successful career. She concludes that in order to provide a complete case summary, her research paper must be read, analyzed, and measured against the other papers also submitted.
38. Finally, the applicant points out that the serving Director of the Academic Department, who is a former faculty member, and the other minority student, who was not awarded the LL.M., must be interviewed. She comments that she understands that the author of the case summary is not an expert in reading legal research papers, but with a little ingenuity some neutral attorney with a teaching history can be found to evaluate and properly analyze the research papers given all else is equal. She makes application to have her research papers measured against the passing research papers.
39. In her rebuttal to the OSRB case summary, the applicant made the point that although one of the former instructors who supported her case was now serving as the Deputy Commandant/Director, Academic Department, TJAGSA and is familiar now with the school’s standards, the OSRB failed to interview him during its processing of her case. The Board staff found this point valid and germane to the issues raised and elected to contact this school official to ascertain if, whether in light of his current knowledge of the school’s standards, his opinion of the applicant’s research paper had changed.
40. On 3 June 2002, the Deputy Commandant/Academic Director, TJAGSA, responded to the Board’s inquiry. He commented that he recently re-read the applicant’s paper, and he hereby reconfirms his opinion that it should have received a passing grade. He also stated that as the Deputy Commandant/ Academic Director, TJAGSA, he would give the applicant’s research paper a passing grade today. He indicates that he is of course familiar with the School’s writing standard, more importantly, that standard has not changed much, if any over the years. The School’s Graduate Course program has been recognized by the American Bar Association since 1958, and it had been authorized by Congress to grant the Master of Laws degree since 1988 (retroactive to 1987). Accordingly, the standard for written work is high, but the applicant’s achieved this standard. As written, the applicant’s paper could be made publishable today with some work. In any event, it would certainly receive a passing grade of 77 or higher.
41. He comments that his stated opinion is based on his review of many papers written during the time he was on the faculty (1986-1989), as well as his year back in his current position. He states that he read many papers submitted by students for academic credit, some very good, and some that were truly atrocious. He has also reviewed many papers submitted to The Army Lawyer and the Military Law Review for publication. Currently, he is a member of a three-person editorial board charged with final review of articles submitted to these two School publications, which have worldwide distribution. In short, he knows the difference between a good paper, a mediocre paper, and a bad paper. In addition, he understands better than most people what constitutes a passing paper. He states, for the record, that while he wrote a supporting statement in behalf of the applicant, he is not a close associate of hers, and in fact he believes he has only met her on one occasion, but has talked with or e-mailed her on perhaps a half dozen occasions over the years, some of these contacts having nothing to do with her paper. Indeed, most of his contact regarding her paper was with her then counsel, who is a former colleague of his from the School’s faculty. He also states that as an aside, to ensure he was not prejudiced by his prior association in this matter, he asked the Commandant, TJAGSA, to read the paper, he did so, and like him, he felt the paper had merit, and would receive a passing grade today.
42. On 10 June 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion from the Deputy Commandant/Academic Director, TJAGSA, in order to have the opportunity to respond. On 12 June 2002, she provided her concurrence with this opinion.
43. TJAGSA Circular 351-6 (Judge Advocate Officer Masters Degree In Law Program Orientation) establishes the procedures governing the course of instruction and administration of the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s School Masters Degree in Law Program. Paragraph 8 (Grading) outlines the grading philosophy and states, in pertinent part, that writing proficiency is a vital component of an LL.M. course of study, Accordingly, all candidates for the Masters of Law Degree are required to achieve more than the minimum passing standards in the writing program elective (thesis or research paper) to receive their LL.M. Degree. TJAGSA Circular 351-6 is published pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, section 4315 which authorizes the Army to award the LL.M. degree.
44. Paragraph 8b(7) states, in pertinent part, that a thesis or research paper grade below 77 will normally not satisfy the requirements for receiving an LL.M. Degree. All papers graded below 77 will be referred to the Professional Writing Committee, which will provide recommendations to the Director, Academic Department, on whether the paper satisfies the requirements for the graduate course, the LL.M. program and/or whether the student should be required to rewrite the paper. The Director, Academic Department, may approve the recommendations or take any other action he deems appropriate. Actions affecting award of the LL.M. Degree will be referred to the Commandant.
45. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Paragraph 2-2 outlines the functions of the ABCMR and it states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice. It further states that the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record and that it is not an investigative body. Paragraph 2-9 provides guidance on the burden of proof and it states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board carefully considered all the contentions of the applicant, and took special note of the claim that her research paper and the research papers of other African American students at the course were reviewed under a different standard and received higher scrutiny than the papers of other students. While it takes this claim very seriously, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this implied allegation of racial prejudice by the applicant. Further, it finds no evidence that raises any valid questions in regard to the conduct or motives of the graders in question.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the Commandant, TJAGSA, approved the recommendation of the Academic Department Director, that the applicant be declared a graduate of the 46th Graduate Course, but not receive an LL.M. Degree; and that an AER was prepared on the applicant and published accordingly under the provisions of applicable TJAGSA policy.
3. However, after careful review of the facts presented in this case, while the Board finds no legal or propriety error related to these actions, it does find significant inconsistencies in the application of the writing standards required for the LL.M. Degree by school officials in the applicant’s case. While the Board finds no evidence to show that any deliberate action to deny the applicant the LL.M. Degree was taken, it does believe that given the subjective nature of the research paper grading process, that an unintentional injustice was done the applicant as a result of her being denied a LL.M. Degree.
4. In the opinion of the Board, once the applicant was given the opportunity to redo her research paper, subsequent to her appearance before the academic board, her grade on this paper should have been the only factor used for determining if she should be granted or denied the LL.M. Degree. Her previous academic performance or school record should have had no bearing on the grading of this paper or in the final decision made.
5. In arriving at its conclusions on this case, the Board relied heavily on the independent evaluation of the applicant’s research paper completed by the current Deputy Commandant/Director, Academic Department, TJAGSA, which gives it a passing grade. This senior school official, who has extensive experience as a school faculty member and who now supervises the school faculty, confirms that the paper met the school’s writing standard for award of the LL.M. Degree at the time it was written, and that it still meets the standard today.
6. In addition, the Board took special note of the fact that the current TJAGSA commandant, who is now responsible for the operation of the TJAGSA and for enforcing the LL.M. Degree standards, read the applicant’s research paper, concurred with the evaluation by the Academic Department Director, and confirmed that the paper would receive a passing grade today.
7. The Board balanced the opinions of the three young majors that originally graded the applicant’s research paper against the independent grading of the paper completed by the current Director of the Academic Department, which was concurred with by the serving commandant; and it is persuaded by the extensive experience of the two senior school officials. The two senior school officials, who are now authorized to award the LL.M Degree, determined that the applicant’s research paper should have received a passing score. Based on the informed judgment of these two responsible TJAGSA officials, the Board feels compelled to concur with their evaluation and grant the requested relief in the interest of justice and equity.
8. 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 showing that the individual concerned received a passing score on her research paper; by awarding her a LL.M. Degree based on her successful completion of all the course requirements of the 46th Judge Advocate Officer Course (5-27-C22); by removing the AER, dated 28 September 1998, and all references and documents related to this referred AER from her OMPF; and by replacing it with a DA Form 1059 of the same date, for the same course and period, that reflects that she achieved course standards and was awarded a LL.M. Degree based on her successful completion of all course requirements.
BOARD VOTE:
__AAO__ __KAH___ ___TL___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Arthur A. Omartian _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001060985 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | Grant |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 193 | 111.0000 |
| 2. 1021 | 100.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016078C071029
A Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) dated 12 May 2003, the date of the MPOBC graduation ceremony, certified that the applicant had completed all requirements for the course. The recommendation would include, among other requirements, the specific category of paragraph 3 that pertained to the student’s recommendation for elimination; the academic performance of the student; recommendations for disposition from the chain of command; a statement about graduation requirements that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002498
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 1 April through 23 July 2013 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states: a. The BOI heard testimony from several individuals that the applicant had cheated on a contact report, he was up front and did not try to make excuses for cheating, no other students had submitted identical reports, it was rare...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075705C070403
On 4 February 2000, the USAWC SSCF Program Director dispatched an email indicating that the applicant's agency had terminated its relationship with the applicant and that the NGB had published orders reassigning him to the NGB where he would continue to work on his SSCF research project in collaboration with another SSCF at Old Dominion University (also a participating agency in the SSCF Program). The USAWC Dean of Academic dispatched a letter to the agency official who withdrew the agency...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012108
The applicant states: * he seriously refutes the validity of the contested AER - the AER was frivolously generated without any supporting documentation to substantiate the negative evaluation * the AER was submitted 17 months after he graduated from the MICCC (note the 9 August 2004 submission date on the contested AER) - it is a requirement that all military personnel in a student status receiving an AER be counseled and sign the AER; this did not occur * on numerous occasions over a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011507C070208
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), and his NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) to reflect non-completion instead of failure to complete the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course (FAOBC) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The applicant states that his records are in error because he resigned his commission in February 1994 at the FAOBC. He states...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064528C070421
The OSRB found that the rating officials, the entire command, and PERSCOM failed to refer the AER and that the review process was flawed because the commander’s inquiry was not conducted within the required time limit nor did the inquiry officer or PERSCOM identify the failure to refer the report. The OSRB determined that there was no error in the preparing officer’s comments in the evaluation about the complaints filed by the applicant with When an AER is a referred report, the reviewing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075703C070403
He then chose combat lifesavers, completed his paper, submitted it to his FA for comments, made corrections, and turned it in for final grading. Army Regulation 351-1, Individual Military Education and Training, The applicant, on 27 November 2000, completed a staff study entitled "Shortage of Combat Lifesavers" using a prescribed school format for such studies.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004556
The applicant requests removal/expungement of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) (DA Form 1059), dated 18 April 2008 and authenticated in March 2009, and a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 24 November 2008, from her official military personnel file (OMPF). On 29 January 2009, the Commandant, CGSC, directed the permanent filing of the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF. The evidence of record shows an investigation was initiated in March 2008 after the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003610
The applicant states, in effect, the evidence does not warrant a bad AER and disenrollment from the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). The following types of reports will be referred: (1) Any report with a "NO" response. In his appeal process the applicant addressed only the issue of an undocumented reference whereas the instructor cited not just the undocumented reference, but more importantly that the verbiage used by the applicant appeared to have been copied directly from sources...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003610
The applicant states, in effect, the evidence does not warrant a bad AER and disenrollment from the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). The following types of reports will be referred: (1) Any report with a "NO" response. In his appeal process the applicant addressed only the issue of an undocumented reference whereas the instructor cited not just the undocumented reference, but more importantly that the verbiage used by the applicant appeared to have been copied directly from sources...