MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001061329

         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
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 an AER (Academic Evaluation Report) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his June 1992 AER, which reflects failure of the Installation Traffic Management Course, should be removed from his records because he believes “it to be unjust.” He maintains that because of an error in his orders he “missed a considerable amount of time from class” and that even though he failed the resident course he did “master the material through correspondence.” He states that the only parts of the Installation Traffic Management Course that he has not completed, via correspondence courses, were those courses which have been canceled. He also notes that the Installation Traffic Management Course is “no longer part of an officer’s track” and as such “pass or fail, there is no longer any need to have it in the file.” He states that the negative evaluation report “makes [him] look lakadesical [sic] in academics” but a review of his other academic courses would prove otherwise. He states this alone should serve as a basis to remove the report. In support of his request he submits a copy of the AER, an extract from the 1992 Correspondence Course Catalog, and a copy of his transportation correspondence course completion document.

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

He was appointed in the California National Guard as a second lieutenant in August 1980. He had prior service in the Marine Corps. He was promoted to first lieutenant in August 1983. He was honorably separated from the California National Guard and appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve effective 29 August 1983. He was promoted to captain in August 1987.

The applicant’s records indicate he completed a variety of military training courses over the duration of his military career, including several extension (correspondence) courses. Records available to the Board reflect only three academic evaluation reports, two for completion of non-resident courses and one that attested to the fact that the applicant was a graduate of the Command and General Staff College.

The AER in question notes that the applicant “failed to achieve course standards” during the Installation Traffic Management Course at Fort Eustis, Virginia, conducted between 1 and 12 June 1992. The report indicates the applicant “was on active duty for training for this report period” and “was a course failure.” There are no orders, nor does the applicant provide any, ordering him to active duty for the purpose of attending the Installation Traffic Management Course.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4 still lists the resident Installation Traffic Management Course as an available course conducted at the U.S. Army Transportation Center and School at Fort Eustis.
Documents provided by the applicant indicate that by 1995 he had completed a variety of transportation related correspondence courses. Some of those courses were listed as courses which were required for the non-resident Installation Traffic Management Course reflected in the 1992 version of Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-20. However, the Installation Traffic Management Course is no longer offered via correspondence. There is, however, no indication that the applicant ever successfully completed the course via correspondence or the resident course.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major by the 1994 and 1995 Reserve Components Selection Boards. The boards, except to confirm that it was not for lack of military education, did not divulge the reason for nonselection. On 2 November 1995 the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve.

Army Regulation 135-155, which established the eligibility requirements for promotion of Reserve component officers, notes that the only education requirement for promotion to major is completion of an Officer Advanced Course. The applicant completed the required Officer Advanced Course in 1986 for promotion to major.

Army Regulation 623-105, which establishes the policies and procedures for appealing academic evaluation reports, notes that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, prepared by the proper rating officials, and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. It states that the burden of proof on an appeal rests with the “appellant.” Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

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. The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies, was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations, or that it was not a valid appraisal of the applicant’s failure of the Installation Traffic Management Course. The applicant has provided no evidence which supports his contention that because of an error in his orders he “missed a considerable amount of time from class.”

2. While the applicant also contends that the AER should be removed because the Installation Traffic Management Course is “no longer part of an officer’s track,” the Board notes that while the course may certainly enhance an officer’s record it has never been a “requirement” for promotion. The Board concludes that the applicant’s argument is without foundation and does not serve as a basis to expunge the report.

3. Additionally, the Board notes that while the applicant may have successfully completed other courses of instruction, or may have completed several correspondence courses which were part of a non-resident Installation Traffic Management Course, those accomplishments do not invalidate the failure of the resident course, nor serve as justification to expunge the AER.

4. The Board concludes that the evidence indicates that the AER was completed in accordance with appropriate regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5. 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 that requirement.

6. The actions by the Army in this case were appropriate and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

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

__GD __ __TAP __ __MHM DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061329
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020221
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	111.01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.