| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
2. The applicant requests that a DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) for the period 17 October 1988 through 16 December 1988 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that the subject AER was improperly prepared; that Army Regulation (AR) 623-1, Academic Evaluation Reporting System, prohibits references to "incomplete punitive or administrative action" in the comment portion of the AER. He states that the Fort Jackson, South Carolina, Office of the Inspector General (IG), substantiated that the subject AER was improperly prepared by including mention of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action that was never taken. Although the IG directed that the phrase be removed from the AER, corrective action was never taken. The applicant adds, in effect, that the subject AER has damaged his career by causing his nonselection for promotion to master sergeant.
4. The applicant's military records show that he is a career soldier serving in the rank of sergeant first class. In 1988, as a staff sergeant, he attended Drill Sergeant School at Fort Jackson. He was striving to finish the course among the top 20 percent of the students and, as a result, alienated several staff and students through his obstinacy and by contesting grading procedures. At the end of the course, he was charged with not clearing the billets in the prescribed manner and missing a formation on 16 December 1988, the last day of school. He argued that other students had also failed to follow the proper policy in clearing the billets, but they were not singled out. He further argued that announcement of the formation was vague and others also missed it, but only he was singled out.
5. The Commandant of the Drill Sergeant School recommended that the applicant receive punishment under the UCMJ; however, his commander opted to issue an administrative letter of reprimand to be filed in the applicant's local file for 1 year. The reprimand was issued on 8 February 1989, but on the subject AER in Item 16 (Comments), the applicant's rater stated, "[Applicant's] lack of attention to detail caused him to be absent from his place of duty, resulting in Uniform Code of Military Justice action against him." The applicant graduated from Drill Sergeant School and became a successful drill sergeant for 2 years.
6. The applicant complained to the IG that his 16 December 1988 AER was improper in that it referenced UCMJ action that had never taken place [in fact, the reprimand was not issued until 2 months after the end date of the AER]. The IG substantiated that the AER was improper and directed that the US Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, delete the improper reference to UCMJ action and insert the phrase, "A letter of reprimand was placed in his local file." This was never accomplished although the 8 February 1989 IG memorandum is filed in the applicant's OMPF.
7. On 18 August 2000, the applicant petitioned the USAEREC to have the subject AER corrected by removing mention of the UCMJ action. On 4 May 2001, the USAEREC returned the applicant's request without action and referred him to this Board.
8. AR 623-1, Academic Evaluation Reporting System, then in effect, established policies and procedures for preparation of AER's. The regulation provided that no reference be made to incomplete administrative action taken, or planned against a student.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's overzealous personality alienated key faculty and staff at the Fort Jackson Drill Sergeant School. When he missed one of several formations on his last day of class, he was told that, although he would be allowed to graduate, UCMJ action would be taken against him. The subject AER states "resulting in UCMJ action against him."
2. The UCMJ authority (company commander), perhaps realizing that the entire incident was overblown, issued the applicant a locally filed letter of reprimand on 16 February 1989, some 2 months after the applicant's graduation.
3. The AER was improper and a correction was ordered, but never made. The improper AER remains in the applicant's OMPF to this day and may have had an adverse effect upon subsequent promotion considerations to master sergeant.
4. As a matter of equity, and in consideration of the potential harm already done to the applicant's career, it would be appropriate to remove the AER from the applicant's OMPF, rather than simply make the directed correction at this late date. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to give the applicant promotion reconsideration for master sergeant in accordance with criteria and a timetable to be established by USAEREC.
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. Removing the subject AER and the 8 February 1989 Fort Jackson IG memorandum, with subject: Minor Correction to Evaluation Report, from the OMPF of the individual concerned;
b. By placing the corrected records of the individual concerned before an appropriate board for reconsideration of his promotion to master sergeant; and
c. If selected for promotion, by giving him an appropriate effective date and date of rank, with all due back pay and allowances.
BOARD VOTE:
__rjw___ __le____ __mvt___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Raymond J. Wagner
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002066607 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020808 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0100 |
| 2. | 134.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011246
* the GOMOR and AER record the misconduct which occurred as well as the command actions taken to address that misconduct * the GOMOR is an administrative measure with its own due process; comparisons to civilian legal practices might instruct but would lack relevance * by placing it in the applicant's permanent OMPF the imposing officer clearly felt the applicant's misconduct warranted the ability of future reviewers, evaluating him for possible favorable personnel actions, to know what...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059302C070421
The summary shows that three officers appeared before the board for alleged academic ethics violations, the applicant, “Maj C,” his partner in the project, and “Maj P,” the officer who provided assistance to the applicant. In a 22 June 2001 letter to this Board supporting the applicant’s request, an assistant professor at the CGSC stated that he testified at the Academic Misconduct Board, and that it was his opinion, as an instructor at Fort Leavenworth for more than 10 years, that the case...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012110C070206
Counsel states that the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 pending completion of the ANCOC and that he was administratively removed from the NCO Academy, due to misconduct, based on the school's erroneous belief that he was involved in a hit-and-run accident in the student parking lot. The MP report indicates that the applicant and the other soldier were both taken into custody; that they both submitted sworn statements; and that both were later released. Although a review of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016258
The applicant requests removal of a negative DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Table 2-1 of AR 600-8-104 states that the DA Form 1059 will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF. This DA Form 1059, dated 1 August 2001, is also filed in her P fiche.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071753C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : Removal of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The commandant of the drill sergeant school recommended that he return to the course at the earliest possible date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094977C070212
In a 23 December 1997 memorandum to the Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, an Army captain, a legal assistance attorney at Fort Bragg, stated that after a careful review of the applicant's NCOER, the QMP appeal packet, and the investigatory letter drafted by the applicant's brigade commander, that it was clear that the NCOER was unjustly tainted by the unproven accusation of the applicant's accuser, and was not based on the applicant's performance during the period. The ESRB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062173C070421
The ESRB opined that the applicant did not meet the entry requirements for the course because he failed the APFT (2-mile run) due to an injury. Given the evidence in this case, the Board finds that the applicant should have been released from the course for medical reasons that occurred through no fault of his own and that any AER that was issued should have accurately reflected the events that occurred in his case. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant has always...
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 | CY2014 | 20140021608
The applicant requests reconsideration of her previously denied request for removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 16 February through 17 June 2011 from her official military personnel file (OMPF) or in the alternative transfer of the AER in question to the restricted portion of her OMPF. The comments portion of the report stated, in part: a. she was the subject of a substantiated Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605941C070209
A 20 November 1990 AER from the software analyst, MOS 74F, BNCOC at Fort Gordon, Georgia, shows that she was administratively released from the course because she failed written and hands-on portion [of the course], with a recommendation that she be allowed to work in her MOS before attending the course again. She stated, in effect, that because of overstrength in MOS 74F at Fort Gordon, she did not have the opportunity to work in that MOS, and coupled with the fact that she was recently...