| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger Able | Member | ||
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER-DA Form 1059) and all other documents/information related to his attendance at the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC), Class Number (#) 2-94, between 20 April through 3 May 1994, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that during his period of training at BNCOC
Class # 2-94, he was going through very stressful divorce negotiations. As a result of the mental stress related to the divorce, he was unable to concentrate and/or focus on one of the most important stages of his military career. After being released from this BNCOC, he immediately settled the divorce differences, and returned to BNCOC training in class # 3-94. He completed the course as a Distinguished Honor Graduate for the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B Track.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Army, in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7), in Hawaii.
On 3 May 1994, the Commandant of the United States Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, notified the applicant, he was being released from BNCOC Class # 2-94 for academic reasons. The applicant was also informed that he could reenter the course when it was determined, by his unit commander and the Commandant, he was prepared to successfully complete the course. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the release letter and indicated that he did not wish to submit an appeal.
On 3 May 1994, an AER was prepared on the applicant, which evaluated him on his attendance at 11B BNCOC Class # 2-94, for the period 20 April through
3 May 1994. Item 13 (Performance Summary), confirms that the applicant failed to achieve course standards. The remarks entered in Item 16 (Comments) indicate that the applicant was released from the course for academic reasons, based on his second time failure on the E301 Common Leader Training Examination. The AER was referred to the applicant, he acknowledged receipt and elected not to submit a statement.
The applicant was reenrolled in Class # 3-94 on 11 June 1994 and successfully completed the course on 30 September 1994. Item 13 of the AER issued to the applicant at the completion of this course confirms that, he “exceeded course standards.” Item 16 contains nine extremely complimentary bullet comments, which included one that confirmed, he was the BNCOC Distinguished Honor Graduate for the 11B Track.
In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Chief, Personnel Actions Branch, United States Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC), Indianapolis, Indiana. It indicated that, although the applicant subsequently passed the BNCOC, there is no regulatory guidance that allows removing a document from the OMPF if the document was administratively correct. The DA Form 1059, dated 3 May 1994, which evaluated the applicant on his attendance at BNCOC Class # 2-94 was filed in accordance with the applicable regulations and in view of this fact, the applicant’s request should be denied. On 28 February 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond and to date, he has failed to reply.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel (MILPER) Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies for the MIPER Information Management/Records program. Chapter 2 contains guidance on the OMPF and Table 2-1 outlines the composition of the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that the DA Form 1059 will be filed in the performance portion of the OMPF.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s request to have the AER he received, dated
3 May 1994, along with all other information and/or documents related to his release from his first BNCOC class removed from his OMPF. However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis for this requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the AER in question, along with all other documents related to the applicant’s BNCOC attendance, which includes the AER subsequently issued to the applicant for his completion of the course as a Distinguished Honor Graduate, were properly filed in his OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations.
3. The Board concurs with the recommendation provided in the EREC advisory opinion, which recommended that the documents in question not be removed from the applicant’s OMPF because they were properly issued and filed in accordance with applicable regulations.
4. In the opinion of the Board, the fact that the applicant ultimately graduated from the course as a Distinguished Honor Graduate, which is well documented in the OMPF, offsets any stigma that may be attached to the AER and documents relating to his release from the BNCOC class he attended. Further, the Board finds no error or injustice related to the filing of the AER or any related documents in question. Therefore, it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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 this requirement.
6. 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
__FNE___ __RA__ __PM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067073 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 267 | 123.0700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070881C070402
The applicant requests that the Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) (DA Form 1059) covering the period 20 April 1994 through 11 May 1994 [herein identified as the "contested AER"] be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF. On 11 May 1994, the applicant was notified by the Commandant of the NCO Academy that he had been released from the BNCOC Class Number 2-94 for academic reasons. Records show the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087464C070212
The applicant requests that the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 19 October 2000, [herein identified as the "contested AER"] be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant effective 19 December 2001. That so much of the application as it relates to complete removal of the contested AER be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000901C070208
The applicant requests that a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 30 September 2002, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by expunging the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 30 September 2002,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002368
He provides: * his Enlisted Record Brief * a DA Form 1059 showing he "achieved course standards" * a DA Form 1059 showing he "exceeded course standards" * a self-authored memorandum to the Board * an Army Medical Department (AMEDD) NCO Academy memorandum, subject: Commandant's List * a recognition ceremony announcement containing a Commandant's List for BNCOC Class 001-06 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065121C070421
He received an AER ending 19 August 1991 indicating he failed to achieve course standards and was academically released due to failing BRM (acronym unknown) qualification on three occasions. Less than one year after he was academically released from BNCOC, the applicant re-attended and successfully completed the course, competitively re-establishing himself with his successful peers. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by moving the AER for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091588C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, that the DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER), dated 9 August 1996, be expunged from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant's AER, for the period 15 July 1996 through 9 August 1996, shows a forwarding address for a unit in Korea. The applicant in her response and acknowledgement to the notification under the provisions of Title 10, US Code 1556 stated that she had tried for 6 years to get the erroneous DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100108C070208
Ronald E. Blakely | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant also submits a copy of the “corrected” AER. In item 16, Comments, of the AER, it states, “Received the Commandant’s Physical Fitness Certificate for attaining 291 on the Army Physical Fitness Test.” The applicant also submits a copy of the certificate referenced in the “corrected” AER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082864C070215
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) dated 24 January 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085663C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that the 26 January 1995 AER (AER #1) shows that he failed to achieve course standards. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his OMPF should only reflect the AER #2, dated 23 August 1995, which shows that he successfully completed BNCOC class 5-95, and AER # 1, dated 29 January 1995, which shows that he failed to achieve course standards for BNCOC...