| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an academic evaluation report (AER) for the period 4 January 1996 through 21 February 1996 be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that retention of the report in his OMPF creates a permanent injustice. He states that he has been passed over twice for promotion to pay grade E-7. He notes that the "deficiency that constituted removal from BNCOC (Basic Noncommissed Officer Course) has been brought up to standards." He notes that he completed BNCOC in 1997 and was promoted to pay grade E-6. He states that "continued penalty for a non-judicial act/reason that was immediately corrected is unjust and unfair and should not be used to judge [his] overall military potential." In support of his request he submits copies of statements which were used to support his retention in the 1996 BNCOC and statements from his chain of command which recommended he be allowed to attend a later course.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty in January 1990, was promoted to pay grade E-5 in May 1993, and is currently serving on active duty.
In January 1996 the applicant entered the Automated Logistical Management BNCOC course at Fort Lee, Virginia. He was academically relieved from the course in February 1996 as a result of "consecutive academic failures."
Included with the applicant's petition to this Board was a copy of his appeal to the commandant of the NCO Academy at Fort Lee, and copies of statements submitted by members of the applicant's 1996 BNCOC supporting the applicant's retention in the course. In spite of his appeal, the applicant was academically relieved and an academic evaluation report was rendered for the period
4 January 1996 through 21 February 1996. The report is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.
In the summer of 1996 the applicant's chain of command supported a recommendation that the applicant be allowed to return to BNCOC. Statements from his chain of command, which were also included with the applicant's petition to this Board, indicated that the applicant had completed several hours of additional training in the deficient subject, which led to his academic release from the 1996 BNCOC.
The applicant successfully completed BNCOC in September 1997 by achieving course standards. An academic evaluation report for the period 11 July 1997
through 25 September 1997, which is also filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF, confirms completion of the course.
In November 1997 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6.
The applicant initially submitted a petition to this Board in October 2001 to have the 1996 AER expunged. In processing that request, the applicant was advised to appeal the evaluation report via the appropriate administrative avenues. The applicant attempted to appeal the report in January 2002. However, officials at the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center in Indianapolis, Indiana forwarded the appeal to this Board, noting that because the AER was more than 5 years old, the Board should consider the applicant's petition.
Army Regulation 623-1, which establishes the policies and provisions for preparation and submission of AER states that an AER is required for all active Army personnel attending resident and nonresident courses or training scheduled for 60 calendar days or more. They are also required for all enlisted personnel taking resident and nonresident NCO education system (NCOES) courses, regardless of length or component. The original copy of the AER will be filed in the individual's OMPF for all TDY (temporary duty) or PCS (permanent change of station) courses of less than 20 weeks.
Army Regulation 623-205, 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 enlisted soldier 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. That regulation also suggests that reports be appealed within 5 years of completion to ensure that relevant facts and statements are fresh.
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 Automated Logistical Management BNCOC.
2. The Board notes that while the applicant may have successfully completed the course at a later date, but that accomplishment does not invalidate the failure of the initial course, nor serve as justification to expunge the AER.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The actions by the Army in this case were appropriate and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
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
__JLP___ __AAO __ __RKS__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068531 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020604 |
| 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. | 111.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120006143
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) dated 7 April 2000 from his Official Military Personnel File (now known as the Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR)). The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 March 1995 for a period of 8 years and training as a ground surveillance radar operator. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that an error or injustice exists in her case, there appears to be no basis to grant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018340
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 21 February 2012, from her official records. The applicant provides copies of the contested AER, her appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB), Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), Officer Record Brief ORB), and two letters of support. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000318C070208
The applicant requests that a record of nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) and a service school academic evaluation report (AER) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). There is no injustice in maintaining the...
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).