| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his DA Form 1059 Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER for the Primary Leadership Development Course 2-97, covering the period 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), or that it be transferred from his Performance Fiche to his Restricted Fiche.
3. The applicant states that he was punished for trying to help another soldier; that his records before and after this incident indicate the type of soldier he is; and that he does not want this incident to be a set back to his career.
4. The applicant submitted a letter of reference in support of his application. The letter was supported by 32 of his fellow soldiers and noncommissioned officers (NCO).
5. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 15 September 1993 and currently is a staff sergeant/E-6.
6. On an unknown date, the applicant, then a corporal (CPL/E-4), was assigned to the United States Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy (USA NCOA) for the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) 2-97. The duration of the course was from 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996. On 2 December 1996, the applicant was released from the USA NCO PLDC 2-97 for failing to achieve course standards due to disciplinary reasons under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 351-1, paragraph 5-30a(1). It was noted that he lacked the self-discipline required to establish himself as a capable NCO.
7. On 4 December 1996, an NCO wrote a letter on behalf of the applicant to the USA NCOA Command Sergeant Major (CSM) stating he believed the situation that had put the applicant’s integrity into question was a misunderstanding and misperception as to what was being asked of him. He acknowledged that he did not know all the facts of the situation, but believed the applicant to be telling the truth. He supported his statement with the signature of 32 NCOs and soldiers attesting to the character of the applicant.
8. On an unknown date, the applicant, then a specialist (SPC/E-4), was assigned to the USA NCOA PLDC 8-97. On 13 August 1997, the applicant achieved course standards and graduated from the USA NCOA PLDC 8-97. It was noted that he possessed the sound foundation of knowledge to be a noncommissioned officer; that he exerted a positive influence on his group’s efforts; that he willingly gave of his own time to contribute and participate in
attaining group goals; and that he frequently assisted group members in weak areas to enhance their performance. It was also noted that he set a good
example with his initiative, attitude, and motivation; that he performed well in leadership positions by utilizing effective supervision and a “lead by example ethic”; and that he spoke in a positive tone that is clearly in an understandable and direct style.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant is a career NCO with an exceptionally strong OMPF consisting of solid, above center-of-mass evaluation report ratings. He not only retook PLDC and passed it, but also received outstanding comments from his instructor regarding his leadership potential. He consistently demonstrated that he is an exceptional NCO. All of this supports the argument that the subject AER serves no useful purpose and should be moved from the Performance Fiche to the Restricted Fiche of his OMPF.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by removing the entire AER and related documents for PLDC 2-97, covering the period 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996, with no further reference to the same, from the Performance Fiche of the individual concerned; and
b. by placing the subject AER and all documents related to his appeal of the AER on the Restricted Fiche of his OMPF.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__kan___ ___mhm_ ___dph__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___________Melvin H. Meyer______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002069433 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020514 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000450C070206
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated 17 July 1996 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-7 by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB). Board members may not record their reasons or give reasons for selection or nonselection. It states, in pertinent part, that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) or its designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013770C070205
John Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, the removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) (DA Form 1059) dated 11 March 1997 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, absent evidence to show that the contested AER is improperly filed in her OMPF, there appears to be no basis to grant her request.
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 | CY2009 | 20090001046
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) ending 22 January 2003 from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The AER in question is properly filed in the applicant's OMPF in accordance with the applicable regulation to reflect that she attended the course and was released from the course for medical reasons. The Army has an interest in maintaining records of Soldiers who attend formal courses of instruction and the...
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120018161
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 | CY2007 | 20070009267
The applicant states that: a. she has two DA forms 1059 showing she completed Phase I of BNCOC; b. she has completed the Warrior Leadership Course in 2006 and would like to have the DA Form 1059 for PLDC removed; c. she was awarded a certificate of achievement that is showing the wrong year; and d. she only needs one DD Form 214 in her OMPF. The applicant's records also show that she was released from active duty on 23 October 1999 in accordance with chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079146C070215
Records show the contested AER was properly filed in the performance section of the applicant's OMPF. The Board considered the applicant's request for removal of the contested AER. That so much of the application as it relates to removal of the contested AER entirely from the OMPF is denied.