| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James S. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Charmane Collins | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Removal of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That he went back to the school and completed the course and his tour of duty as a drill sergeant. He states that during his tour of duty he received numerous drill sergeant of the cycle awards and always produced some of the best tanker’s. He states that he initially failed the course because of personal problems that affected the focus required to complete the course. He states that he proved he was one of the best drill sergeants serving in his unit. He concludes by stating that the AER presents the appearance that he is a substandard soldier and that he just wants his records to reflect his true abilities. In support of his application he submits a copy of an AER from the Drill Sergeant School Academy for the period covering 6 August 1999 through 8 October 1999, indicating that he achieved course standards; copies of three Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Evaluation Reports reflecting his performance as a drill sergeant, since he completed the drill sergeant’s course; a copy of the Draper Armor Leadership Award that he was awarded on 22 June 2001, for excellence in leadership; a copy of the service school AER for the period covering 1 June 1999 through 17 June 1999, reflecting that he failed to achieve course standards in the drill sergeant course; and a copy of a service school AER for the period covering 28 April 1993 through 27 May 1993, reflecting that he achieved course standards in the leadership development course.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 February 1997, and after serving 9 years and 4 months of active service, he reenlisted in the Army on 5 January 1999 for a period of 4 years.
On 17 June 1999, the applicant was dismissed from drill sergeant course at Fort Benning, Georgia, for failing to achieve course standards. The service school AER that was filed in his OMPF indicates that he was dismissed for academic reasons, due to failing marching standards. The commandant of the drill sergeant school recommended that he return to the course at the earliest possible date.
The applicant attended and achieved course standards at the Drill Sergeant School Academy in Missouri for the period covering 6 August 1999 through 8 October 1999. The service school AER that was filed in his OMPF indicates that he completed all requirements for graduation, maintaining an academic average in excess of 95%. The school service AER reflects that he displayed satisfactory skills during oral presentations; that he displayed excellent leadership skills by accomplishing assigned tasks to standards; that he made sound and timely decisions; and that he was prepared to assume the role of a drill sergeant.
Army Regulation 623-1 prescribes the policies and procedures for preparing AERs. These reports are prepared for service members who take part in resident and nonresident training at service schools, NCO academies and civilian educational institutions. It provides, in pertinent part, that service school and NCO academy commandants are responsible for preparing the AER (DA Form 1059) within 60 days after the student’s graduation or termination from the school or academy. In preparing these reports, all significant information that can be evaluated must be reported. The school commandants or training division/brigade commanders will ensure AER comments are based on observation of a student’s qualities, strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and overall performance.
Army Regulation 623-205, sets forth the policies and procedures for the Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System. Paragraph 4-2 states, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an NCO is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. Paragraph 4-7 of the same regulation states, in pertinent part, that when submitting an appeal, the burden of proof rests with the applicant and that he or she must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.
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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
2. Although he went back to the school and completed the course and his tour of duty as a drill sergeant, the AER that he desires to have removed from his records clearly indicates that he was dismissed from the drill sergeant course at Fort Benning, Georgia, for failing to achieve course standards.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions regarding the contested AER. However, inasmuch as he is not disputing the information that was contained therein, the school commandant’s comments appears to have been based on the observation of his overall performance.
4. The service school AER in question presents a true picture of the reasons why his was dismissed from the drill sergeant course and it was filed in his OMPF in accordance with the appropriate regulation. Therefore, there is no basis for removal of the contested AER.
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
__ja ____ ___cc___ __fe ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071753 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 193 | 111.0000 |
| 2. 218 | 111.0200 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2009 | 20090021765
The applicant provides a copy of the NCOER in question; discharge Orders 03-262-00005, dated 19 September 2003; and DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report) in support of this application. Army Regulation 623-205 states that the primary purpose of a commander's inquiry (CI) is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. The evidence of record further shows...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002074856C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that the AER in question contained a material error, was inaccurate, or was unjust. Although he did not appeal the report to the ESRB, his appeal and rebuttal was reviewed, considered, and denied by two NCO Academy commandants.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006355
The applicant requests the removal of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period from 5 through 13 January 2000 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The applicant states: a. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows the contested AER contains any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2015 | 20150009127
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating period 31 August 2012 through 5 July 2013, specifically to recreate the NCOER with the proper rating chain and change her duty position to Platoon Sergeant. The applicant's available records do not contain evidence that shows she requested a Commander's Inquiry (CI) regarding the contested NCOER. The applicant provides: a.