MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


                  IN THE CASE OF:
        


                  BOARD DATE: 16 September 2003
                  DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075703

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         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:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dismissal from the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA) Sergeants Major Course be reversed and that he be reinstated and graduated; that he be restored to the rank of Sergeant Major (SGM); that his Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER), dated 30 May 2001, be revised to delete evidence of his dismissal; and that a General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOMOR) concerning his dismissal be expunged from his file.

APPLICANT STATES: In essence, that he and three fellow students (hereafter referred to as FS-1, FS-2, and FS-3) were dismissed from the Sergeants Major Course for plagiarism. He contends that FS-1 was guilty of misconduct and that he obtained the applicant's work and shared it with FS-2 and FS-3. He adds that FS-2 admitted receiving a copy of FS-1's work via email. FS-3 gave two versions of how she completed her work, neither of which involved the applicant or his work. He states that he does not know how others may have gotten copies of his work, but he did not share his work or assist other students in any way.

In support of his application, the applicant provides two three-ring binders with numerous enclosures including: a partial copy of the Commandant's Board proceedings; copies of the subject plagiarized work; training schedules; letters of support, etc..

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He was a student in the resident Sergeants Major Course at Fort Bliss, Texas, commencing 14 August 2000 and ending on 30 May 2001. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant Major on 1 November 2000.

On 27 November 2000, the applicant submitted a staff study assignment wherein he explored the shortage of combat lifesavers in Army units. On 18 April 2001, FS-3 gave an oral presentation of her staff study briefing. After the briefing, her faculty advisor (FA) met with her and raised concerns that her study was similar to another student's in a previous class. The FA was familiar with the topic because she had given FS-1 a grade of unsatisfactory on his first effort on 12 December 2000. FS-1 then rewrote his staff study and resubmitted it for a passing grade on/about 4 January 2001.

An investigation was initiated based on the similarities between the staff studies of FS-1 and FS-3. As a result, all other staff studies on the subject of combat lifesavers were reviewed. The applicant's staff study and FS-2's staff study also turned up and were evaluated. Although not identical, the studies were very similar as to format, facts used, assumptions made, courses of action explored, and solution recommended.

As a part of the investigative process, it was also discovered that the four papers shared similarities with a staff study on the same subject submitted in 1997 and on file at the USASMA. The applicant and the other three students were accused of plagiarism and ordered to appear before a Commandant's Board.

The Commandant's Board convened on 8 May 2001. The four respondents appeared before the 5-person board. All were advised of their rights to appear with counsel, but only one chose to do so; the applicant appeared without counsel. The applicant was questioned and offered that he originally intended to do a staff study on the topic of battle staff noncommissioned officers (NCO), but was advised that his premise was weak and he should consider a different topic. He then chose combat lifesavers, completed his paper, submitted it to his FA for comments, made corrections, and turned it in for final grading. He added that he completed his paper a month before FS-1 submitted a similar paper.

After interviewing all of the respondents and hearing all testimony, the board adjourned to deliberate. On 9 May 2001, the board completed deliberations and recommended that the applicant, FS-2, and FS-3 be dismissed, and that FS-1 be retained in the Sergeants Major Course. The Commandant of the USASMA modified the board's recommendation to also dismiss FS-1.

The applicant was notified of his dismissal on 15 May 2001 by the USASMA Commandant. On 17 May 2001, he appealed his dismissal, reiterating the facts outlined above and reinforcing the fact that he was not a close friend of FS-1 and had no reason to help him with his paper. The appeal was forwarded through the USASMA chain of command with recommendations for denial to the Commanding General, US Army Air Defense Artillery School and Fort Bliss. On 22 May 2001, the Commanding General denied the appeal.

The applicant was dismissed from the Sergeants Major Course and given an AER, dated 30 May 2001, attesting to his dismissal. He was also given a GOMOR, which is not a part of the file presented to this Board for review.

On 18 July 2001, the applicant's promotion order to the rank of Sergeant Major was revoked as of 30 May 2001.

The applicant submitted to the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) a request for reinstatement to Sergeant Major and, on 4 February 2002, his request was denied and he was referred to this Board.

Army Regulation 351-1, Individual Military Education and Training,

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. Honesty and integrity in the academic environment are essential to the Army educational system and the noncommissioned officer professional development program. Plagiarism weakens the very foundation of that system and erodes educational values. It is, therefore, imperative that students scrupulously adhere to academic rules and principles concerning the sharing of work.

2. The applicant, on 27 November 2000, completed a staff study entitled "Shortage of Combat Lifesavers" using a prescribed school format for such studies. This paper, though not identical, was very similar to a paper on file at the USASMA since 1997. It also ended up being very similar to papers submitted by FS-1, FS-2, and FS-3.

3. FS-1 submitted a first draft of his combat lifesaver staff study in December 2000 which was dissimilar from the applicant's and completely unacceptable from an academic standpoint. He received a grade of unsatisfactory and was told to redo the paper. His final submission was very similar to the applicant's work. For example:

         a. Applicant stated the problem as: "[D]etermine if it would be feasible to teach the Combat Lifesaver Course during Advanced Individual Training." FS-1 said: "[D]etermine if it is feasible to teach the Combat Lifesaver Course during Advanced Individual Training."

         b. Applicant and FS-1 both cited as background unit challenges ". . . due to training requirements, mission requirements, and personnel turn over."

         c. Both applicant and FS-1 list four facts: (1) Army Regulation 350-41 "requires one Combat Lifesaver for each squad, crew, or equivalent-sized unit;" (2) "Units without crews or squads require one Combat Lifesaver for every ten soldiers;" (3) "Units will always require Combat Lifesavers;" and (4) "All soldiers receive training in basic lifesavings measures during" Basic Combat Training [applicant] or Advanced Individual Training [FS-1].

The two documents are replete with such verbatim wording and formatting.

4. The papers of FS-2 and FS-3 share the same similarities with the applicant's paper, and all share basic similarities with the 1997 paper in file at the USASMA.

5. Although, the complete deliberations of the Commandant's Board are not available to this Board and this Board is unable to determine the exact rationale used by the Commandant's Board in arriving at a finding that all four students were guilty of plagiarism, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, this Board supports the recommendations and the applicant's dismissal.

6. 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.

7. 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___ __mhm___ __kah___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075703
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030916
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	118.0000
2.	131.0200
3.	134.0200
4.
5.
6.