| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) dated 24 January 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That he received a "No" in block 15 for demonstrated academic potential for selection for higher level schooling/training; however, he held the highest grade point average (GPA) through the entire course and in block 16, comments were made that his leadership was unprofessional for a noncommissioned officer (NCO). However, he was the only NCO in his class to get an "excellence" rating for leadership in phase I of the common core portion of training. He continues by stating that the offense he committed was being late two times over the 4-month course.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Butte, Montana, on 30 October 1990, for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks, under the airborne infantry enlistment option. He completed his training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He reenlisted on 24 June 1994 for a period 3 years and training as a watercraft operator. He completed his training and has remained on active duty a series of continuous reenlistments. He was conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1999. His promotion was conditional on his completing the Basic NCO Course (BNCOC) within 12 months.
On 7 November 2000, he attended the Watercraft Engineer BNCOC at Fort Eustis, Virginia.
On 22 November 2000, he received developmental counseling in which he was advised that his GPA was 98%, he had earned a superior in leadership and that his physical fitness score was well above average.
On 24 November 2000, he received a DA Form 1059 (AER) covering the period from 7 November to 24 November 2000, indicating that he had achieved course standards for Common Core Phase I of the BNCOC.
On 24 January 2001, he received a DA Form 1059 covering the period from 27 November 2000 through 24 January 2001, indicating that he failed to achieve course standards. In block 15, under demonstrated academic potential for selection for higher schooling/training, he received a "NO" rating.
The supporting comments indicate that the applicant was released from the course in accordance with Army Regulation 351-1, paragraph 5-30A(1), that he was dropped due to disciplinary problems, that he had failed to obey orders/regulations, that his conduct was such that continuation in BNCOC was not appropriate, that his leadership ability was unprofessional for an NCO, and that he was not recommended for further schooling until completion of the BNCOC. The report was considered adverse and as such was referred to the applicant.
The applicant was administratively reduced back to the pay grade of E-5 and was reassigned to a unit at Fort Eustis.
The student guide published by the NCO Academy at Fort Eustis, provides a list of infractions that may cause the eliminations of students from a course and have academic evaluations reports prepared to reflect such cause. The list includes any alcohol related incidents, failure to meet height and weight standards, failure to repair, academic failure, conduct unbecoming, positive urinalysis, unexcused absences from training, lack of motivation, and academic deficiency, which requires excessive retesting. The student guide is provided to each student of the NCO Academy courses upon arrival.
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 that 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. 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.
2. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and finds that he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that he was unjustly dismissed from the BNCOC.
3. Although he was doing well in phase I of the course, as reflected by the AER he received for that phase, he was dismissed for disciplinary problems that occurred during phase II of the course. Although the specifics for his dismissal are not present in the available records, the report was referred to him in accordance with the applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of any of the applicant's rights.
4. 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
__slp____ __sac___ __jm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082864 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 218 | 111.0200/rem acad rpt |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100019355
d. DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training) that shows the applicant successfully completed ALC Common Core on 3 May 2010. e. ERB, dated 31 May 2010, that shows in: (1) section I (Assignment Information - Overseas/Deployment Combat Duty) his last tour of duty in Iraq was from 4 May 2007 to 4 May 2008; (2) section III (Service Data) he was promoted to SFC on 3 May 2010; (3) section VI (Military Education) does not show BNCOC, Phase 1; BNCOC, Phase 2; SLC, Phase 2; or ALC Common Core (Phase 1);...
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 | CY2003 | 2003091491C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 9 June 2003, the applicant submitted an application to the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) requesting amendment to DA Form 1059 to reflect that he satisfactorily completed BNCOC 98-05. The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted driving record transcripts from the State of Virginia showing no history of DUI as additional evidence and a copy of Periodic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013563
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012108
The applicant states: * he seriously refutes the validity of the contested AER - the AER was frivolously generated without any supporting documentation to substantiate the negative evaluation * the AER was submitted 17 months after he graduated from the MICCC (note the 9 August 2004 submission date on the contested AER) - it is a requirement that all military personnel in a student status receiving an AER be counseled and sign the AER; this did not occur * on numerous occasions over a...
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 | CY2014 | 20140003610
The applicant states, in effect, the evidence does not warrant a bad AER and disenrollment from the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). The following types of reports will be referred: (1) Any report with a "NO" response. In his appeal process the applicant addressed only the issue of an undocumented reference whereas the instructor cited not just the undocumented reference, but more importantly that the verbiage used by the applicant appeared to have been copied directly from sources...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003610
The applicant states, in effect, the evidence does not warrant a bad AER and disenrollment from the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). The following types of reports will be referred: (1) Any report with a "NO" response. In his appeal process the applicant addressed only the issue of an undocumented reference whereas the instructor cited not just the undocumented reference, but more importantly that the verbiage used by the applicant appeared to have been copied directly from sources...