| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that two Academic Evaluation Reports (AER’s) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he did not have to attend Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) because he had been “grandfathered.” He adds he will never be promoted with these two AER’s in his OMPF.
In support of his request, he submits an AER for the period covering 20 through 29 November 1991. That AER shows that he was a resident at the course, and the course had been scheduled to end on 20 December 1991. That AER shows that the applicant had failed to achieve course standards. In the comments section of the AER, it is stated that the applicant was “Dismissed from the Primary Leadership Development Course on punitive reasons for disobeying academy policies.”
The applicant submits a second AER for the period covering 15 through 21 October 1992. That AER shows that he was a resident at the course, and the course had been scheduled to end on 13 November 1992. That AER also shows that the applicant had failed to achieve course standards. In the comments section of the AER, it is stated that the applicant ”Failed to achieve course standards on Written Leadership Examination” and “Demonstrated difficulty on the situp event during the Army Physical Fitness Test.”
The applicant also submits three documents which show that soldiers promoted prior to 30 September 1992 are considered to have completed the next level of military schooling. One of those documents, a memorandum from the applicant’s division, adds “Commanders may, at their discretion, require soldiers to attend NCOES if he/she determines it will be of benefit to the soldier.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 March 1977.
He served continuously through a reenlistment, and extended his enlistment on 3 May 1988 to accept a tour of active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program. The applicant was in pay grade E-5 when he extended his enlistment.
On the date the applicant submitted his request to the Board, he was on active duty in the AGR program in pay grade E-5.
Army Regulation 140-158 dated 1 July 1990, paragraph 1-27, stated that for promotion to pay grade E-6, reservists must complete the active component PLDC or several named equivalents (the equivalents must have been completed prior to 1 October 1987). Paragraph 1-28c of this regulation stated that effective 1 October 1987, soldiers serving on AGR status who did not complete an NCOES for the appropriate grade are required to complete the active component NCOES for their grade.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant has not contested the validity of the AER’s in question. As such, the Board concludes that both reports accurately reflect the applicant’s conduct and performance during the rated periods.
2. While the documents submitted by the applicant indicate that there may have been a period of time when NCOES attendance was not required for certain soldiers, Army Regulation 140-158, in effect prior to the applicant’s attendance at PLDC, did require PLDC completion. In addition, even during the period covered by the documents submitted by the applicant, the guidance allowed a soldier’s commander to require the soldier to attend PLDC. Therefore, the applicant’s attendance at both PLDC classes was not an error or injustice.
3. In summary, the applicant was attending a school he was required to attend, he was issued AER’s for failing to complete those schools, and he has not contested the validity of the reports.
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
___jns___ ___wdp___ ____lem DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083491 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030619 |
| 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 | CY2008 | 20080014443
There is no indication or evidence in the applicant's records that she was enrolled in or completed Phase II of MOS 54B BNCOC as stipulated in her promotion orders. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was conditionally promoted to SSG/E-6 on 30 June 1998 in MOS 54B contingent upon her successful completion of BNCOC. With respect to the applicant's contention that she should be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7, there is no evidence that the applicant met grade and/or NCOES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089643C070403
The applicant provides a BNCOC course application dated17 October 2000. The applicant provides a second BNCOC course application dated 17 October 2000. Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-9a states that, to standardize promotion qualification throughout the USAR and to ensure promotion of the best qualified soldiers, promotion selection board action is required for all promotions to sergeant and staff sergeant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063421C070421
On 10 August 1996, the applicant requested transfer to the USAR and on 9 October 1996 he enlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-4. Orders dated 3 May 1999 ordered the applicant to active duty in an AGR status with a report date of 14 June 1999 to the 671 st Float Bridge Company in Portland, OR. Paragraph 8-2e states that a SGT must be a graduate of the PLDC Active Army (PLDC-AC) or the PLDC Reserve Component (PLDC-RC).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075047C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Finally, the applicant has offered no explanation either for the delay in raising her alleged prior completion of PLDC or for her apparent failure to mention it at the time of her original separation from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098139C070212
She would have had nearly 4 years of active service as a member of the United States Air Force, and 6 more months of active duty while serving in the Office, Chief Army Reserve between 1998 and 1999. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1, which outlines the policies and procedures for entitlement to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082572C070215
It provides, in pertinent part, that effective 1 October 1993, soldiers whose sequence numbers are reached for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and have not completed or attended ANCOC are promoted conditional upon their completion of ANCOC (provided they are not a previous ANCOC failure). The applicant was originally conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 in 1995 and after failing the ANCOC (academically), he was reduced back to the pay grade of E-6 on 3 December 1996. Although...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074341C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, if proper procedures were followed in accordance with Army Regulation 140-158, he would be attending ANCOC in the rank of SFC. It states, in pertinent part, that when a soldier fails to complete a required NCOES course, the soldier's name will be removed from a promotion list, and if conditionally promoted, the soldier will be reduced in accordance with paragraph 7-12d.
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 | CY2004 | 20040009448C070208
On 22 June 2004, the HRC approved a request for exception to policy to reinstate the applicant's name to the promotion selection by-name-list and to subsequently promote him to SGT, with a retroactive DOR and effective date of 1 January 2004, granted he was otherwise eligible. Soldiers were allowed to compete for promotion to SGT, but could not be promoted to SGT until completion of PLDC. Had he not been erroneously removed, he would have been promoted to SGT in MOS 96B prior to being...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019947
The advisory official stated that after a thorough review of the applicant's records, his office recommends his reinstatement to the rank of SFC with the understanding that he will not be eligible for promotion to master sergeant (MSG) until he completes all required NCO education courses. Neither promotion order indicates his promotion was conditional upon completion of NCOES. a. Paragraph 1-27 (NCOES Requirement for Promotion and Conditions Promotion) states that a Soldier must be a WLC...