| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the Academic Evaluation Report (AER), dated 26 January 1995, reflecting his failure of the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his OMPF reflects that he attended the BNCOC twice. However, in reality he only attended the course once. He states that the 26 January 1995 AER (AER #1) shows that he failed to achieve course standards. However, the 23 August 1995 AER (AER #2) on file confirms that he achieved course standards and successfully completed BNCOC class 5-95. He further states that AER #1 adversely impacts his chances to develop his full potential and places him at a disadvantage when competing with his peers for promotion and schooling. In support of his application, he submits a copy of the contested AER #1 and AER #2.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving on active duty as a staff sergeant (SSG) at Fort Benning, Georgia.
AER #1 shows that the applicant attended BNCOC class 2-95 from 4 January to 22 February 1995. Item 13d (Performance Summary) indicates that the applicant “Failed To Achieved Course Standards”. Item 14 (Demonstrated Abilities) shows that the applicant received satisfactory ratings in the following areas: Oral Communication; Leadership Skills; and Contribution To Group Work; however, he was not evaluated in the areas of Written Communication and Research Ability. Item 15 (Academic Potential for Selection to Higher Level Schooling/Training) contained a “NO” response. Item 16 (Comments) contained comments from the evaluation preparing official. In effect, it stated that the applicant had been released from the course for academic reasons because he had twice received “No Go” ratings in the land navigation area.
AER #2 shows that the applicant attended the BNCOC class 5-95 from 3 July to 23 August 1995. This report confirms that he passed the course by achieving course standards, and receiving satisfactory ratings in all evaluated areas.
Army Regulation 623-1, in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for preparing AERs. These reports are prepared for soldiers
who take part in resident and nonresident training at service schools, noncommissioned officer (NCO) academies, and civilian educational institutions.
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 noncommissioned officer 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 established clearly and convincingly that the 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, and it is concluded:
1. 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 class 2-95 should be removed from his OMPF. However, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this request.
2. By regulation, the burden of proof for a successful AER appeal rests with the applicant, who must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that removal of a contested report 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.
3. The evidence of record shows that AER #1 was completed and submitted for inclusion in the applicant’s OMPF in accordance with the governing regulation. Therefore, the Board concludes there was no error related to the filing of this report in the OMPF. Lacking any evidence that suggests that the filing of
AER #1 was improper or inequitable, the Board concludes that the applicant has failed to meet the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support removing this contested report from his record.
4. 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.
5. 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
___tlp___ ___rld___ __rvo ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085663 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 193 | 111.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068531C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an academic evaluation report (AER) for the period 4 January 1996 through 21 February 1996 be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). Statements from his chain of command, which were also included with the applicant's petition to this Board, indicated that the applicant had completed several hours of additional training in the...
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 | CY2014 | 20140006997
The applicant requests correction of item 11 (Performance Summary) of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 26 June 2009, herein referred to as the contested AER, to show "Achieved Course Standards" instead of "Marginally Achieved Course Standards." c. Field Manual 7-22 (Army Physical Readiness Training) clearly states that Soldiers recovering from injury, illness, or other medical conditions must train within the limits of their medical profiles (DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071753C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : Removal of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The commandant of the drill sergeant school recommended that he return to the course at the earliest possible date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072620C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the Academic Evaluation Report (AER), dated 16 December 1998, reflecting his relief from the unit supply specialist Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC), Class Number 1-99, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The evidence of records confirms that the applicant had a hearing before an administrative separation board subsequent to the AER reflecting his relief from the ANCOC based on a positive urinalysis. ...
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 | CY2015 | 20150002498
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 1 April through 23 July 2013 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states: a. The BOI heard testimony from several individuals that the applicant had cheated on a contact report, he was up front and did not try to make excuses for cheating, no other students had submitted identical reports, it was rare...
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 | CY2001 | 2001061329C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his June 1992 AER, which reflects failure of the Installation Traffic Management Course, should be removed from his records because he believes “it to be unjust.” He maintains that because of an error in his orders he “missed a considerable amount of time from class” and that even though he failed the resident course he did “master the...
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...