| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report [AER]), dated 4 January 2000, for the period 20 September to 24 November 1999 was prepared in error and placed on his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and should be replaced with his DA Form 1059, dated 24 November 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: He proves copies of both AERs without further comment or supporting documentation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 21 September 1982, as a unit supply specialist. He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 1 December 1990, in order to accept a warrant officer (WO) appointment. On 12 December 1990, he was appointed as warrant officer (W-1) in the USAR with concurrent active duty.
He was promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3/W-3) in the Regular Army effective 1 December 1998.
On 24 November 1999, an AER was prepared on the applicant, which evaluated him on his attendance at the Property Accounting WO Advanced Course, for the period 20 September 24 November 1999. Item 13 (Performance Summary), shows that the applicant achieved course standards. The remarks entered in item 16 (Comments) indicate that the applicant: displayed lack of judgment; that his behavior was not consistent with that of a warrant officer in the United States Army; performed extremely well in an academic environment; achieved course standards; satisfactory performed duties as Physical Fitness Training Officer; and tactically and technically certified to serve as a Warrant Officer in MOS 920A. This AER is not on the performance portion of his OMPF.
A memorandum, dated 23 November 1999, shows that the AER was referred to him for acknowledgement and possible rebuttal. It appears that the applicant acknowledged receipt but did not sign it or indicate if he did or did not wish to submit a written rebuttal. This memorandum is not on the performance portion of his OMPF.
The applicant submits a copy of another AER for the same course, dated 4 January 2000. Item 13 shows that the applicant failed to achieve course standards. The remarks entered in item 16 indicate that the applicant: was relieved from the course due to honor code violation (officer will not cheat or steal); displayed lack of judgement; substandard ethics; unprofessional conduct; performed satisfactorily in the classroom; his behavior off duty was unbecoming of a WO; and satisfactorily performed duties as Physical Fitness Training Officer.
This AER is posted on the performance portion of his OMPF.
A memorandum, dated 9 February 2000, shows that the AER was referred to him for acknowledgement and possible rebuttal. The applicant signed but did not date the acknowledgement and shows that he did wish to submit a written rebuttal. This memorandum is on the performance portion of his OMPF.
The applicant's records revealed that he has not submitted an appeal of his AER, dated 4 January 2000, for the period 20 September to 24 November 1999 in accordance with Army Regulation 623-205, Officer Evaluation Reporting, chapter 6.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation.
Table 2 of the regulation pertains to the composition of the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that the DA Form 1059 will be filed on the OMPF, Performance Data Section.
Army Regulation 623-105 governs the policies and procedures for the officer evaluation reports (OER) systems. Chapter 6 manages the Redress Program. It provides the opportunity to request a Commander’s Inquiry or to appeal disputed reports. It states, in pertinent part, that an AER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of preparation and represent the considered opinions and objective judgement of the rating officials at the time of preparation.
Paragraph 6-7 of the same regulation states administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the report and a decision will be made in view of the regulation in effect at the time the report was rendered.
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 applicant's DA Form 1059, dated 4 January 2000, for the period 20 September to 24 November 1999, was properly filed on the Performance (P) fiche of his OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s request to have his DA Form 1059, dated 4 January 2000, with associated documents, removed from his OMPF and replaced with his DA Form 1059, dated 24 November 1999. However, the applicant has not shown that his DA Form 1059, dated 4 January 2000, was filed in error or was unjust.
3. The Board also notes that the applicant's records failed to show that he submitted an appeal of his AER, dated 4 January 2000, for the period 20 September to 24 November 1999 in accordance with Army Regulation.
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
__fe___ __jm____ ___mt___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087989 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030819 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 267 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018138
The applicant requests that the DA Form 1059-2 (Senior Service College Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period of 1 July 2001 through 16 December 2003 [herein referred to as the contested AER] and all related documents be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant also requests that any documents referring to his non-selection for promotion to colonel, O-6, be removed from his OMPF and that he be referred to a special promotion board in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007472
The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) in item 11c (Performance Summary) "Marginally Achieved Course Standards" dated 24 January 2007, to either: a. Annotate the DA Form 1059 as a Satisfactory Achieved Course Standards and redact/remove the final line about the failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); or b. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006500
The applicant requests, in effect: * correction of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 20 January 2004, to show that it is no longer considered a referred report * removal of the AER Referral Memorandum from the Chief of Evaluation and his rebuttal statement from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * promotion reconsideration to major (MAJ) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) criteria 2. The applicant states: *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016990
The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 5 September 2007, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transfer of this document to the restricted portion of his OMPF. contains the entry "N/A" which supports his claim this document was incorrectly prepared because he dropped out of the course due to family issues and not because he was academically dropped out * the comment on the report is a cookie cutter response...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015921
The applicant requests, in effect, amendment of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 18 August 2006, that is filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The rater documented the applicant's academic performance average for ANCOC of 95.8% and that he passed the APFT on 6 August 2006 in item 14 of the DA Form 1059. The rater also provided comments in item 14 of the DA Form 1059 about the applicant's leadership capabilities and overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001046
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) ending 22 January 2003 from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The AER in question is properly filed in the applicant's OMPF in accordance with the applicable regulation to reflect that she attended the course and was released from the course for medical reasons. The Army has an interest in maintaining records of Soldiers who attend formal courses of instruction and the...
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 | CY2012 | 20120002968
Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the military personnel records jacket, the career management individual file, and Army personnel qualification records. Army Regulation 600-8-104, Table 2-1 states that DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF. The evidence of record supports his contention he tore the meniscus ligament in his left...
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 | CY2006 | 20060013770C070205
John Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, the removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) (DA Form 1059) dated 11 March 1997 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, absent evidence to show that the contested AER is improperly filed in her OMPF, there appears to be no basis to grant her request.