RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: APRIL 13, 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091712


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

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Luis Almodova		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member
Mr. Robert J. Osborn		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

---

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Ranger Tab and the skill identifier, Ranger Qualified.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that:

a. he attended the US Army Ranger School from 21 July 1991 to 1 October 1991. He had an outstanding patrol record prior to the last phase at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. His patrol training record prior to going through the Florida phase was four "GOs" and one "NO GO." This is an 80 percent pass rate. A 50 percent "GO" was a passing score. He had one of the most patrol "GOs" in his training platoon.

b. he was not afforded a simple squad leader position either time that he was in the Florida phase. Instead, he worked the high visibility, grueling positions of platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and weapons squad leader the entire time. Anyone, he states, who has gone through Ranger School knows this is not normal. In his platoon, all other soldiers who had less than 50 percent "GO" rates or who minimally reached a 50 percent "GO" rate when they began the last phase were at some point afforded a simple squad leader or low visibility position. This means that he was selected for harsh treatment or certain failure due to exhaustion. That was, to put it bluntly, disparate treatment.

c. after he was recycled, he had to meld in with and learn to work with a new group of Ranger students. That additional stressor is one of the reasons that Ranger instructors routinely placed recycled students in simple squad leader positions. Again, he was selected for more difficult functions and stresses than any other student who went through the fourth and final phase of the training.

d. after each patrol, the applicant states, that he asked the Ranger instructor how his patrols went. He was told each time that he met the requirements. This included the Florida Phase the first time through. The applicant also states that he asked each evaluator how he could improve and each time he was told that he did a good job, or a great job. He was astonished when he was recycled after the last (Florida) phase and was required to repeat it.

e. there was a transition between the desert and the Florida phase becoming the new last phase of the school in training year 1991. That was the year that the applicant states he went through the school. He initially thought that his being recycled (to repeat the last phase of the course) was the result of confusion among the Ranger School Instructors as to standards. After all, he

---

adds, each evaluator told him on the spot that he did a good job or "meet standard" job.

f. he did not appeal his being recycled at the end of the first time through the Florida phase. He believed that being a good Ranger meant doing exactly what he was told to do. He was told to report as a recycle for the Florida phase and he did that.

g. he submitted an oral appeal after the second time through the final phase. The Ranger instructors who were present at his appeal hearing in Florida neither presented nor created any written records during the formal appeal hearing. He was told by the officer in charge of the appeal hearing that the instructors' evaluations were final and could not be corrected to reflect what they told him at the time of the evaluation in the field. He, the applicant states, knows this is in fact not the truth. Understandably, he states, he believed then, and he believes now, that what the instructors told him after each graded field event, which was that he was a "GO," was the truth. The applicant states that he cannot believe that such a miscarriage of grading (or miscarriage of justice) was possible. However, the officer in charge told him the grades, as recorded, "could not be changed." If that is true, he asks, "why are they required to have an appeal process?"

h. that he knows a few Ranger students in his squad who did not fulfill all the requirements but were graduated and still awarded the Ranger Tab for completing the course.

i. he successfully completed all four phases of the Ranger Course, he participated in all the training involved, which involves dozens of hazardous tests and requirements. The tests included, but were not limited to: night parachute jumps, a 200-foot night rappel, confidence courses, mountain climbing, demolitions, hand-to-hand combat training, land navigation, escape and evasion, sleep and food depravation, and jungle swamp training.

j. that the Ranger School failed to generate DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER), as required by Army regulation.

3. The applicant provides a self-authored memorandum dated 27 May 2003 outlining his contentions; a copy of a DD Form 1610, Request and Authorization for TDY Travel of DOD Personnel, dated 28 June 1991; a copy of his DA Form 1307, Individual Jump Record; a copies of Orders Number 234-112 and 343-103, paragraph 2, published by Headquarters, US Army Infantry Center, dated 22 August 1991 and 9 December 1991, respectively, putting the applicant on parachute duty, in support of his application.

---

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant was appointed a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army on 19 May 1989 and entered active duty as a second lieutenant. The applicant was assigned to the Infantry Branch to fulfill his military obligation, and in January 1990 completed the Infantry Officer Basic Course and was assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, Fort, Ord, California.

2. On 28 June 1991, Orders 06-357, were published by Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Ord, California, putting the applicant on temporary duty to attend the Ranger Course, Class 91-11, for the period 21 July through 24 September 1991.

3. On 22 August 1991, while the applicant was attached to the 4th Ranger Training Battalion, US Army Infantry School, Orders 234-112, were published by Headquarters, US Army Infantry Center, putting the applicant on hazardous duty (Parachute Duty), with an effective date of 29 July 1991.

4. On 9 December 1991, the US Army Infantry School, published Orders 343-103, putting the applicant on hazardous duty (Parachute Duty), with an effective date of 6 November 1991 and terminating on 20 December 1991.

5. The applicant returned to Fort Ord and was subsequently reassigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. He remained at that station until 15 August 1994 when he was honorably released from active duty in the rank and pay grade, First Lieutenant, O-2. On the date of his release from active duty, the applicant had completed 4 years, 9 months and 4 days active Federal service.

6. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, shows that the applicant had earned the following during his Army service: the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Lapel Button, the Army Service Ribbon, the Expert Infantryman Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. The Ranger Tab is not shown.

7. Item 14 (Military Education) of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows that he successfully completed the following schools/courses of instruction while he was on active duty: the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course; the Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Officers Course; the Infantry Officer Basic Course; and the Light Leader Course. The Ranger Course is not listed.

8. In the processing of this case, the staff of the Ranger School was contacted telephonically. In this call, it was learned that the applicant was recycled twice for failure of patrols and peer evaluations.
9. The applicant was provided a copy of the correspondence provided the Board by the Ranger School for his review and comments.

10. On 5 April 2004, the applicant responded to the correspondence that was provided for his review and comment. In his response, the applicant acknowledged that he had not passed the patrol requirement and "was slightly below my peer evaluation on my last phase." The applicant concurred with the
e-mail received from the Ranger School. In his response, the applicant also reiterated the sentiments that he had expressed earlier in his application to the Board.

11. To wear the Ranger Tab, it must have been awarded by one of the three authorities cited in AR 600-8-22, paragraph 8-46, in this case, the Commandant, US Army Infantry School.

12. AR 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth the requirements for award of the Ranger Tab. The Ranger Tab is awarded for successful completion of a Ranger course conducted by the U.S. Army Infantry School, any person who was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge while serving during World War II as a member of a Ranger Battalion (1st through 6th inclusive) or in the 5307th Composite Unit (Merrill’s Marauders), or to any person who successfully completed a Ranger course conducted by the Ranger Training Command at Fort Benning, Georgia.

13. Army Regulation 623-1, paragraph 106 states that active Army personnel attending a resident training course scheduled for 60 days or more will be provided an AER, DA Form 1059.

14. The Ranger Course is 61 days in length. At the completion of the Ranger Course, students were not given an academic evaluation report because the training was conducted in four phases [now three phases]. Each phase was under a distinctly different group of school staff members (evaluators) and at four different locations. The overall length of the school course was also reduced by two days, which were consumed by travel, maintenance, in/out processing and graduation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant was assigned to the 4th Ranger Training Battalion, for the purpose of his attending Ranger Course Class 11-91. The applicant was
recycled from this class to Ranger Course Class 12-91 then to Ranger Course Class 1-92 for failure of review by peers and for failure of patrols.

2. The evidence of records shows that the applicant did not successfully pass all four phases of Ranger training as required for graduation and therefore is not eligible for award of the Ranger Tab and identification with the skill identifier, Ranger Qualified.

3. To be awarded the Ranger Tab and to have the special skill identification of Ranger Qualified added to an individual's personnel qualification record, they must successfully pass all four phases of the Ranger course.

4. The applicant was not awarded the Ranger Tab by the Commandant, US Army Infantry School; he is therefore ineligible to wear the Ranger Tab.

5. The success that the applicant may have had in those phases of Ranger training before the training he received at Eglin AFB are not an issue. The applicant contends that he had four "GOs" and one "NO GO" for an overall 80 percent pass rate and that he had one of the most patrol "GOs" in his training platoon. To be successful, students must pass the patrol requirement that is put before them in the final phase in Florida.

6. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that he was selected for harsh treatment or certain failure due to exhaustion; and therefore, he received disparate treatment while he was undergoing Ranger training. The applicant contends that he was not afforded a simple squad leader position either time that he was in the Florida phase. Instead, he worked the high visibility, grueling positions of platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and weapons squad leader the entire time. This, he states, is not normal.

7. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that all other soldiers who had less than 50 percent "GO" rates or who minimally reached a 50 percent "GO" rate, when they began the last phase, were afforded a simple squad leader or low visibility position.

8. The applicant admitted in his response to correspondence shared with him about communications outside the Board that he was slightly below his peer evaluations on his last phase. He credits this to his being selected for more difficult functions and stresses than any other student who went through the fourth and final phase of the training, however, the applicant provided no documentary evidence that this was so. The records on file at the Ranger School show he failed in this area.

9. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that he asked the Ranger instructor how his patrols went and he was told each time that he met the requirements. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that he asked each evaluator how he could improve and each time he was told that he did a good job, or a great job.
10. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that there was confusion among the Ranger School Instructors as to standards and that the confusion stemmed from the transition between the desert and the Florida phase becoming the new last phase of the school in training year 1991.

11. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that he submitted an oral appeal after the second time through the final phase, that no records of appeal hearings are kept during formal appeal hearings, and that he was told by the officer in charge of the appeal hearing that the instructors' evaluations were final and could not be corrected to reflect what they told him at the time of the evaluation in the field.

12. There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention that Ranger students who did not fulfill all the requirements of Ranger training were graduated and awarded the Ranger Tab.

13. The applicant was not provided an academic evaluation report. The Ranger Training Course was 61 days in length. The course was broken into four phases at the time the applicant attended. During each phase, students were under the supervision of a different cadre and evaluations were confined to that particular phase only.

14. While in this class, the applicant alleges to have been told by an instructor that he had successfully completed the patrol portion of the instruction. There is no record and the applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that what he was told was reduced to the written word to support this contention.

15. The fact that the applicant was twice recycled while in the last phase of Ranger Training is evidence that he had not achieved a "GO" in the patrol evaluation that he was subjected to.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

rjo _____ ym______ ra ______ DENY APPLICATION

---

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ____Roger W. Able____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091712
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20040413
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 46	107.0000
2. 169	107.0123
3.
4.
5.
6.