RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 March 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040000901
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 |
| |Ms. Prevolia Harper | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. William D. Powers | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | |Member |
| |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell | |Member |
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 that a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic
Evaluation Report), dated 30 September 2002, be removed from his Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states that he was processed for dismissal from the First
Sergeant Course and given the subject Academic Evaluation Report (AER). He
appealed his dismissal and was reinstated. He was issued a new AER, dated
2 October 2002, showing that he satisfactorily completed the course.
Unfortunately, both AERs appear on his OMPF.
3. The applicant provides:
a. a copy of a memorandum from Headquarters, US Army Sergeants Major
Academy, dated 10 July 2003, to US Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation
Center (EREC) asking that the 30 September 2002 AER be replaced with the
2 October 2002 version.
b. A copy of DA Form 1059, dated 30 September 2002.
c. A copy of DA Form 1059, dated 2 October 2002.
d. A copy of a memorandum from Headquarters, 2nd Battalion, 5th
Infantry, 25th Infantry Division to the Board supporting the applicant's
request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular
Army on 20 October 1987. He is currently serving as a First Sergeant
(1SG/E-8) at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
2. A DA Form 1059, dated 30 September 2002, shows that the applicant was
dismissed from the First Sergeant Course, Class #12-02, for disciplinary
reasons.
3. The applicant successfully appealed his dismissal and a second DA Form
1059, dated 2 October 2002 was issued showing that he graduated. The
Commandant of the First Sergeant Course forwarded the new DA Form 1059 to
EREC requesting that the 30 September 2002 document be replaced by the
2 October 2002 version. This was not done; both documents are on his OMPF.
4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management
and 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 Official Military Personnel File 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records;
the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board; Army appeal
boards; Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch of the U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command (PERSCOM, now the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-
Alexandria); Official Military Personnel File custodian (when documents
have been improperly filed), Commander, PERSCOM, as an approved policy to
change this regulation; Chief, Appeals Branch, Army Reserve Personnel
Center (ARPERCEN), now the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis); or
Chief, Appeals Branch, National Guard Personnel Center.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was dismissed from the First Sergeant Course, he appealed
his dismissal and was reinstated and graduated.
2. Prior to the applicant's successful appeal and reinstatement, the
dismissal DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) was
forwarded to EREC and included on his Official Military Personnel File
(OMPF).
3. Subsequent to his reinstatement in the First Sergeant Course, the
applicant received a second DA Form 1059, dated 2 October 2002 showing him
successfully completing the course. The report was also filed on his OMPF.
4. In view of the circumstances in this case, the erroneous 30 September
2002 DA Form 1059 should be expunged from the applicant's OMPF.
5. The Board's objective is to completely remove all references to the
erroneous 30 September 2002 DA Form 1059 from the applicant's OMPF.
Accordingly, it would be appropriate to return this Record of Proceedings
to the Board for permanent filing.
BOARD VOTE:
__wdp___ __rjw___ __lgh___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends
that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be
corrected by expunging the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation
Report), dated 30 September 2002, from his Official Military Personnel
File.
2. That following completion of the administrative corrections directed
herein, the proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this
appeal will be returned to the Board for permanent filing.
William D. Powers
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20040000901 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20050331 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |GRANT |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |134.0200 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087846C070212
The applicant requests the transfer of a DA Form 1059 dated 25 June 1999, promotion orders dated 27 September 2001 and Board proceedings dated 3 January 2003 be transferred to the Restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states, in effect, that he has previously won his appeal before the Board and requests that his records be corrected by transferring the requested documents to the Restricted fiche of his OMPF in order that his chances for selection to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605941C070209
A 20 November 1990 AER from the software analyst, MOS 74F, BNCOC at Fort Gordon, Georgia, shows that she was administratively released from the course because she failed written and hands-on portion [of the course], with a recommendation that she be allowed to work in her MOS before attending the course again. She stated, in effect, that because of overstrength in MOS 74F at Fort Gordon, she did not have the opportunity to work in that MOS, and coupled with the fact that she was recently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067073C070402
DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: The Board notes the applicant’s request to have the AER he received, dated 3 May 1994, along with all other information and/or documents related to his release from his first BNCOC class removed from his OMPF. The evidence of record confirms that the AER in question, along with all...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012469C070206
He appealed the AER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), which resulted in the ESRB finding the AER was in error and removing the AER from his records. The applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 June 2002 conditional upon his successfully completing ANCOC. The applicant appealed the AER and the ESRB granted his appeal to remove the AER.
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 | 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 | CY2015 | 20150009127
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating period 31 August 2012 through 5 July 2013, specifically to recreate the NCOER with the proper rating chain and change her duty position to Platoon Sergeant. The applicant's available records do not contain evidence that shows she requested a Commander's Inquiry (CI) regarding the contested NCOER. The applicant provides: a.
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 | 2001062173C070421
The ESRB opined that the applicant did not meet the entry requirements for the course because he failed the APFT (2-mile run) due to an injury. Given the evidence in this case, the Board finds that the applicant should have been released from the course for medical reasons that occurred through no fault of his own and that any AER that was issued should have accurately reflected the events that occurred in his case. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant has always...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...