RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 06 March 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080002163
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Dean L. Turnbull
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. James B. Gunlicks
Chairperson
Mr. Donald W. Steenfott
Member
Mr. Roland S. Venable
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 his records be corrected by removing his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the period 14 July 2004 to 29 July 2004 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that the inflammatory and suggestive remarks used on his DA Form 1059, dated 29 July 2004 are not true. The comments that are recorded on his DD Form 1059 for his failure of the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) Physical Training (PT), are "demonstrated a lack of motivation, self-discipline, and physical ability required to attend future NCOES [Noncommissioned Officer Education System]."
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DA Form 1059.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was enrolled as a student in the Ordnance ANCOC Class
#25-04 Phase II, with scheduled course duration from 15 July 2004 to 11 August 2004.
2. Item 13 (Performance Summary) of the DA Form 1059 he was given shows the entry failed to achieve course standards. There is also an "X" in the "NO" block of Item 15 (Has The Student Demonstrated The Academic Potential For Selection To Higher Level School/Training) of the DA Form 1059.
3. Placing an X in the NO block of Item 15 of the DA Form 1059 requires a comment based on the applicant's potential, leadership capabilities, and moral and overall professional qualities. Item 16 (Comments) of the DA Form
1059 shows the entries "disenrolled for failure to meet Army Physical Fitness standards on two consecutive attempts" and "demonstrated a lack of motivation, self-discipline, and physical ability required for selection to attend future NCOES." Additionally, it contains the entry "Fail 0407 70/174 YES."
4. The applicant's military service records show that he is currently assigned to the 1st Army Division West, Fort Carson, Colorado in the grade of E-7.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his DA Form 1059 for the period 14 July 2004 to 29 July 2004 should be removed from his OMPF, because of inflammatory and suggestive remarks.
2. The evidence shows that the applicant received a failed to achieve course standards rating during his attendance at the Ordnance ANCOC Class
#25-04, Phase II. Two entries were recorded in item 16 of the applicant's DA Form 1059 that states he was disenrolled for failure to meet Army Physical Fitness standards on two consecutive attempts and demonstrated a lack of motivation, self-discipline, and physical ability for selection to attend future NCOES. There is no error or injustice in these entries.
3. The rater's comments on that form are his considered opinion of the applicant's performance and potential.
4. In accordance with regularity guidance 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. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his record to remove the DA Form 1059.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JBG__ __RSV___ __DWS _ 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.
___James B. Gunlicks __
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065242C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. His DA Form 1059, dated 20 July 2001, shows that he was disenrolled from ANCOC for failure of the APFT. However, there is no evidence of record to show that the applicant exhibited any of the symptoms associated with anaphylactic shock discussed in the 1982 medical article after the fire ant bite episode.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000235C070205
U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 347-21, dated 13 December 2001, authorized the applicant’s promotion to sergeant first class/pay grade E-7, effective 1 January 2002. The applicant's service records did not contain any medical records and the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence showing that he was medically disqualified for attendance in ANCOC. Evidence shows the applicant was selected for a conditional promotion for the grade of sergeant first class.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002762C070208
A 15 July 2002 memorandum, the document which the applicant is asking to be removed from his file, states that the applicant’s name was administratively removed from the promotion list based on his “release from ANCOC due to [his] failure to meet the standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9.” Army Regulation 600-9 established the Army’s Weight Control Program. Although the applicant has requested that the 15 July 2002 memorandum notifying him of his removal from ANCOC be expunged from his...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016616
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. Although there are no documents in his official records regarding his disenrollment from ANCOC, the memorandum from TAPC states he was disenrolled from ANCOC due to APFT failure and he has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that his disenrollment or removal from the promotion standing list were unjust or in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016621
He states he was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E7 on 30 June 1998 contingent upon enrollment in the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) within 12 months of the effective date of promotion and completion within 24 months. A Soldier who has been conditionally promoted must be enrolled and graduated from the NCOES course within the specified period of time. A Soldier must be enrolled in ANCOC within 12 months of the date of promotion and be a graduate of that course...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062964C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he was granted reinstatement to the ANCOC, which he completed; however, his DOR was changed to 3 July 2001, to coincide with the date he completed the ANCOC. Personnel who apply for reinstatement, who are reinstated, will receive a DOR and effective date as of the date they graduate the ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000768C070208
One of the statements, included with his appeal for reinstatement, noted that in February 2003 the applicant was “selected to attend an ANCOC class” and that immediately upon notification he, (the author of the statement), began a physical training program with the applicant. In November 2003 the Army’s personnel command released a message announcing that the NCOES requirement for promotion to pay grades E-5 through E-7 was suspended. While the Board is certainly sympathetic to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006477
There is no evidence in his records to show he appealed his dismissal from ANCOC or his removal from the promotion selection list. The applicant was promoted to pay grade of E-7 on 1 January 1999 with the condition that he successfully complete ANCOC; however, the applicant was released from ANCOC due to APFT failure and his name was removed from the promotion standing list effective 5 October 2000. In any event, there is no evidence to show the applicant appealed either action at the time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069036C070402
This policy stated that soldiers, who have not yet attended ANCOC prior to their effective date of promotion to SFC, would be promoted "conditionally." The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered an APFT on 11 April 2000, for preenrollment at ANCOC and failed the push-up event, which precluded him from attending ANCOC. The applicant's case was reviewed by the USAR AGR Enlisted Reduction Panel, which determined that the applicant should be reduced in rank for failing to...