IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  18 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000018 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, removal of an incomplete DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) that is filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states she attended the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC), Common Core Class 501-07, and completed Phases I and 2 for military occupational specialty (MOS) 25V (Combat Documentation Production Specialist).  She states:

   a.  She received two separate DA Forms 1059 and course completion certificates for both phases of BNCOC.  She also states these documents were authenticated with signatures and filed in her OMPF.

	b.  A duplicate copy of the DA Form 1059 for Phase I does not contain her signature and it is also filed in her OMPF.

	c.  She contacted the OMPF records custodian to correct this matter and was instructed to submit an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for removal of the document.

3.  The applicant provides, in support of her application, copies of three
DA Forms 1059, two course completion certificates, an email message, and two memoranda.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 18 January 2000 and entered active duty in the Regular Army on 25 July 2000.

2.  A DA Form 1059, dated 25 May 2007, and Fort Gordon (FG) Form 6812  (U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon Diploma), dated 25 June 2007, show the applicant successfully completed BNCOC Common Core Course 501-07, Phase I, Class Number 002-07, during the period 10 May through 25 May 2007:

	a.  This DA Form 1059 and FG Form 6812 contain all required signatures.

	b.  This DA Form 1059 is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.

3.  DA Form 1059, dated 25 May 2007, shows the applicant successfully completed BNCOC Common Core Class 501-07 [Phase I], during the period
10 May through 25 May 2007:

	a.  This DA Form 1059 contains the signatures of the rater and reviewing officer; however, the signature of the rated Soldier (i.e., the applicant) is not on the document.

	b.  This DA Form 1059 is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF. 

4.  A DA Form 1059, dated 12 July 2007, and FG Form 6812, dated 12 July 2007, show the applicant successfully completed the 25V3O, Combat Documentation Production Specialist Course, Phase 2, Class Number 501-07, during the period 30 May through 12 July 2007:

	a.  This DA Form 1059 and FG Form 6812 contain all required signatures.

	b.  This DA Form 1059 is filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.

5.  In support of her application, the applicant also provides the following documents:

     a.  An email message from the Lead Human Resources Assistant, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Indianapolis, Indiana, dated 15 December 2009, subject:  iPERMS Problem Case, that shows the applicant was instructed to petition the ABCMR for removal of the DA Form 1059 in question.
   b.  Two memoranda that show the applicant's name was changed from Angel D. T_______ to Angel D. W____.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  This document states that only those documents listed in Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) and Table 2-2 (Obsolete or no longer used documents) are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of the three portions:  performance, service, or restricted.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file:

   a.  Table 2-1 shows the DA Form 1059 is filed in the performance portion of the OMPF.

   b.  Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF), subparagraph c, states the restricted portion of the OMPF is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release of information in this section is controlled.  Documents in the restricted portion are those that must be permanently kept to:  (1) maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and corrections to other parts of the OMPF; (2) record investigation reports;
(3) record appellate actions; and (4) protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.

   c.  Paragraph 2-4 (Changing the OMPF) provides that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain specific agencies, among which includes the ABCMR.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the duplicate DA Form 1059 for the period 10 May through 25 May 2007 that is filed in her OMPF and does not contain her signature should be removed because it is incomplete.

2.  Records show that a DA Form 1059, dated 25 May 2007, for the period
10 May through 25 May 2007, which contains all required signatures, is properly filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.



3.  Records show that a duplicate copy of the DA Form 1059, dated 25 May 2007, for the period 10 May through 25 May 2007, which contains the signatures of the rater and reviewing officer, but not the signature of the applicant, is also filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.

4.  It is reasonable to conclude that the DA Form 1059 that does not contain the applicant's signature was filed in her OMPF prior to the document being fully completed (i.e., with the applicant's signature).  Thus, this DA Form 1059 is inferior to the fully completed DA Form 1059 with all three signatures and offers no additional value to the applicant's OMPF.  In addition, there is no basis for transferring this inferior DA Form 1059 to the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF.  Therefore, it is concluded that the DA Form 1059 should be removed from the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

____X___  _____X__  ____X___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 removing the duplicate DA Form 1059, dated 25 May 2007, for the period 10 May through 25 May 2007, that does not contain the applicant's signature.




      _______ _   X_______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000018



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)