IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002368 


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 removal of an incorrect DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  He states his DA Form 1059 for the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) Phase II showing he achieved course standards in his file is the incorrect copy.  His file should contain the DA Form 1059 showing he exceeded course standards. 

3.  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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  His records show that on the date of his application to this Board he was serving on active duty in the rank of staff sergeant/E-6.

3.  His OMPF maintained in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) contains two copies of the BNCOC Phase II DA Form 1059, dated 19 December 2005.

	a.  The first, showing he "achieved course standards," was posted in iPERMS on 19 October 2006.  This version contained his physical fitness test score, height, and weight information.

	b.  The second, showing he "exceeded course standards," was posted in iPERMS on 21 January 2011.  This version does not contain his physical fitness test score, height, and weight information.  This version also contains errors in that it refers to "her" twice in paragraph 14b instead of "his."

4.  He provided a copy of an AMEDD NCO Academy memorandum, subject:  Commandant's List, dated 10 days prior to the end of the course, containing his name.  He also provided an undated announcement of a recognition ceremony for the class leadership award recipient for BNCOC Class 001-06 which included the "Commandant's List" containing the applicant's name.

5.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the AMEDD NCO Academy regarding which version of the DA Forms 1059 in question contained in his records is most likely the correct version.  The response was that the version containing his physical fitness test score (achieved course standards) was correct and that the other version has several mistakes.

6.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  He indicated in his response that he concurred that the "exceeded course standards" version did not include his APFT score but he was not sure what other mistakes were referred to.  He reiterated that he earned his place on the commandant's list for his class and through the ineptitude of the staff at the time, he feels he is now being punished in some way in that his OMPF does not reflect such an achievement.

7.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Rating System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.  It also provides instructions for preparing, processing, and using the DA Form 1059. 

	a.  Academic evaluations report the accomplishments, potential, and limitations of individuals while attending courses of instruction or training.  Only one AER will be authorized for each reporting period.  The reporting official will be responsible for the accuracy of the information in the completed AER.

	b.  Service school and NCO academy commandants will be responsible for preparing the DA Form 1059 within 60 days after the student’s graduation or termination from the school or academy.  In preparing these reports, all significant information that can be evaluated will be reported.  The same care and attention will be exercised in preparing this report as is exercised in preparing officer and NCO evaluation reports.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides the policy and procedure for maintenance of a Soldier's personal information.  

	a.  The performance section of a Soldier's OMPF is used to document the Soldier's performance.  This regulation states the performance section will be used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  The performance section is routinely used by career managers and selection boards.  Documents placed in the performance section are limited to those that provide evidence of a Soldier's demonstrated performance.  These documents are used for evaluation and selection purposes. 

	b.  Paragraph 2-4a states that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from a section or moved to another section unless directed by, among other agencies, the ABCMR or the OMPF custodian when documents have been improperly filed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s OMPF contains two DA Forms 1059 for the BNCOC Phase II.

	a.  The first, showing he "achieved course standards"; containing his physical fitness test score, height, and weight information was posted in iPERMS on 19 October 2006.

	b.  The second, showing he "exceeded course standards"; missing his physical fitness test score, height, and weight information was posted in iPERMS on 21 January 2011 (over 4 years later).  Neither version indicates it is a "corrected copy" as might be expected in such situations. 

2.  The applicant provided two commandant's list related documents containing his name.  However, while it appears he made the commandant's list for the BNCOC Phase II, this does not guarantee he would have been evaluated/rated as "exceeded course standards."

3.  While an AER showing a Soldier exceeded course standards may be beneficial during a promotion board's consideration of a Soldier for promotion, an AER showing a Soldier achieved standards from 7 years ago is not likely to hinder his prospects during consideration for promotion.

4.  The applicable regulation states documents will not be removed from the OMPF unless directed by, among other agencies, the ABCMR.  There is insufficient evidence to show with certainty which academic evaluation report was improperly filed; therefore, there is no justifiable reason to remove the AER showing he "achieved course standards" from the applicant's OMPF.

5.  A copy of this decisional document will be filed in the applicant's OMPF.  This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion regarding the two DA Forms 1059 for the same course filed in his OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  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.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20120002368



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002368



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1