BOARD DATE:	  11 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018903 


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, correction of her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 10 September 2010, to show:

* the entry "63/164 YES" indicating she met height and weight standards
* she exceeded or achieved course standards

2.  She states she needs her height and weight to read "63/164 YES" and her overall evaluation to show she exceeded or achieved course standards.  Due to a lack of care and integrity, she left the Senior Leader Course (SLC) with a substandard evaluation that has resulted in being overlooked for promotion to sergeant first class/E-7 for the last 3 years.  This is her last opportunity to rectify this wrong.

3.  She states she was not properly taped which resulted in receipt of a marginal evaluation.  She was not given her DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) due to a pending appointment with the commandant that had not been made.  She was given the run-around for almost 3 years.  Because of the erroneous information on her AER, she will be seen as marginal "until the Department of the Army forgets," and she cannot retake the course.

4.  She provides:

* self-authored memorandum for the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 9 September 2013, subject:  Evaluation Report Appeal (Applicant), 20100802-20100910)
* four DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER))
* three DA Forms 5501 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Female))
* DA Form 1059
* memorandum of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 10 March 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She is currently serving as a staff sergeant/E-6 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist).

2.  Her NCOER for the rating period ending 9 April 2010 shows she met height and weight standards at 63 inches and 162 pounds.  Her NCOER for the rating period ending 14 July 2010 shows she met height and weight standards at 63 inches and 165 pounds.

3.  An AER, dated 10 September 2010, shows she marginally achieved course standards in the SLC 026-10 for MOS 42A.  She received three "Superior" ratings and one "Satisfactory" rating.  A comment on the form states she met academic requirements but failed to meet body fat composition standards during the course in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program).  Her height/weight was entered as "63/171 NO."  The AER was referred to her and she elected not to make comments.  The AER was signed by Master Sergeant (MSG) B____ and a first sergeant (1SG).  The AER is filed in the performance folder of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

4.  The available records do not include a DA Form 5501 documenting the measurements that served as the basis for determining she did not meet height/weight standards while attending the SLC.

5.  NCOER's for rating periods ending on the dates shown below indicate she met height/weight standards:

* 13 May 2011 – "63/165 YES"
* 23 September 2011 – "63/165 YES"
* 22 September 2012 – "63/176 YES"
* 22 September 2013 – "63/175 YES"

6.  She provides several documents in support of her application.

	a.  A self-authored memorandum for the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 9 September 2013, subject:  Evaluation Report Appeal (Applicant), 20100802-20100910), shows she appealed the AER in question based on a substantive inaccuracy.

		(1)  She stated that while attending the SLC, she was taped, but the procedure was not conducted in accordance with regulation.  During the taping, she realized the cadre was having difficulty finding her correct hip measurement and measured her hips at 43 inches (a 3-inch increase).  The measuring tape was completely loose around her hips and the cadre did not make an attempt to correct that.  The cadre also did not take the time to locate the narrowest part of her torso in order to obtain an accurate waist measurement.  Their haste resulted in a 33-inch measurement for her waist.  This lack of care resulted in a 9-percent overage in her body fat computation.  She annotated the problem on a DA Form 4856 when she was counseled.

		(2)  She asked if her grievance could be brought to the attention of the 1SG and the Commandant.  The class was informed that they could submit a Body Fat Worksheet once they returned to their units or within 30 days after the class concluded and the AER would be adjusted.  She arrived at the 36th Signal Battalion at Camp Walker, Korea, on 30 September 2010 and had a tape test conducted on 1 October 2010.

		(3) She stated she was submitting documents showing a pattern of height/weight for the last 40 months and a memorandum attesting to her character.  She stated the mistake resulted in receipt of a marginal rating rather than "Exceeded Course Standards."

	b.  A DA Form 5501, dated 3 June 2010, shows she was in compliance with Army standards at age 33 based on the following measurements (in inches and pounds as applicable) and table values:

* neck – 14.00
* waist – 31.00
* hips – 39.50
* circumference value – 56.50
* actual weight – 164
* screening table weight – 144
* over/under (weight) – 20 (over)
* body fat percentage – 32.00 percent
* authorized body fat percentage – 34.00 percent
* over/under (body fat percentage) – 2.00 percent (under)

	c.  A second DA Form 5501, dated 1 October 2010, shows she was in compliance with Army standards at age 34 based on the following measurements and table values:

* neck – 14.00
* waist – 30.50
* hips – 38.50
* circumference value – 55.00
* actual weight – 169
* screening table weight – 144 
* over/under (weight) – 25 (over)
* body fat percentage – 30.00 percent
* authorized body fat percentage – 34.00 percent
* over/under (body fat percentage) – 4.00 percent (under)

	d.  A third DA Form 5501, dated 18 April 2013, also shows she was in compliance with Army standards at age 36 for height/weight based on her body fat being 4 percent under authorized body fat for her circumference value of 54.50.

	e.  A memorandum, dated 9 September 2013, subject:  (Applicant) Redress Memorandum, shows 1SG (formerly MSG) B____ stated the applicant was his student in the SLC 026-10.  He described her as an "extraordinary Soldier and leader," "an innovative NCO," and "a natural leader."  He stated that during her time at the NCO Academy she failed to meet the height/weight standards, which resulted in a marginal AER.  He further stated she addressed her concerns verbally and on a DA Form 4856 contending the body fat test was not administered correctly for her.

7.  Army Regulation 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development) prescribes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for developing, managing, and conducting Army training and leader development.  It states Soldiers attending military schools and institutional training courses which require preparation of a DA Form 1059 will be administered height and weight screening as a mandatory course requirement.  One re-screening is allowed.  It will be administered no earlier than 7 days after the initial failure to meet body fat standards.  Soldiers who fail to meet the body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9 will be considered an academic course graduate, but item 11C of their DA Form 1059 will be marked "Marginally Achieved Course Standards" and item 14 will be marked "Failed to Meet Body Fat Composition Standards."

8.  Army Regulation 600-9 establishes policies and procedures for the implementation of the Army Weight Control Program.  It states body fat composition will be determined for personnel whose body weight exceeds the screening table weight in table 3-1 (Weight for Height Table).

	a.  Table 3-1 shows the maximum weight for a 63-inch tall female 28-39 years of age is 144 pounds.

	b.  Table 3-2 (Maximum Allowable Percent Body Fat Standards) shows the maximum allowable percentage of body fat for a female 28-39 years of age is 34 percent.

9.  Army Regulation 600-9, appendix B, describes procedures for the measurement of height, weight, and specific body circumferences for the estimation of body fat.

	a.  Circumference is determined using a formula combining average waist, hip, and neck circumferences.  The neck is measured at a point just below the larynx (Adam's apple) and perpendicular to the long axis of the neck.  For females, the waist circumference is taken at the narrowest point of the abdomen, usually about halfway between the navel and the end of the sternum, and the hip circumference is measured by placing the tape around the hips so that it passes over the greatest protrusion of the buttocks keeping the tape in a horizontal plane (parallel to the floor).

	b.  Figure B-6 (Percent Fat Estimates for Females) correlates the circumference value with the individual's height to determine body fat percentage.  A 63-inch tall female who is 28-39 years of age exceeds the maximum allowable percentage of body fat of 34 percent with a circumference value of 59 or greater.

10.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's ERS, including the AER.  It also provides for the Evaluation Report Redress Program.

	a.  An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	b.  The rated Soldier or other interested parties who know the circumstances of a rating may appeal any report that they believe is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of this regulation.

	c.  Appeals based on administrative error only will be adjudicated by the Evaluation Appeals Branch.  Appeals based on administrative error are considered regardless of the time that has elapsed since the period of the report.

	d.  Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an AER "THRU" date.  Failure to submit an appeal within this time will require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR.

	e.  When an appeal is granted, in whole or in part, resulting in the removal or substantive alteration of an evaluation report that was seen by one or more promotion boards that previously failed to select the appellant, a determination will be made with regard to whether promotion reconsideration by one or more special boards is justified.

	f.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for correction of the AER in question to show the entry "63/164 YES" indicating she met height and weight standards or to show she achieved or exceeded course standards.

2.  The applicant has not provided clear and convincing evidence of a strong and compelling nature establishing that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the AER she received for the SLC 026-10.  Other than her own statements, there is no evidence of error in the determination that she did not meet height/weight standards at the time or the determination that she marginally met course standards.

	a.  The fact that she met height/weight standards prior to and after attending the SLC is not evidence of an error.  Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to determine if her body fat percentage was calculated during the SLC using incorrect measurements, and it is not possible to recreate the conditions present when those measurements were taken.  The fact that she met standards on 1 October 2010, 3 weeks after the date of the AER, is not evidence of an error.  Three weeks is sufficient time for her to have returned to compliance with standards.

	b.  1SG B____, who signed the AER, has provided a statement confirming that the AER is correct with regard to her height/weight.

	c.  Because it was determined she did not meet height/weight standards, as required by the governing regulation, the AER shows she marginally met course requirements.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

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 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)                                         AR20130018903



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018903



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1