IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003610 


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 Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from his Official Military Personnel File.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the evidence does not warrant a bad AER and disenrollment from the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC).  The alleged misconduct (plagiarism) occurred in November 2010 and he was disenrolled from the ACSC on 8 March 2011, which was 2 months short of graduation. 

3.  The applicant provides copies of the contested AER, dated 7 March 2011; allied documents pertaining to an investigation into allegations of plagiarism; his appeal of the AER; and the denials of that appeal.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel provided no additional request, statement, or documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, currently a finance branch major, was assigned to the ACSC on 12 July 2010.

2.  On 18 November 2010, the applicant was assigned to write a short narrative essay with a submission date of 22 November 2010.  The essay was to include a bibliography in accordance with the Air University Style and Author Guide.  The paper requirements and guidelines specifically addressed plagiarism, the consequences of that action, and the proper method of citing sources.

3.  On 8 December 2010, the applicant's instructor submitted a memorandum indicating she believed the applicant had committed plagiarism in the preparation of his "Warfare Studies Short Paper II."  She cited 27 instances of a lack of proper referencing, lack of a verifiable reference, and/or the use of direct verbiage from source material.  

4.  The Chair of the Department of International Security and Military Studies concurred with the instructor's opinion and recommended the case be referred for a Commandant Review to consider the applicant for expulsion.

5.  An investigation was undertaken and a recommendation for dismissal was made on 16 December 2010.  It was noted in the investigation that the instructor estimated that 60 percent of the paper was taken verbatim from sources.  The applicant had not documented all of his sources, misquoted sources, and missed the point for the paper.

6.  On 14 January 2011, the applicant appealed his proposed dismissal.  In his statement he addressed only the use, without any reference to its source, of an "untitled and unauthored" document.

7.  On 8 March 2011, the applicant was disenrolled and expelled from the ACSC "In Resident JPME Phase I" for plagiarism during the mid-term exam for WS 5510 Warfare Studies.  This expulsion was ordered by the Commandant of the Air University.  The Commandant permanently disenrolled the applicant, with prejudice, and barred him from return to any in-residence course or to participate in any distance learning version of the course.

8.  The AER for the period 12 July 2010 to 7 March 2011:

* Item 9 (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments) is marked to show that it was referred and "Yes" is marked to show the applicant desired to make comments
* item 11 (Performance Summary) is marked “failed to achieve course standards”
* item 12 (Demonstrated Abilities) are all marked "Unsat"  
* item 13 (Has the student demonstrated the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training) is annotated "No" 
* the rater, reviewing officer, and the applicant signed the AER


9.  On 20 June 2011, the applicant appealed the contested AER.

10.  On 22 December 2011, the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) determined that the evidence presented did not establish clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Therefore, by unanimous vote, the OSRB determined the overall merits of this case do not warrant the relief requested.

11.  In the applicant's Officer Evaluation Reports both prior to and subsequent to the referred AER his rater marked him as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and the senior rater marked him as "Best Qualified" with comments like "easily interacts with the most senior officers," "must promote to LTC at the earliest opportunity," and "unlimited potential."

12.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System, including the DA Form 1059 (AER). 

   a.  Paragraph 3-18 states 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.  Paragraph 3-35, Referred reports (DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059-1), states the following types of reports will be referred to the student by the reviewing official for acknowledgment and comment.  Detailed instructions and processes for handling referred AER reports are in DA Pamphlet 623-3, paragraph 4-7. The following types of reports will be referred:
   
   (1)  Any report with a "NO" response.
   
   (2)  Any report with an "UNSAT" rating.
   
   (3)  Any report with a "marginally achieved course standards" response.

      (4)  Any report with a "Failed to achieve course standards" response.  If this block in item 13 is checked, the preparing official will address (in item 16) whether the deficiency reflects on the character/behavior of the student or lack of aptitude in certain areas.

      (5)  Any report with comments that in the opinion of the reviewing official are so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the student’s career.
      
	c.  In order to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and that the action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In his appeal process the applicant addressed only the issue of an undocumented reference whereas the instructor cited not just the undocumented reference, but more importantly that the verbiage used by the applicant appeared to have been copied directly from sources and only minimally modified.  It was noted that 60 percent of the paper appeared to be verbatim statements from other works.   

2.  The OSRB upheld the AER as written and the applicant has not provided any a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice in the AER.

3.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence that would warrant the relief requested.

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)                                         AR20140003610



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003610



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1