IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016990 


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 a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 5 September 2007, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or transfer of this document to the restricted portion of his OMPF.

2.  The applicant states:

* the contested AER contains incorrect information and he was not afforded an opportunity to review and sign this document
* he was selected to attend the Inter-service Physician Assistant Program (IPAP) from April – December 2007, while his wife, who was taking care of their son, was attending nursing school in South Carolina
* his son's worsening chronic asthma condition triggered his decision to drop out of the IPAP to return to South Carolina
* he explained his situation to the Adjutant General (AG) branch (his original branch) and the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) who helped him get reappointed back to the AG branch and attend the AG Captain's Career Course in Fort Jackson, South Carolina in order to take care of his family
* the academic counselor informed him he would talk to the dean of the academy to recommend his release from the course due to family issues
* he noticed the incorrect filing of the contested AER after he graduated from the AG Captain's Career Course and assignment to his new duty station in Schofield Barracks
* blocks 11 (Performance Summary) should be left unchecked
* block 13 (Has the student demonstrated the academic potential for  selection to higher level school/training?) contains the entry "N/A" which supports his claim this document was incorrectly prepared because he dropped out of the course due to family issues and not because he was academically dropped out
* the comment on the report is a cookie cutter response prepared by the secretary who did not know his situation
* the contested report incorrectly shows "student not available for signature," when in fact he remained at the course until December 2007, as corroborated by his permanent change of station (PCS) orders
* the academic dean signed the AER before the academic counselor, further proving this document is incorrect

3.  The applicant provides:

* contested DA Form 1059
* PCS order
* name change court order
* email document (2 pages)
* self-authored statement

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 2000 and served until he was honorably discharged on 16 December 2004 to accept a commission or warrant in the Army.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 4 years, 11 months, and 13 days of creditable active duty service.

2.  He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and executed an oath of office on 17 December 2004.  He immediately attended and successfully completed the AG Officer Basic Course from 17 December 2004 through 20 April 2005.

3.  His OMPF contains the contested DA Form 1059, dated 5 September 2007, showing he attended the IPAP at the Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas which began on 23 April 2007 and ran through 18 April 2008.  It shows in:

   a.  item 11 (Performance Summary) an "X" in block d showing "Failed to Achieve Course Standards;"
   
   b.  item 12 (Demonstrated Abilities) an "X" in all blocks a through e showing "Not Evaluated;"
   c.  item 13 an "X" in the "N/A" [not applicable] block concerning potential for higher level schooling;
   
   d.  item 14 (Comments) the entry "1LT______ academically failed to meet the minimum standards of this demanding and intense twenty-four month Physician Assistant Course.  In spite of counseling sessions, remedial training and retesting, this individual was unable to overcome deficiencies in basic sciences.  Student not available for Signature."
   
   e.  item 15 (Authentication) the academic counselor (rater) signed this document on 10 October 2007 and the Dean, Academy of Health Sciences (reviewing officer) signed this document on 12 September 2007.
   
4.  His OMPF includes a DA Form 1059 completed on 17 June 2008.  It shows he achieved course standards in the AG Captain's Career Course from 28 January through 17 June 2008.

5.  The applicant remains on active duty currently assigned as the Brigade S1 (Personnel Officer), 6th Brigade, United States Army Cadet Command, Savannah, Georgia.

6.  His OMPF does not contain and he did not provide any documents from his chain of command at the Academy of Health Sciences to show the contested report should have reflected he dropped out of the course to attend the needs of his family as a result of his son's chronic illness.

7.  As evidence to support his application, he provided an email from the CG, HRC, dated 18 June 2014, advising him to seek relief at the Army Review Boards Agency concerning the contested AER.  The CG advised him that an unsatisfactory AER is decisive and draws the attention of promotion board members. 

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), dated 10 August 2007, prescribed policies and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System that included reporting systems for officers and noncommissioned officers and academic performance and potential.  It states in:

	a.  Paragraph 3-2j, the evaluation purpose and process for the DA Form 1059 are outlined in DA Pamphlet 623-3, chapter 4.  Academic performance counseling and evaluations for military schools will be conducted in accordance with procedures established at the local level by the Commandant of the school and Commander, Training and Doctrine Command.  Academic performance counseling and evaluations for military personnel attending civilian educational, medical or industrial institution will be conducted in accordance with procedures established at the local level by the Dean of the institution or appropriate civilian official.

	b.  Paragraph 3-39 (Modification to previously submitted reports), an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant attended the IPAP at the Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas beginning 23 April 2007.  His DA Form 1059 documenting this course shows he failed to achieve course standards as a result of his inability to overcome deficiencies in basic sciences.  As a result, he did not successfully complete this course and was ultimately dropped from the training.

2.  In addition, by his own admission, he stated he decided to drop out of the course when his son's chronic asthma worsened.  Whether he dropped out for academic failure or for personal reasons, he ultimately did not satisfactorily complete the course.  Absent any evidence to support his claim, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief in this case.

3.  As it relates to the dates shown in the authentication section shown on the contested report and the applicant's availability to sign this document, it is unknown why the counselor signed this document after the Dean of the Academy.  However, these dates alone and the applicant's authentication 
do not confirm within themselves that an error exists within this document.

4.  An AER accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

5.  Over 7 years have passed since this form was issued.  In the absence of additional compelling evidence that the contested report is not correct as issued, there is no basis upon which to grant the requested relied in this case.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20140016990



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016990



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1