IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 18 November 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018340
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 the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 21 February 2012, from her official records.
2. The applicant states the AER contains false information and inaccurately represents her both as an officer and person and serves to prejudice her from selection to the next higher grade or when applying to broadening opportunities and will serve to prevent consideration for future promotions.
3. The applicant provides copies of the contested AER, her appeal to the Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB), Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), Officer Record Brief ORB), and two letters of support.
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. The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Military Intelligence branch second lieutenant on 20 August 2010. She was ordered to active duty and was transferred to Fort Huachuca, Arizona to undergo the Military Intelligence Basic Officer Leader Course on 16 February 2011.
3. She completed the course on 17 June 2011 and was issued a DA Form 1059 that indicated she marginally achieved course standards. The AER was referred to the applicant and she elected to submit matters in her own behalf; however, there is no evidence in the available records that shows she did so.
4. She was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 3 April 2012 and is currently serving at Fort Hood, Texas.
5. On 6 October 2014, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) notified her that her appeal to the DASEB was being returned because she did not file her appeal within 3 years of the contested AER. She was advised to apply to this Board.
6. Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the Academic Evaluation Reporting System. It provides, in part, that a DA Form 1059 will be prepared for all commissioned officers taking resident and nonresident Officer Education System courses (regardless of length or component). A copy of the AER will be forwarded for filing in the performance fiche of the individuals Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) within 60 days after completion of the report.
7. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the Academic Evaluation Reporting System. It provides, in part, that a DA Form 1059 will be prepared for all personnel taking resident Officer Education System courses. A copy of the AER will be forwarded for filing in the performance section of the individuals OMPF within 60 days after completion of the report.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contention that the contested AER should be removed from her OMPF has been noted and appears to lack merit.
2. She contends the AER contains false information and inaccurately represents her; however, neither the evidence of record nor the evidence she submitted with her application sufficiently supports her contentions.
3. Her supporting documents have been noted; however, they do not serve to provide sufficient evidence to support removal of a duly authenticated AER from her OMPF.
4. The Army has an interest in maintaining records of Soldiers who attend formal courses of instruction and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the AER was issued erroneously or that it is unjust for it to remain in her OMPF.
5. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that an error or injustice exists in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant her request.
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) AR20140018340
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018340
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001046
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) ending 22 January 2003 from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The AER in question is properly filed in the applicant's OMPF in accordance with the applicable regulation to reflect that she attended the course and was released from the course for medical reasons. The Army has an interest in maintaining records of Soldiers who attend formal courses of instruction and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021608
The applicant requests reconsideration of her previously denied request for removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 16 February through 17 June 2011 from her official military personnel file (OMPF) or in the alternative transfer of the AER in question to the restricted portion of her OMPF. The comments portion of the report stated, in part: a. she was the subject of a substantiated Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011323
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 14 July through 4 December 2008 from her Official Military Personnel File (now known as the Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR)) or in the alternative transfer of the AER in question to the restricted portion of her AMHRR. The applicant states the commandant's inquiry determined the basis used for assigning the "marginally achieved course standards" of rating on the AER in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002498
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 1 April through 23 July 2013 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states: a. The BOI heard testimony from several individuals that the applicant had cheated on a contact report, he was up front and did not try to make excuses for cheating, no other students had submitted identical reports, it was rare...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002906
The applicant requests, in effect, that a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014 (hereafter referred to as the contested DA Form 1059) be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). Both the "marginal" and "achieved course standards" DA Forms 1059 are in his record. His record contains a second DA Form 1059 for the RC-MICCC Phase 2, dated 22 May 2014, showing he achieved course standards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018138
The applicant requests that the DA Form 1059-2 (Senior Service College Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the period of 1 July 2001 through 16 December 2003 [herein referred to as the contested AER] and all related documents be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant also requests that any documents referring to his non-selection for promotion to colonel, O-6, be removed from his OMPF and that he be referred to a special promotion board in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012108
The applicant states: * he seriously refutes the validity of the contested AER - the AER was frivolously generated without any supporting documentation to substantiate the negative evaluation * the AER was submitted 17 months after he graduated from the MICCC (note the 9 August 2004 submission date on the contested AER) - it is a requirement that all military personnel in a student status receiving an AER be counseled and sign the AER; this did not occur * on numerous occasions over a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000450C070206
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated 17 July 1996 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-7 by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB). Board members may not record their reasons or give reasons for selection or nonselection. It states, in pertinent part, that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) or its designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015921
The applicant requests, in effect, amendment of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 18 August 2006, that is filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The rater documented the applicant's academic performance average for ANCOC of 95.8% and that he passed the APFT on 6 August 2006 in item 14 of the DA Form 1059. The rater also provided comments in item 14 of the DA Form 1059 about the applicant's leadership capabilities and overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017559
The applicant states: * his AER was marked "marginally achieved course standards" because he was charged with a driving under the influence (DUI) for which a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) was issued * the Department of Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) transferred the GOMOR to the restricted portion of his AMHRR after his second appeal * he was never convicted of DUI and he met all of his academic requirements as the comments clearly state * when the AER was...