IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 May 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002906
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, 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).
2. The applicant states:
a. The contested DA Form 1059 showing a marginal rating for the Reserve Component (RC) Military Intelligence Captains Career Course (MICCC) Phase 2 was entered into the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) while he was requesting a review from the school house. Once the review was complete, a new DA Form 1059 showing he achieved course standards was entered in iPERMS.
b. Both the "marginal" and "achieved course standards" DA Forms 1059 are in his record. Both list completion dates of 22 May 2014. The school house entered into iPERMS the incorrect version while he was requesting a review.
3. The applicant provides:
* the contested DA Form 1059
* the new DA Form 1059 for the period 9 May 2014 through 22 May 2014
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Marine Corps. On
8 January 2011, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve.
2. On 9 May 2014, he entered the RC-MICCC Phase 2 and completed the course on 22 May 2014.
3. His DA Form 1059, item 13 (Has the student demonstrated the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training?), shows the entry "No," and comments explain that he "marginally ac[h]ieved the MI [CCC] standards by graduating with an academic average of 83.67%. The individual student assessment plan dated 13 Mar 14 states a student will receive a marginally achieved [DA Form] 1059 if their final [grade point average] is below 85%."
4. The applicant requested a review from the school based on not receiving any individual counseling or having the opportunity to have his course work re-graded. Furthermore, he believed that there were discrepancies in the grading standards for the RC-MICCC which resulted in a variance of grade averages across three separate squads.
5. His record contains a second DA Form 1059 for the RC-MICCC Phase 2, dated 22 May 2014, showing he achieved course standards.
6. The contested DA Form 1059 is now in the applicant's OMPF as is the new DA Form 1059 for the period of 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014.
7. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 217, states in reviewing of officer and academic evaluation reports:
a. In most instances, the senior rater officer evaluation reports, or the reviewing officer or reviewer (AERs), will perform the final rating chain review ensuring that
(1) Evaluation rating chains are correct.
(2) Evaluations rendered by rating officials are examined and
discrepancies are clarified or resolved.
(3) All members of the rating chain have complied with this regulation and
procedures prescribed in DA Pamphlet 6233.
(4) The communication process between the rater and rated officer has
taken place and is documented properly as described in paragraph
34 and/or in accordance with academic counseling standards
established by the military or civilian institution.
(5) All comments are consistent with the counseling, support forms (or
equivalent), or other communications between rating officials and the
rated Soldier during the rating period.
(6) A copy of the completed evaluation is returned to the rated officer at
the conclusion of the final review.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends the contested DA Form 1059 should be removed based on the second achieved course standards DA Form 1059, also in his OMPF, and there should only be one DA Form 1059 for the period of 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014.
2. In view of the above, it would be equitable to remove the contested DA Form 1059 from his OMPF and leave the DA Form 1059 showing he achieved course standards for the period of 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014. In addition, the memorandum from the applicant, dated 21 May 2014, contesting the DA Form 1059 (marginal) for the period of 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014 should also be removed.
3. This Record of Proceedings (ROP) should not be filed in the applicant's record, since it may be prejudicial to the applicant.
BOARD VOTE:
____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the following documents from his OMPF:
* DA Form 1059 (marginal) from 9 May 2014 to 22 May 2014
* The memorandum from the applicant dated 21 May 2014 contesting
the (marginal) DA Form 1059 for the period of 9 May 2014 to
22 May 2014
2. The ROP will not be filed in the applicant's OMPF to since it may be prejudicial to the applicant in future promotions.
_______ _ _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) AR20150000027
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002906
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007472
The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) in item 11c (Performance Summary) "Marginally Achieved Course Standards" dated 24 January 2007, to either: a. Annotate the DA Form 1059 as a Satisfactory Achieved Course Standards and redact/remove the final line about the failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); or b. The evidence of record...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013608
The applicant requests item 11 (Performance Summary) of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the period 9 July 2008 through 18 December 2008 be corrected to show he achieved course standards; or, the DA Form 1059 in its entirety be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File). He provides a DA Form 3349 which shows he was issued a temporary profile for left meniscus tear on 24 December 2008. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007257
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the Warrior Leader Course (WLC) (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) to show in item 11d (Performance Summary) "Marginally Achieved Course Standards." In accordance with Army Regulation 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), paragraph 3-12g, Soldiers enrolled in institutional training courses from 10 August to 30 September 2006 who failed an Army Physical Fitness Test...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007257
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) for the Warrior Leader Course (WLC) (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) to show in item 11d (Performance Summary) "Marginally Achieved Course Standards." In accordance with Army Regulation 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), paragraph 3-12g, Soldiers enrolled in institutional training courses from 10 August to 30 September 2006 who failed an Army Physical Fitness Test...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002968
Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the military personnel records jacket, the career management individual file, and Army personnel qualification records. Army Regulation 600-8-104, Table 2-1 states that DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF. The evidence of record supports his contention he tore the meniscus ligament in his left...
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 | 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 | CY2013 | 20130005407
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 15 March 2012, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) showing he marginally achieved course standards for the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and adding the DA Form 1059, dated 11 April 2012, showing he achieved course standards. The evidence of record clearly shows an error in the DA Form 1059 dated 15 March 2012 filed in the applicant's AMHRR. He indicates...