MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027069

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be declared a graduate of Basic Infantry Officer Candidate Course (BIOCC) 2-81 with all appropriate pay and allowances and that he be immediately retired at the rank of his most successful peers from that class with all appropriate pay and allowances.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discriminated against because of his ethnicity.  A double standard was applied.  There were inconsistencies and a total disregard for the established truth.  Captain ____, a member of the Faculty Review Board, which had recommended he be recycled to the next class, wrote on behalf of the Commandant denying him the opportunity to continue.  This is an illustration of the inconsistencies of the officers at Fort Benning, GA.  A white officer from the Advanced Course who was found in violation of the honor code for plagiarism, as he was, was allowed to graduate.  He provides as supporting evidence the faculty board appointment letter, the summation of the testimony of the faculty board, his notification of relief, his request for reconsideration, the Acting Commandant’s decision regarding his appeal, his further request for reconsideration, the Commandant’s denial of his further appeal, and a                27 September 1982 letter of reprimand for an Advanced Course officer reference that officer’s poor judgment and inattention to detail rather than intentional plagiarism through failing to properly footnote his history paper.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 October 1979.

(On 18 December 1980, the applicant presented a claim for mid-month pay and allowance for the month of December 1980 in the amount of $176.00, a claim which he then knew was false and fraudulent, and wrongfully appropriate $176.00 of U. S. currency, property of the U. S.)

The applicant was attached to BIOCC #2-81 on 4 January 1981.

On 10 April 1981, a board of officers was appointed to make an appropriate recommendation as to the disposition of the applicant reference an honor code violation.  Three board members were appointed – a colonel as president, a captain as a minority member, a first lieutenant as the other member, Captain _____ as the recorder, and a first lieutenant as counsel for the applicant.

The applicant had been referred to the faculty board for allegedly plagiarizing a book report.  The company commander testified before the board that the applicant had received instruction on the honor code.  The applicant had a 9.1 reading level and 8.8 writing level based on a test that was administered to all Officer Candidate School (OCS) candidates.  The book he had selected to report on was dry, dull and above the complexity of most OCS students.  The commander had apparently been apprised of the alleged plagiarism by the applicant’s tactical officer.  The tactical officer had noted that the applicant’s book report was not consistent with his previously-submitted writing assignments, compared his report with the book, and found only two paragraphs of 14 pages to be original.  The applicant testified that it was not his intent to deceive, he had prepared the report in a format he had used since high school.  He did not understand what plagiarism meant.

The board found that the applicant was guilty of plagiarism but recommended he be recycled to a subsequent class since he did not have an understanding of the
term plagiarism.  On 14 April 1981, the applicant was notified that it was determined he had committed a violation of the honor code.  After considering his entire record and testimony he was declared a nongraduate and was relieved from BIOCC.  Captain _____ had signed this notification for the Deputy Assistant Commandant.

The applicant appealed.  On 10 May 1981, the Acting Commandant denied his appeal, noting “I find no basis to overrule the recommendations of the Faculty Board.”

On 20 July 1981, the applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted by a special court-martial of submitting a false and fraudulent claim for mid-month pay and allowances and wrongfully appropriating $176.00 of U. S. currency, property of the U. S.

On 4 September 1991, the applicant was reassigned to a permanent party unit on Fort Benning, GA.

On 15 December 1981, the applicant appealed to the Commandant, noting the inconsistency in the 10 May 1981 response to his appeal.  On 17 December 1981, the Commandant responded by noting that the 10 May 1981 letter was administratively incorrect and should have read that the Acting Commandant found no basis to over-rule the decision of the Deputy Assistant Commandant.  The Commandant then denied his further request for reconsideration.

U. S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) Regulation 15-1 prescribes responsibilities, policies and procedures for the administration and conduct of USAIS faculty boards.  In pertinent part, it states that one of the responsibilities of the board recorder is to conduct an interview with the chain of command or the Course Convening Authority for assistance in preparing the government’s case.

USAIS Regulation 351-6 prescribes academic policies, procedures and responsibilities for resident students enrolled in the USAIS.  The regulation states that the USAIS Honor Code is based on the principle that integrity is an essential attribute of any military member.  The OCS Honor Code is “an officer candidate will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.”  For all honor boards conducted, the findings and recommendations of the board will be referred to the Course Convening Authority for final disposition.

USAIS Regulation 351-14 prescribes responsibilities, policies and procedures for disposition, other than normal graduation, of students assigned or attached for the purpose of attending USAIS resident courses.  In pertinent part, it states that Course Convening Authorities have been delegated the authority to relieve students if they do not meet all established graduation requirements, to include prescribed standards for professional conduct.  Relief may be directed by the Course Convening Authority without faculty board action.  A faculty board may be convened to make findings and recommendations if the Course Convening Authority requires additional evidence before making a final decision of a student's disposition. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The Board concludes there were no inconsistencies in having Captain _____ on the Faculty Review Board and then sign on behalf of the Commandant denying the applicant the opportunity to continue in OCS.  Captain _____ was appointed to the board to act as the board recorder.  He was not appointed to be an impartial member of the board; it was his responsibility to prepare the government’s case.

3.  The Board finds no evidence that the applicant was discriminated against because of his ethnicity.  The Faculty Review Board could only make a recommendation.  It reviewed only the incident of plagiarism and recommended the applicant be recycled.  The Course Convening Authority considered his entire record.  The Board presumes his entire record at that time included the incident for which he was later court-martialed.   The Course Convening Authority had the authority to relieve students not meeting all established graduation requirements, to include prescribed standards for professional conduct.  The Board concludes that, considering the applicant’s entire record, the Course Convening Authority’s decision to relieve him from OCS was justified.

4.  From the evidence provided by the applicant, the Board does not find that a  double standard was applied.  The applicant has provided no evidence that the entire records of the officer involved in the September 1982 letter of reprimand were comparable to his.
5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __cla___  __kyf___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027069	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	102.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.