PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  12 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000037822

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her referred Academic Evaluation Report (AER) relieving her from an Advanced Noncommissioned Officer’s Course (ANCOC) and related documents be expunged from her record; that her consequent administrative reduction from Sergeant First Class (SFC) to Staff Sergeant (SSG) be revoked; that she be reinstated into the next available ANCOC; and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seek an investigation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations of the relevant parties to this application for uttering false official statements and dereliction of duty.

3.  The applicant states, in effect,  that she was falsely accused of cheating by plagiarizing a research paper while in ANCOC.  She states that she had chosen to do her ANCOC research paper on the subject of the history of the Berlin Wall and had brought with her to ANCOC research materials she had gathered for that purpose.  She accepted help from a fellow student with writing the paper and with most of the typing of her research paper.  The applicant turned in her finished research paper entitled “History of the Berlin Wall.”  Unbeknown to the applicant, the fellow student also turned in a nearly identical paper.  This occurred in spite of the fellow student previously stating that she was going to do her paper on “Arlington National Cemetery.”  Both students were accused by the command of plagiarism.  The applicant was relieved from ANCOC while the other student was given another chance to write a new paper and remain in ANCOC.  The applicant contends that it was unfair and unjust to relieve her but allow the other student to write a new paper since both were charged with plagiarism in the same incident.  The applicant does acknowledge that she had earlier failed her first exam in ANCOC but passed an authorized reexamination.  Since she passed the reexamination, the exam issue should not have been considered in the decision to dismiss her on a supposed plagiarism issue.  The applicant contends that no investigation was conducted to determine who was guilty of the plagiarism.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of her referred AER for ANCOC with accompanying submission letter, endorsements, and the applicant’s rebuttals.  She submits a witness statement from a second follow student who testifies that the applicant had stated her intent to write a paper on the “History of the Berlin Wall” before the course began and that she had brought research materials with her to write the paper.  A second witness, a noncommissioned officer from the applicant’s career management office in the U. S. Army Total Personnel Command (PERSCOM), also states that he was a classmate of the applicant, was aware of the situation in question, and judges that the action to dismiss the applicant while permitting the other soldier to write a new paper, was unfair 

and unjust.  The applicant submits ten character references from military officers (the highest being a Navy Captain), noncommissioned officers, and government service civilians, all attesting to the applicant’s integrity and professionalism.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that at the time of her attendance at ANCOC, she was a SFC with 14 years time in service.  Her assigned Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) was and is 98J, Electronic Warfare/Cryptographic Supervisor.  She had been promoted to SFC on 1 October 1998 and selected to attend ANCOC by the 1998 Enlisted Promotion Board.

6.  The applicant began the Electronic Warfare/Cryptographic Supervisor ANCOC on 20 April 1999 at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.  She failed to pass her first exam but passed it on upon reexamination.  On or about 17 May 1999, she was counseled for plagiarizing another student’s research paper, both papers titled “History of the Berlin Wall”.  On 19 May 2000, she was given a referred AER.  She rebutted both the counseling statement and the referred AER.

7.  Her rebuttal was that she had not plagiarized another student’s paper in preparing her research paper.  She had done the research before she had come to ANCOC and had brought it with her.  She developed the concept for the paper.  She accepted assistance from a fellow student in writing and typing the paper.  She did not plagiarize the fellow student’s paper, the fellow student plagiarized her paper.  The NCO Academy commandant decided to relieve the applicant but allow the fellow student to write a new research paper.  A legal review of the relief action justified the commandant’s decision based on the applicant’s prior failure to pass her first exam but did not address the fact that she passed the reexamination.  The referred AER was submitted for filing in the applicant’s official military record and the applicant was relieved from ANCOC.  She was subsequently administratively reduced from SFC to SSG.

8.  An advisory opinion in this case was provided by the Chief of the Noncommissioned Officer Education System Section, PERSCOM, to the effect that the applicant’s release from ANCOC had been done according to regulatory guidelines.  The applicant and her counsel rebutted this opinion stating, in effect, that it did not address the apparent unequal and unjust treatment of the two noncommissioned officers both charged with the same instance of plagiarizing.  
It also did not address the contention that the applicant was the researcher of the information and originator of the concept for the paper which was then plagiarized by the fellow student.  No AR 15-6 Investigation or other suitable investigation was conducted to clarify this issue.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was charged with plagiarizing a fellow student’s paper on the “History of the Berlin Wall,” even though the applicant had originated the concept for the paper, had done the research, and accepted help in writing and typing the paper.  Unbeknown to the applicant, the fellow student turned in a nearly identical paper.  The punishment for the applicant and the fellow student was uneven in this case.  Both soldiers were charged with plagiarizing each other, but the applicant was relieved while the other fellow student was given another chance to write a new research paper.  This is unfair and unjust.  The applicant’s previous issue of not passing her initial exam should not have been considered in determining the punishment for the supposed plagiarism since the applicant had passed the exam upon authorized reexamination.

2.  There are sufficient witness statements to support the applicant’s contention that she was the one that had done the research on the subject and had originated the concept for the paper.  She prepared the paper with the assistance of the fellow student.  It would appear that the fellow student was guilty of the plagiarism but this conclusion will not be confirmed here since the fellow student has not provided testimony in this case.

3.  There is no evidence of a proper investigation, such as an AR 15-6 investigation by a disinterested party, to determine the validity of the charges and where blame should be placed.

4.  It is concluded as a matter of fairness and justice, that the applicant should be granted a second chance to complete ANCOC.  She should be rescheduled for ANCOC, her rank reduction order from SFC to SSG should be revoked, and she should be provided commensurate pay and allowances.  Her referred AER for the period 19 April to 20 May 1999 and related documents should be expunged from her record.  The period of 19 April to 20 May 1999 should be shown on the records as non-rated time.

5.  It is not within the jurisdiction of this Board, according to its governing regulation, to initiate or conduct investigations of UCMJ violations of the relevant parties of this issue for uttering false official statements or dereliction of duty as requested by the applicant.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned, as an exception, by:

	a.  rescheduling her for the next available ANCOC;

	b.  revoking her order for reduction from SFC to SSG; 

	c.  providing her commensurate pay and allowances; 

	d.  expunging from her record the referred AER for the period of 
19 April to 20 May 1999 and related documents; and

	e.  showing the period of 19 April to 20 May 1999 as non-rated time.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__fe___  ___ho___  __lm____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Fred N. Eichorn___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037822	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001212	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.111.01	Academic Report	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.