PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046440

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 that his Academic Evaluation Report (AER), items 1 and 16 be corrected to show the correct spelling of his name and items 14b, 14c and 14d be corrected to read “sat” rather than “unsat.”

3.  The applicant states that his name is spelled ___dt, not ___ot.  Items 14b, 14c and 14d erroneously show he was rated unsatisfactory in the areas of oral communication, leadership skills, and contributed to group work abilities.  The rest of the AER clearly shows his capabilities were satisfactory or higher.  The error was noted by his sergeant major who was trying to find a reason why he has not been promoted.

4.  The applicant’s military records are not available.  Information contained herein was obtained from documents provided by the applicant.

5.  The applicant attended the Special Forces Enlisted Qualification Course at Fort Bragg, NC, from 21 May 1984 through 20 September 1984.  He graduated from the course and was given a diploma with his name misspelled as ___ot.  His AER, items 1 and 16, show his name misspelled as ___ot.  Item 13 shows he achieved course standards.  Item 15 is checked “yes,” he demonstrated the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training.  Item 16 contained the comments “…demonstrated excellent performance throughout all phases of the …Course…he demonstrated the skills and knowledge necessary to all Special Forces soldiers…an asset to any operational detachment “A” he will be assigned to.”  Items 14b, 14c and 14d, however, are checked “unsat.”

6.  In 1996, the applicant received a corrected diploma from the Special Warfare Center and School with his name correctly spelled.

7.  In July 2000, the applicant appealed his AER based upon substantive inaccuracy.  On 9 August 2000, the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluations Branch, U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center returned his appeal without action as substantive appeals must be submitted within five years of the report’s completion date.

8.  The worldwide locator verifies that the applicant currently holds a Special Forces military occupational specialty and is assigned to a Special Forces detachment at Fort Bragg, NC.  

9.  On 13 September 2000, conversation with several officials at the Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC verified that the applicant did receive a corrected diploma from the Special Forces Warfare Center and School in 1996. While none of the officials could verify that the “unsat” entries were just typographical errors, each stated that it was unlikely the applicant would have graduated from the course had he received unsatisfactory ratings, especially if an “unsat” in leadership skills were received.  In addition, if the “unsat” entries had not been just typographical errors, they should have been explained in item 16 (they were not).

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board agrees with the officials at the Special Warfare Center and School that the “unsat” entries on the applicant’s contended AER most likely were typographical errors.  Had those entries been valid entries, they were required to have been commented upon in item 16 and such comments are not noted in item 16.  The Board presumes he was rated in those three areas as they appear to be skills that would be required by Special Forces soldiers.  In addition, his name is misspelled on the AER.

2.  The Board, however, finds no fault with the NCO Evaluations Branch returning the applicant’s appeal without action.  He had the AER for 16 years and should have noticed the errors sooner and taken action on the report earlier.  

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That the applicant’s AER, items 1 and 16 for the Special Forces Enlisted Qualification Course, dated 20 September 1984, be corrected to show his name as ___dt and items 14b, 14c and 14d be corrected to read “sat.”

BOARD VOTE:  

__JHL__  __CLG___  __ENA___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			JoAnn H. Langston
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046440	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.0100.0012	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.