PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049057

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 the Board transfer a DA Form 
1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 10 November 1994, from the performance portion to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  He failed to complete the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course (BNCOC) in November 1994, but he attended the course again from October through December 1995. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has completed the BNCOC.  He believes that the DA Form 1059 that shows he failed the BNCOC reflects negatively on him and that it has interfered with him being promoted to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.  He has been overlooked for promotion for the past
2 years.  He states that he has always worked hard and tried to do the best that he could.  He submits a copy of the DA Form 1059 that shows he failed the course in support of his request.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 1987.  He is currently serving at Fort Stewart, Georgia as a staff sergeant in pay grade E-6.  

5.  The DA Form 1059, dated 10 November 1994, that the applicant submitted shows that he attended the Construction Engineer Supervisor BNCOC from 
11 October 1994 through 10 November 1994, and he failed to achieve course standards.  Item 14 (Demonstrated Abilities) on the DA Form 1059 shows that neither his (a) written communication skills; (b) oral communications skills; 
(c) leadership skills; (d) contribution to group work; nor (e) student research ability was evaluated.  He was released from the course for academic reasons. He was serving as a sergeant/pay grade E-5 at this time.

6.  Item 15 of the form shows that he did not demonstrate the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training.

7.  Item 16 of the form shows that he demonstrated good motivation and a positive attitude.  However, the rating official stated that he needed to be retrained on the subject material and to be retested to meet minimum course requirements.  His specific weaknesses consisted of wire entanglements in which he failed the examination (twice).  The recommendation was that he be assigned to duties as an assistant squad leader under the direction of a strong supervisor to assist him in his deficient areas of reconnaissance and wire entanglements.  Additionally, the recommendation was that he complete the Basic Skills Education Program for math and reading comprehension before returning to the BNCOC. 

8.  A DA Form 1059, dated 8 December 1995 shows that the applicant attended the Construction Engineer Supervisor BNCOC from 2 October 1995 through 
8 December 1995, and he achieved the course standards.  He was still serving as a sergeant/pay grade E-5 at that time.  Item 14 on the DA Form 1059 shows that his (a) written communication skills were not evaluated; (b) oral communications skills were rated satisfactory, (c) leadership skills were rated satisfactory; (d) contribution to group work was rated superior; and (e) student research ability was not evaluated.  

9.  Item 15 shows that the applicant demonstrated the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training.

10.  Item 16 (Comments) shows that the applicant displayed sound communication skills; Item 14b through a well rehearsed presentation of Basic Rifle Marksmanship; Item 14c shows that he exercised sound and logical judgement at all times; Item 14d shows that he always delivered wholehearted cooperation and support to group work and team accomplishment.  Item 14d shows that he led several student conducted study halls.

11.  He returned to his unit and he was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant pay grade E-6, effective 1 March 1996.

12.  On 5 December 2000, in connection with his application, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) opined in essence that the applicant's request is not authorized under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37.  The DA Form 1059 that he is appealing has been filed correctly in his OMPF to document his failure of a professional development course.  The applicant does not contest the accuracy of the DA Form 1059.  Therefore, there are no provisions to remove a DA Form 1059 from the permanent portion of an OMPF once an individual has retaken and passed the same or similar training.  Further, the DASEB believes that it is in the best interest of the Army to keep this record on the performance portion of his OMPF where future personnel managers can use it to determine future professional development for him.

13.  On 28 December 2000, the applicant was furnished a copy of the above advisory opinion for information/rebuttal and he failed to respond.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-14 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing maintaining official military files to include the OMPF, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual Files, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-3 prescribes that the OMPF consists of three parts:  1) the performance fiche which contains performance, commendatory and disciplinary information; 2) the service fiche which contains service data and general information; and 3) the restricted fiche which contains historical data or documents which may normally be improper for review by selection boards or career managers.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF, it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or by certain other Departmental agencies, to include the DASEB.  Paragraph 6-1 of this regulation states that the DA Form 1059 is filed on the performance fiche for those soldiers in the rank of sergeant and below.  The DA Form 1059 is removed from the performance fiche upon promotion to staff sergeant.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board determined that the DA Form 1059, dated 10 November 1994, was appropriately filed on the applicant's performance fiche in accordance with applicable record filing regulations when it was issued, since he was a sergeant at the time.

2.  The Board concludes that the DA Form 1059 issued on 10 November 1994 has served its intended purpose.  It documented his academic deficiencies at the time.  However, the applicant worked hard.  He received additional training and he retook and passed the course.  His new academic report, DA Form 1059, issued on 8 December 1995, records this fact.

3.  Therefore, since he has been promoted to staff sergeant it would now be appropriate to transfer the DA Form 1059, dated 10 November 1994, to the restricted fiche in his OMPF. 

4.  Further, notwithstanding the DASEB Advisory Opinion, the Board concludes that the report will still be a matter of record, simply not available for routine review by promotion boards or career managers.

5.  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 by transferring the DA Form 1059 issued to the applicant on 
10 November 1994 to the restricted fiche in his OMPF. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__slp____  __jpi____  __rks ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Shirley L. Powell____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049057	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR (N/A) 	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.