PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062173

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 the removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) (DA Form 1059) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly given an AER for the period of 1 June to 3 June 1999, showing that he failed to achieve course standards for the Drill Sergeant Course, due to an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure.  He continues by stating that he was tripped by another candidate during the run and twisted his ankle.  He further states that he proceeded to finish the run; however, there was no scorer present when he finished, yet a failing score was entered for the run event on his scorecard.  He then proceeded to seek medical attention from the dispensary and was put on a 14-day profile and issued crutches.  When he reported to the commandant and was informed that he was being dismissed from the course for APFT failure, he elected to exercise his right to appeal and make a statement in his own behalf.  He was then directed by the commandant (a command sergeant major) to change his elections because he would not have someone on crutches in his barracks.  When he returned to Fort Drum, New York, he was again given another temporary profile, was required to wear soft shoes and an ankle brace and directed to perform physical therapy.  He also states that prior to departing the school, he spoke to several drill sergeant leaders who told him that he should have been medically released from the course and allowed to return at a later date.  In support of his application he provides copies of medical documents to substantiate his injury. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially enlisted on 19 June 1984 for a period of 3 years and training as a motor transport operator.  He served until he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 17 April 1987, under the early transition program. 

5.  On 30 March 1988, he enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 for a period of 4 years and training as a food service specialist.  He has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1989.

6.  On 1 June 1999, while stationed at Fort Drum, he reported to Fort Benning, Georgia to attend the Drill Sergeant Course.

7.  On 3 June 1999, the applicant fell during a physical training run and twisted his ankle.  He reported to a medical facility where his ankle was x-rayed, he was  issued crutches for a period of 14 days and was directed to return for                   re-evaluation.  

8.  Also, on 3 June 1999, the applicant was advised that he was being declared a non-graduate of the Drill Sergeant Course due to failure of the run event of the APFT.  In the notification sheet, the applicant circled the items indicating that he elected to exercise his right to appeal and that he wished to make a statement in his own behalf.  He also initialed and marked out that election and indicated that he did not wish to appeal or make a statement.  He initialed all of the items marked. The applicant was dismissed from the course on the same day and returned to Fort Drum, where he continued to receive treatment and physical therapy for his injury. 

9.  As a result of the applicant’s dismissal, he was issued an AER covering the period from 1 June to 3 June 1999, which indicates that he failed to achieve course standards for the Drill Sergeant Course due to failure of the APFT.  The form is filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF. 

10.  The applicant appealed the AER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) on 9 August 1999, contending that he should have been medically released from the course instead of being dismissed for failing the course.  In the processing of the case, the ESRB contacted the commandant of the NCO Academy who opined that he did not remember the applicant; however, he indicated that candidates always have an excuse for everything, but most are given the benefit of the doubt.  He also indicated that each incident of APFT failure is handled on a case by case basis and that if an individual is injured and does not complete the event, they would be given another opportunity if the profile and time permitted.  He opined that the applicant should not have finished the event, but should have quit and notified an instructor immediately.  Accordingly, he failed the event and was dismissed.  However, he indicated that all personnel who fail the course due to APFT are allowed to attend at a later date.  The ESRB opined that the applicant did not meet the entry requirements for the course because he failed the APFT (2-mile run) due to an injury.  The ESRB denied his appeal.

11.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 February 2000 and successfully completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) in June 2000.  

12.  A review of the applicant’s evaluation reports fails to reveal that the applicant has ever encountered any problems with the APFT.  In fact, his evaluation reports indicate that he is in excellent physical condition and leads by example in that area. 

13.  Army Regulation 623-1 provides the policies and procedures for the preparation of the AER.  It provides, in pertinent part, that comments are required in item 16 of the DA Form 1059 concerning the capabilities, potential, or limitations of the student to include achievements and awards.  An explanation to explain entries requiring further description should be entered to reflect if an individual was released from student status through no fault of his own (e.g.,medical, compassionate) and is recommended for reinstatement in the course.  Item 13 of the form will not be completed for students who are released through no fault of their own and an explanation will be provided in item 16.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that he was in fact injured while taking the APFT and that the injury contributed to his inability to complete the 2-mile run portion within the prescribed timeframe.

2.  The Board also finds that since he sought treatment for his injury immediately after completing the APFT and it is sufficiently documented that his injury was the causal effect of his not passing the event, it is reasonable to presume that had the injury not occurred, he would not have failed the APFT and would not have been dismissed from the course.

3.  Given the evidence in this case, the Board finds that the applicant should have been released from the course for medical reasons that occurred through no fault of his own and that any AER that was issued should have accurately reflected the events that occurred in his case.

4.  While the Board understands the actions taken at the time, the Board finds that the actions taken by the applicant at the time, to attempt to finish the APFT, despite his injuries, to be a far more admirable trait and a testimony to his dedication than simply quitting on the spot.  While it may not have worked in his favor at the time, he displayed the traits desired of an NCO and of a drill sergeant by not taking the easy way out. 

5.  Accordingly, given the period covered by the AER (3 days) and the fact that he was unable to complete the course based on medical reasons that were through no fault of his own, the Board finds that the AER does not accurately reflect the applicant’s performance and potential during the period covered and should be removed from his records.

6.  This is further supported by the fact that the applicant has always displayed excellent physical fitness and that he was promoted and completed the ANCOC. He simply does not have a history of having problems with physical fitness and therefore should receive any benefit of the doubt in this matter. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing the AER (DA Form 1059) dated 3 June 1999, and all related documents from the OMPF of the individual concerned.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jm____  ___lds___  __js_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____John N. Slone_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062173	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  218	111.0200/VOID AER	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.