PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           14 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR202069433

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 DA Form 1059 Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER for the Primary Leadership Development Course 2-97, covering the period 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), or that it be transferred from his Performance Fiche to his Restricted Fiche.

3.  The applicant states that he was punished for trying to help another soldier; that his records before and after this incident indicate the type of soldier he is; and that he does not want this incident to be a set back to his career.

4.  The applicant submitted a letter of reference in support of his application.  The letter was supported by 32 of his fellow soldiers and noncommissioned officers (NCO).

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 15 September 1993 and currently is a staff sergeant/E-6.

6.  On an unknown date, the applicant, then a corporal (CPL/E-4), was assigned to the United States Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy (USA NCOA) for the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) 2-97.  The duration of the course was from 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996.  On 2 December 1996, the applicant was released from the USA NCO PLDC 2-97 for failing to achieve course standards due to disciplinary reasons under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 351-1, paragraph 5-30a(1).  It was noted that he lacked the self-discipline required to establish himself as a capable NCO.

7.  On 4 December 1996, an NCO wrote a letter on behalf of the applicant to the USA NCOA Command Sergeant Major (CSM) stating he believed the situation that had put the applicant’s integrity into question was a misunderstanding and misperception as to what was being asked of him.  He acknowledged that he did not know all the facts of the situation, but believed the applicant to be telling the truth.  He supported his statement with the signature of 32 NCOs and soldiers attesting to the character of the applicant.

8.  On an unknown date, the applicant, then a specialist (SPC/E-4), was assigned to the USA NCOA PLDC 8-97.  On 13 August 1997, the applicant achieved course standards and graduated from the USA NCOA PLDC 8-97.  It was noted that he possessed the sound foundation of knowledge to be a noncommissioned officer; that he exerted a positive influence on his group’s efforts; that he willingly gave of his own time to contribute and participate in 
attaining group goals; and that he frequently assisted group members in weak areas to enhance their performance. It was also noted that he set a good 

example with his initiative, attitude, and motivation; that he performed well in leadership positions by utilizing effective supervision and a “lead by example ethic”; and that he spoke in a positive tone that is clearly in an understandable and direct style.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is a career NCO with an exceptionally strong OMPF consisting of solid, above center-of-mass evaluation report ratings.  He not only retook PLDC and passed it, but also received outstanding comments from his instructor regarding his leadership potential.  He consistently demonstrated that he is an exceptional NCO.  All of this supports the argument that the subject AER serves no useful purpose and should be moved from the Performance Fiche to the Restricted Fiche of his OMPF.

2.  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:

a.  by removing the entire AER and related documents for PLDC 2-97, covering the period 18 November 1996 through 20 December 1996, with no further reference to the same, from the Performance Fiche of the individual concerned; and

b.  by placing the subject AER and all documents related to his appeal of the AER on the Restricted Fiche of his OMPF.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__kan___  ___mhm_  ___dph__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___________Melvin H. Meyer______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069433	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020514	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	   	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.0100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.