MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071753

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. James S. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Charmane Collins		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Removal of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went back to the school and completed the course and his tour of duty as a drill sergeant.  He states that during his tour of duty he received numerous drill sergeant of the cycle awards and always produced some of the best tanker’s.  He states that he initially failed the course because of personal problems that affected the focus required to complete the course.  He states that he proved he was one of the best drill sergeants serving in his unit.  He concludes by stating that the AER presents the appearance that he is a substandard soldier and that he just wants his records to reflect his true abilities.  In support of his application he submits a copy of an AER from the Drill Sergeant School Academy for the period covering 6 August 1999 through 8 October 1999, indicating that he achieved course standards; copies of three Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Evaluation Reports reflecting his performance as a drill sergeant, since he completed the drill sergeant’s course; a copy of the Draper Armor Leadership Award that he was awarded on 22 June 2001, for excellence in leadership; a copy of the service school AER for the period covering 1 June 1999 through 17 June 1999, reflecting that he failed to achieve course standards in the drill sergeant course; and a copy of a service school AER for the period covering 28 April 1993 through 27 May 1993, reflecting that he achieved course standards in the leadership development course.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 February 1997, and after serving 9 years and 4 months of active service, he reenlisted in the Army on 5 January 1999 for a period of 4 years.

On 17 June 1999, the applicant was dismissed from drill sergeant course at Fort Benning, Georgia, for failing to achieve course standards.  The service school AER that was filed in his OMPF indicates that he was dismissed for academic reasons, due to failing marching standards.  The commandant of the drill sergeant school recommended that he return to the course at the earliest possible date.

The applicant attended and achieved course standards at the Drill Sergeant School Academy in Missouri for the period covering 6 August 1999 through 8 October 1999.  The service school AER that was filed in his OMPF indicates that he completed all requirements for graduation, maintaining an academic average in excess of 95%.  The school service AER reflects that he displayed satisfactory skills during oral presentations; that he displayed excellent leadership skills by accomplishing assigned tasks to standards; that he made sound and timely decisions; and that he was prepared to assume the role of a drill sergeant.
Army Regulation 623-1 prescribes the policies and procedures for preparing AERs.  These reports are prepared for service members who take part in resident and nonresident training at service schools, NCO academies and civilian educational institutions.  It provides, in pertinent part, that service school and NCO academy commandants are responsible for preparing the AER (DA Form 1059) within 60 days after the student’s graduation or termination from the school or academy.  In preparing these reports, all significant information that can be evaluated must be reported.  The school commandants or training division/brigade commanders will ensure AER comments are based on observation of a student’s qualities, strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and overall performance.  

Army Regulation 623-205, sets forth the policies and procedures for the Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System.  Paragraph 4-2 states, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an NCO is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  Paragraph 4-7 of the same regulation states, in pertinent part, that when submitting an appeal, the burden of proof rests with the applicant and that he or she must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  Although he went back to the school and completed the course and his tour of duty as a drill sergeant, the AER that he desires to have removed from his records clearly indicates that he was dismissed from the drill sergeant course at Fort Benning, Georgia, for failing to achieve course standards.  

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions regarding the contested AER.  However, inasmuch as he is not disputing the information that was contained therein, the school commandant’s comments appears to have been based on the observation of his overall performance. 

4.  The service school AER in question presents a true picture of the reasons why his was dismissed from the drill sergeant course and it was filed in his OMPF in accordance with the appropriate regulation.  Therefore, there is no basis for removal of the contested AER.
5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ja ____  ___cc___  __fe ____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071753	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  193	111.0000	
2.  218	111.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.