MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           19 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083491

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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:  In effect, that two Academic Evaluation Reports (AER’s) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not have to attend Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) because he had been “grandfathered.”  He adds he will never be promoted with these two AER’s in his OMPF.

In support of his request, he submits an AER for the period covering 20 through 29 November 1991.  That AER shows that he was a resident at the course, and the course had been scheduled to end on 20 December 1991.  That AER shows that the applicant had failed to achieve course standards.  In the comments section of the AER, it is stated that the applicant was “Dismissed from the Primary Leadership Development Course on punitive reasons for disobeying academy policies.”

The applicant submits a second AER for the period covering 15 through 21 October 1992.  That AER shows that he was a resident at the course, and the course had been scheduled to end on 13 November 1992.  That AER also shows that the applicant had failed to achieve course standards.  In the comments section of the AER, it is stated that the applicant ”Failed to achieve course standards on Written Leadership Examination” and “Demonstrated difficulty on the situp event during the Army Physical Fitness Test.”

The applicant also submits three documents which show that soldiers promoted prior to 30 September 1992 are considered to have completed the next level of military schooling.  One of those documents, a memorandum from the applicant’s division, adds “Commanders may, at their discretion, require soldiers to attend NCOES if he/she determines it will be of benefit to the soldier.”

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

He enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 March 1977.

He served continuously through a reenlistment, and extended his enlistment on 3 May 1988 to accept a tour of active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.  The applicant was in pay grade E-5 when he extended his enlistment.

On the date the applicant submitted his request to the Board, he was on active duty in the AGR program in pay grade E-5.

Army Regulation 140-158 dated 1 July 1990, paragraph 1-27, stated that for promotion to pay grade E-6, reservists must complete the active component PLDC or several named equivalents (the equivalents must have been completed prior to 1 October 1987).  Paragraph 1-28c of this regulation stated that effective 1 October 1987, soldiers serving on AGR status who did not complete an NCOES for the appropriate grade are required to complete the active component NCOES for their grade.
 
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not contested the validity of the AER’s in question.  As such, the Board concludes that both reports accurately reflect the applicant’s conduct and performance during the rated periods.

2.  While the documents submitted by the applicant indicate that there may have been a period of time when NCOES attendance was not required for certain soldiers, Army Regulation 140-158, in effect prior to the applicant’s attendance at PLDC, did require PLDC completion.  In addition, even during the period covered by the documents submitted by the applicant, the guidance allowed a soldier’s commander to require the soldier to attend PLDC.  Therefore, the applicant’s attendance at both PLDC classes was not an error or injustice.

3.  In summary, the applicant was attending a school he was required to attend, he was issued AER’s for failing to complete those schools, and he has not contested the validity of the reports.  

4.  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

___jns___  ___wdp___  ____lem  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083491	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030619	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.