IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007657 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007657 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007657 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) dated 15 February 2011, hereafter shown as the contested AER, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states the contested AER should be removed from his OMPF because he subsequently returned to the Advanced Leaders Course (ALC), passed the course, was placed on the Commandant’s List, and was issued an AER dated 20 February 2014. He states it has been a long time since the contested AER and it has hindered his promotion progression through the promotion system. He improved his ratings and has been rated "1/1 amongst the best." His commander acknowledged his performance as a platoon sergeant. 3. The applicant provides a copy of the contested AER and a memorandum, both dated 15 February 2011. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 2. At the time of his application to this Board, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army in the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6. 3. A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed the following documents: a. AER, dated 15 February 2011, showing he was enrolled in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Operations Specialist ALC, Class Number 004-11, which ran from 3 February to 31 March 2011. This AER shows he failed the course due to not achieving the course standards. He was dismissed from the course for disciplinary reasons. His leadership skills were rated unsatisfactory. His rater stated the applicant displayed poor judgment and decision making inconsistent with expectations by "drinking excessively off duty and falsifying an official statement." b. AER, dated 20 February 2014, showing he was enrolled in the CBRN Operations Specialist ALC Class Number 003-14, which ran from 9 January to 20 February 2014. This AER shows he exceeded course standards. He was an exemplary noncommissioned officer who set himself apart from his peers by exceeding the course standard and graduated on the Commandant's List. He showed his intellectual capacities with his informative research paper, was very outspoken, well informed, and displayed a superior ability to communicate with his peers in such a manner that he left an impact when delivering information or his ideas to the class. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) provides that once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by one or more of the following: * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) * Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) * Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, Human Resources Command (HRC) * Commander, HRC 2. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), then in effect, provided that the commandant was responsible to ensure that for active duty personnel, AERs would be prepared 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 would be reported. The same care and attention was to be exercised in preparing this report as was exercised in preparing officer and noncommissioned officer evaluation reports. a. An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the OPMF is presumed to be administratively correct, prepared by the proper rating officials and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. b. To appeal an AER, the burden of proof rests with the applicant. To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. (1) Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of the AER THRU date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time frame may be excused only if the appellant provides exceptional justification to warrant this exception. (2) Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. (3) When a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type is alleged, evidence will include statement from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. To be acceptable, the evidence must be material and relevant to the applicant's claim. (4) Pleas for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future value to the Army are rarely successful. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. DISCUSSION: The evidence confirms the applicant attended the CBRN ALC from 3 February to 31 March 2011 and failed the course. He returned to the CBRN ALC from 9 January to 20 February 2014 and passed the course. Both AERs are properly filed in his OMPF. A review of the contested AER and the applicant's evidence fails to show any factual errors or inappropriate entries that would support the modification or removal of either report. The applicant contests his subsequent duty performance and successfully achieving course standards to include placement on the Commandant's List warrant favorable consideration by the Board. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170007657 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170007657 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2