RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210005817 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
. 
removal of unfavorable information from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 

. 
transfer of her referred DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) covering the period 8 December 2014 through 12 January 2016 to the restricted folder of her AMHRR 


APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) 

. 
DA Form 1059 with enclosures – 

. 
Acknowledgement of Receipt of AER Referral Memorandum 

. 
Comments for Referred Service School AER 




FACTS: 
1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, 
U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Record (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 
2. 
The applicant states she intends to continue service. Removal of unfavorable information from her AMHRR and transfer of her DA Form 1059 from the performance folder to the restricted folder of her AMHRR will ensure it does not affect her ability to be promoted and to further her military career. The applicant does not specify the additional unfavorable information she wants removed from her AMHRR. 

3. 
On or about 4 February 2016, she received a referred AER. She acknowledged receipt of the AER and elected to submit written comments on her behalf in defense, extenuation, or mitigation. Her DA Form 1059 shows she "Marginally Achieved Course Standards." It further shows in: 


a. 
in item 13 (Has the Student Demonstrated the Academic Potential for Selection to Higher Level Schooling/Training?), her rater marked "NO" for her potential for selection for higher-level school or training. A "NO" response required entry of a comment in item 14 (Comments); and 

b. 
item 14, she "marginally completed required course work, in accordance with of the Military Intelligence Captains Career Course (MICCC) Individual Student Assessment Plan (ISAP). After two attempts, [Applicant] was unable to achieve the minimum score required for completing the comprehensive Common Core Exam (in MICCC IS-002), which resulted in her recycle to class 15-007 within the MICCC (IAW CH. 5 ISAP). [Applicant] ultimately met the standards required to graduate the MICCC, after being recycled from MICCC 15-002 to 15-007." 


4. On 4 February 2016, the applicant submitted comments for consideration regarding her referred AER wherein she stated: 
a. During the course, she initially failed four Snapshots. Her grades were collectively five points shy of passing. She also completed a Mission Analysis Brief and was told she had passed. Nearly 3 weeks later she was informed that she had actually failed by 
0.04 percent. Further, her work on a Targeting Packet Evaluation was unsatisfactory. During this entire time, she was deeply concerned about and assisting a fellow Soldier whose daughter had died unexpectedly. 
b. 
At no time prior to appealing her dismissal from the course was she given the "retraining and retesting" required by the ISAP. 

c. 
Once provided with the necessary retraining, she scored an "A" on all but one of the Snapshots; on the remaining Snapshot, she received a "B." Similarly, she achieved an "A" on both the Mission Analysis Brief and Targeting Packet Evaluation. 

d. 
This evaluation maintains marginal performance in accordance with ISAP due to being recycled, even though she achieved course standards and graduated. 


5. Her service record is void of a response to her comments. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and regulatory guidance. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her military service record and documents provided by the applicant. The Board found an absence of evidence of additional training being provided prior to the applicant being recycled. Once the applicant received the proper training she was able to excel. The Board found transferring the applicant’s DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), her Acknowledgement of Receipt of AER Referral Memorandum and Comments for Referred Service School AER to the restricted fiche of her AMHRR was warranted. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that relief was appropriate. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
XXX XXX XX GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring her referred DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) covering the period 8 December 2014 through 12 January 2016, her Acknowledgement of Receipt of AER Referral Memorandum and Comments for Referred Service School AER to the restricted folder of her AMHRR. 
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. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), effective 4 November 2015, prescribed policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. 


a. 
 Paragraph 3-14 (DA Form 1059) stated the DA Form 1059 is used to document the performance, accomplishments, potential, and limitations of Soldiers while attending military schools and courses of instruction or training. The reporting official will be responsible for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of students' abilities and the accuracy of the information in the completed DA Form 1059. 

b. 
Paragraph 3-27 (Referred DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059-1 (Civilian Institution AER)) stated: 


(1) 
AERs with the following entries are referred or adverse reports. Such AERs will be referred to the rated Soldier or student by the reviewing official for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before being submitted to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA): 

(a) 
any "NO" response; 

(b) 
any "UNSAT" rating; 

(c) 
a "Marginally Achieved Course Standards" rating; 



(d) 
a "Failed to Achieve Course Standards" rating. If block d in item 11 (DA Form 1059) is checked, the preparing official will address (in item 14) whether the deficiency reflects on the character or behavior of the rated Soldier or lack of aptitude in certain areas. All "Failed to Achieve Course Standards" DA Forms 1059 require an additional review; 

(e) 
any comments so derogatory that the AER may have an adverse impact on the Soldier's career; and/or 

(f) 
any AER with a "FAIL" for the Army Physical Fitness Test indicating noncompliance with the standards and/or a "NO" entry after the height and weight indicating noncompliance with the standards. 

c. 
Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) addressed requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier's AMHRR and evaluation reports that are being processed at HQDA prior to completion. 

(1) 
An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 

(2) 
Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier's AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program. 

(3) 
Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier's AMHRR file be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored if the request is based on the following: 

. 
statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier 

. 
statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did 

. 
requests that ratings be revised 

. 
statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, performance, or potential 

. 
statements from rating officials claiming officer evaluation reports or noncommissioned officer evaluation reports were improperly sequenced to HQDA by the unit or organization 

. 
a subsequent statement from a rating official that he or she rendered an inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier's performance or potential in order to preserve higher ratings for other officers or noncommissioned officers (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection) 



(4) 
For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the evaluation report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time reports were rendered. 

(5) An exception is granted for evaluation reports when: 
. 
information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified 

. 
this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier 

. 
the following actions will be accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report – 

. 
if the information would have resulted in a higher evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report and rating officials may provide input to support this point 

. 
if the information would have resulted in a lower evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the officer evaluation report 



d. 
 Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) stated the program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred. 

(1) 
Paragraph 4-8a (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. 

(2) 
Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: 

. 
the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-36a and 4-7a will not be applied to the report under consideration 

. 
action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice 



(3) 
Paragraph 4-11d stated for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the applicant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, 


or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. The results of a commander's or commandant's inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. 
3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the official military personnel file, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//