MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082864

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  The removal of an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) dated 24 January 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received a "No" in block 15 for demonstrated academic potential for selection for higher level schooling/training; however, he held the highest grade point average (GPA) through the entire course and in block 16, comments were made that his leadership was unprofessional for a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  However, he was the only NCO in his class to get an "excellence" rating for leadership in phase I of the common core portion of training.  He continues by stating that the offense he committed was being late two times over the 4-month course.

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

He enlisted in Butte, Montana, on 30 October 1990, for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks, under the airborne infantry enlistment option.  He completed his training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He reenlisted on 24 June 1994 for a period 3 years and training as a watercraft operator.  He completed his training and has remained on active duty a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1999.  His promotion was conditional on his completing the Basic NCO Course (BNCOC) within 12 months.

On 7 November 2000, he attended the Watercraft Engineer BNCOC at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

On 22 November 2000, he received developmental counseling in which he was advised that his GPA was 98%, he had earned a superior in leadership and that his physical fitness score was well above average.

On 24 November 2000, he received a DA Form 1059 (AER) covering the period from 7 November to 24 November 2000, indicating that he had achieved course standards for Common Core Phase I of the BNCOC.

On 24 January 2001, he received a DA Form 1059 covering the period from 27 November 2000 through 24 January 2001, indicating that he failed to achieve course standards.  In block 15, under demonstrated academic potential for selection for higher schooling/training, he received a "NO" rating.  

The supporting comments indicate that the applicant was released from the course in accordance with Army Regulation 351-1, paragraph 5-30A(1), that he was dropped due to disciplinary problems, that he had failed to obey orders/regulations, that his conduct was such that continuation in BNCOC was not appropriate, that his leadership ability was unprofessional for an NCO, and that he was not recommended for further schooling until completion of the BNCOC.  The report was considered adverse and as such was referred to the applicant.

The applicant was administratively reduced back to the pay grade of E-5 and was reassigned to a unit at Fort Eustis.

The student guide published by the NCO Academy at Fort Eustis, provides a list of infractions that may cause the eliminations of students from a course and have academic evaluations reports prepared to reflect such cause.  The list includes any alcohol related incidents, failure to meet height and weight standards, failure to repair, academic failure, conduct unbecoming, positive urinalysis, unexcused absences from training, lack of motivation, and academic deficiency, which requires excessive retesting.  The student guide is provided to each student of the NCO Academy courses upon arrival. 

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 that 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.  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.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and finds that he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that he was unjustly dismissed from the BNCOC.

3.  Although he was doing well in phase I of the course, as reflected by the AER he received for that phase, he was dismissed for disciplinary problems that occurred during phase II of the course.  Although the specifics for his dismissal are not present in the available records, the report was referred to him in accordance with the applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of any of the applicant's rights. 

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

__slp____  __sac___  __jm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082864	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  218	111.0200/rem acad rpt	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.