IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007208 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: 26 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007208 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: 26 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007208 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 17 November 2011, from his official military personnel file (OMPF) and promotion consideration file. He further requests reconsideration for promotion to major (MAJ) by a special selection board (SSB). Hereafter, the subject AER will be referred to as the contested AER. 2. The applicant states: a. The contested AER, issued on 17 November 2011 by the Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Training – Joint Center of Excellence (HT-JCOE) for the Advanced Source Operations Course (ASOC), should be removed from his permanent record. He attended ASOC from 20 August to 17 November 2011. b. The course was not a requirement for HUMINT Officers (35F) and it was certainly not a requirement for All Source Intelligence Officers (35D) like himself. ASOC was never a requirement for career progression of any officer. The course relied on a subjective system in which instructors met and voted at three points during the course about whether a student demonstrated the necessary skill level and personality characteristics to be certified as a Category 1 HUMINT collector. c. The subjective nature of the course becomes apparent from Block 12 (Demonstrated Abilities) of the contested AER, which shows that none of the normal metrics of a student's performance were evaluated. Block 14 (Comments) fails to clearly explain or justify the basis for the performance evaluation as required by DA Pamphlet (PAM) 623-34-7 [sic, DA PAM 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System)]. Nobody receiving this AER could identify an area that, if improved, would lead to meeting the standards for the course. d. During the course, he had no indication that he had any issues until after the final instructor board. When he was issued the contested AER, the narrative portion in Block 14 did not contain any factual information that explained or justified the reason for the decision to fail him from the course on the last day. He walked away unsure of what he had done or failed to do, or where he could focus effort to improve. Block 9 (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) of the contested AER is blank, because he was not given an opportunity to comment. Block 13 (Has the student demonstrated the potential for selection to higher level schooling/training?) of the contested AER was marked "No" to indicate he did not demonstrate potential for selection to higher level schooling, but no supporting comments were offered in Block 14. These errors are indicative of serious flaws in the ASOC evaluation reporting process and a failure to comply with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)). e. The ASOC class announcement and application procedures message described the advanced experience level of ASOC's target audience. In the absence of academic prerequisites, ASOC could grant waivers for relevant on-the-job experience and the strength of a Commander's nomination and endorsement. Based on his ability to bring HUMINT collection on line into the 24-hour targeting cycle and the Ranger Regiment's interest in building its HUMINT collection capability, the Regimental Commander made the case to HT-JCOE for him to attend the course. f. Before attempting ASOC, HUMINT service members selected for a Category 1 missions typically go through extensive, several months long pre-course preparation with their sponsoring Commands. This training is in addition to the preparation they would have already received the prerequisite HUMINT courses. He was attending ASOC in an effort to develop the HUMINT collection capability within his Command. He attended none of the prerequisite courses and was not adequately prepared. He found himself in the unenviable position of learning advanced technical material in a discipline where he had only a rudimentary familiarity with the basic material at the same time that he was being observed and evaluated for certification as a category 1 HUMINT collector. Despite these challenges, he was able to remain in the course until the last day when the final instructor board convened. g. When he was certifying his board file for below the zone consideration, he addressed his issues with the contested AER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). He was referred back to the Advanced HT-JCOE, who advised him that ASOC was a military occupational specialty enhancing school rather than a required school. Therefore, promotion boards would not interpret failure to achieve course standards at ASOC as derogatory when making promotion decisions. After he was not selected for promotion, he was directed to the Army Review Boards Agency as the only entity that would be able to help him. With that response, the remedies available to him to ensure that his file correctly portrayed his military performance were exhausted. h. His attendance at ASOC represents his willingness to go beyond the educational requirements of his career field to increase his versatility and usefulness as an Intelligence Officer to both his command and the Army. While he was not successful in achieving Category 1 HUMINT collector certification at ASOC, he is an All Source Intelligence Officer. Consideration of the contested AER may have put him at an unjustified disadvantage with respect to his peers, who did not attempt such a course. i. The nature of the course and the substantive issues with the contested AER are sufficient to cast doubt on its usefulness in making assessments of his overall military performance. It would be inappropriate for any weight to be placed on the contested AER when making decisions about his potential for future service or suitability to serve at higher levels of responsibility. The contested AER should be eliminated as a factor for consideration of any board reviewing his military record. He requests that it be removed from his file and once removed, he requests to be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored letter, the contested AER, dated 17 November 2011, an ASOC course announcement message, and 6 letters of recommendation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant currently serves on active duty in the Regular Army, as an Intelligence Officer in a Ranger Battalion, in the rank of captain (CPT). 2. The contested AER, signed on 17 November 2011 by the applicant, his rater, and a reviewing officer, is currently filed in the Performance section of his OMPF. a. In Block 11 (Performance Summary), the "Failed to Achieve Course Standards" block is marked. b. In Block 13, the "No" is marked for: "Has the student demonstrated the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training?" c. Block 14 (Comments) contain the following bullet comments: * failed to successfully complete requirements for graduation from ASOC * released from the course for poor academic performance/ comprehension * eligible to reapply for ASOC 3. The applicant was considered for promotion, below the zone, by the Fiscal Year 2015, MAJ, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board; however, he was not selected for promotion. 4. The applicant provides six letters of recommendation that attest to his character, professionalism, and leadership ability. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS. 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. Commandants of Army (or other Department of Defense branch) schools (also known as Service schools) and noncommissioned officer academies will be responsible for preparing the DA Form 1059 and submitting them to Headquarters, Department of the Army (or appropriate headquarters) to arrive no later than 90 days after the student's graduation or termination from the school or academy. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRR) Management) prescribes the policies and mandated operating tasks for the AMHRR Management Program. It governs the composition of the AMHRR and states the Performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. It states that once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from the OMPF, or moved to another part of the OMPF, unless directed by competent authority, to include this Board. Instructions state the DA Form 1059 is to be filed in the Performance folder of the OMPF. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the Active Duty List. Paragraph 7-3 provides that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB in cases where the non-selected officer was considered below the zone. 4. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's requests for the removal of the contested AER from his OMPF and promotion consideration file, and his reconsideration for promotion to MAJ by an SSB, were carefully considered. 2. There is no evidence that the contested AER was improperly issued or improperly filed in the applicant's OMPF. In accordance with the applicable regulation, the Performance folder should show a continuous record of a Soldier's performance throughout his/her Army service. The removal of the contested AER from the applicant's performance history would leave an undocumented period of service and would not give promotion boards and assignment managers a totally accurate indication of his past performance and potential for future performance. 3. An AER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army and included in the OMPF 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. 4. The applicant was considered for promotion to MAJ by a promotion board but he was not selected for promotion. The exact reason(s) for his non-selection for promotion are unknown because statutory requirements set forth in the law prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding board. 5. The absence of derogatory information in the applicant's file could suggest that the contested AER was the reason for his non-selection; however, such an attempt to pin the specific reason for his non-selection on the contested AER is speculative at best. 6. It can only be concluded that the promotion board(s) determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of his contemporaries, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected. 7. With respect to the applicant's request for an SSB, SSBs are not authorized in instances where the non-selected officer was considered below the zone. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007208 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007208 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2