ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


		IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 8 December 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008589


APPLICANT REQUESTS: transfer of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic 
Evaluation Report) for the Army Training System (TATS) Basic Noncommissioned 
Officer Course (BNCOC) Common Core Phase I (04-08), 13 February 2008, to the 
restricted folder of his Army Military Human Resource Record.

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)
*	Memorandum for President, Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board 
(Request for Transfer DA Form 1059 of (Applicant)), 13 April 2021
*	DA Form 1059, 13 February 2008
*	four DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) 
covering the periods 1 December 2008 through 31 March 2012
*	Headquarters and 4th Brigade, 2d Infantry Division, Orders 271-008, 
27 September 2012
*	U.S. Army Human Resources Command Order Number 206-21, 25 July 2018

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, 
U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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 the DA Form 1059 was placed in his Official Military Personnel 
File (OMPF) in 2008. He feels this correction should be made because it's been over 
10 years since this situation happened and he has been promoted twice. He feels it is 
affecting his career as it pertains to being considered by the sergeant first class 
promotion board. He has learned his lesson from the mistake he made and the 
DA Form1059 should be moved.

3.  His DA Form 1059 for the TATS BNCOC Common Core Phase I (04-08), 
13 February 2008, shows in:


	a.  block 11 (Performance Summary), "Failed to Achieve Course Standards";

	b.  block 12 (Demonstrated Abilities), "Satisfactory" ratings in Oral Communication 
and Contribution to Group Work, and "Unsatisfactory" rating in Leadership Skills; and

	c.  block 14 (Comments), "Disciplinary dismissal – [Applicant] was dismissed from 
the course due to being late for training on two occasions."

4.  His NCOER covering the period 1 December 2007 through 30 November 2008 
shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/2"
*	Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) –

*	"promote with peers"
*	"send to BNCOC when available; knowledge will increase leadership 
awareness"
*	"willing to share basic skills to all"
*	"potential available yet untapped"

5.  His NCOER covering the period 1 December 2008 through 10 April 2009 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/1"
*	Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments –

*	"promote to Staff Sergeant"
*	"send to BNCOC when allocations are available"
*	"performance standard has constantly increased"
*	"has potential to lead; needs additional knowledge to progress"

6.  His NCOER covering the period 11 April 2009 through 10 April 2010 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/2"


7.  His NCOER covering the period 15 July 2010 through 14 July 2011 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/2"

8.  His NCOER covering the period 15 July 2011 through 31 March 2012 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/3"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/2"

9.  Headquarters and 4th Brigade, 2d Infantry Division, Orders 271-008, 27 September 
2012, promoted him to the rank of staff sergeant effective 1 October 2012.

10.  His NCOER covering the period 1 April 2012 through 31 March 2013 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/1"

11.  His NCOER covering the period 1 April 2013 through 31 March 2013 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/1"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/1"

12.  His DA Form 1059, 10 June 2014, for the Signal Support Specialist Senior Leader 
Course Class 25U010-14 shows in:

	a.  block 11 (Performance Summary) – "Achieved Course Standards"; and

	b.  block 12 (Demonstrated Abilities) – "Satisfactory" ratings in Written 
Communication and Leadership Skills, and "Superior" ratings in Oral Communication 
and Contribution to Group Work.

13.  His NCOER covering the period 1 April 2014 through 11 September 2014 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Fully Capable"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/2"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/2"

14.  His NCOER covering the period 12 September April 2014 through 11 September 
2015 shows in:

*	Part Va (Rater Overall Potential) – "Among the Best"
*	Part Vc (Senior Rater Overall Performance) – "Successful/1"
*	Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in 
Positions of Greater Responsibility) – "Superior/1"

15.  His NCOER covering the period 12 September 2015 through 11 September 2016 
shows in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] is an exceptional NCO 
with the potential to serve in positions of greater responsibility"

16.  His NCOER covering the period 12 September 2016 through 1 February 2017 
shows in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] was an indispensable 
member of the organization due to managing duties and responsibilities as the 
Section NCOIC [Noncommissioned Officer in Charge] and Platoon Sergeant 
simultaneously"

17.  His NCOER covering the period 2 February 2017 through 1 February 2018 shows 
in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] ranks in the top 40% of 
SSGs [staff sergeants] I have ever served with. He is a hardworking, dependable 
NCO that [sic] can take on any task and see it through with minimal supervision"

18.  U.S. Army Human Resources Command Order Number 206-21, 25 July 2018, 
promoted him to the rank of sergeant first class effective 1 August 2018.


19.  His NCOER covering the period 2 February 2018 through 29 May 2019 shows in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] ranks in the top 24% of 
the Senior Non Commissioned [sic] Officers I have served with. He possesses a 
keen intellect, great versatility and is truly dedicated to ensuring Soldiers are 
trained and ready"

20.  His NCOER covering the period 30 May 2019 through 28 May 2020 shows in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Exceeded Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] is in the top 25% of all 
SFCs I rate. [Applicant] is a hardworking and performance driven leader with 
enormous talent and potential to perform at the next level with distinction, 
promote ahead of peers"

21.  His DA Form 1059 for the Master Leader Course (20-106), 8 August 2020, shows 
in:

	a.  Part IIIa (Overall Academic Achievement (Reviewing Official)), "Achieved Course 
Standards"; and

	b.  Part IIIb (Comments), "[Applicant] achieved course standards and completed all 
requirements in a satisfactory manner. [Applicant] is an excellent noncommissioned 
officer who has the professional and personal attributes necessary to perform at the 
senior noncommissioned officer level."

22.  His NCOER covering the period 29 May 2020 through 30 November 2020 shows 
in:

*	Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance) – "Met Standard"
*	Part Va (Senior Rater Overall Potential) – "Highly Qualified"
*	Part Vb (Senior Rater Comments) – in part, "[Applicant] in the top 30% of 
Sergeants First Class I currently senior rate. [Applicant] is [a] versatile and 
capable NCO that [sic] can function in any capacity, place in a position that takes 
advantage of his potential and his ability to lead and mentor NCO's and Soldiers"


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.  The Board carefully considered the applicants request, 
supporting documents and evidence in the records.  The Board considered the 
applicant’s statement, his military service record and documents provided by the 
applicant.  The Board determined the evidence presented does not demonstrate the 
existence of a probable error or injustice.  Evidence of record in this case shows the 
applicant after receiving his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation 
Report) for the Army Training System (TATS) Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course 
(BNCOC) Common Core Phase positively responded as evidenced by his subsequent 
evaluations, promotions and continued service.  Removal of a DA Form 1059 is 
generally not warranted unless it is factually incorrect.  The Board determined there 
does not appear to be any evidence the contested service school academic evaluation 
was unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's Army Military Human 
Resource Record.  Therefore, the Board denied relief. 

2.  The purpose of maintaining the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). is 
to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier.  In this regard, the 
AMHRR serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, 
conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the 
AMHRR.  Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that 
file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless 
directed by an appropriate authority.




BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

XXX	XXX	-XX	DENY APPLICATION


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.


	 
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 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) 
effective 22 July 2004, prescribed the policies and mandated operating tasks for the 
Military Personnel Information Management/Records Program of the Military Personnel 
System.
	a.  Paragraph 2-4 (Changing the OMPF) stated that once placed in the OMPF, the 
document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed 
from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by the following:

*	the ABCMR
*	the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board
*	Army appeal boards
*	Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command
*	the OMPF custodian when documents have been improperly filed
*	Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Attention: TAPC-PDO-PO, 
as an approved policy change to this regulation
*	Chief, Appeals Branch, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center
*	Chief, Appeals Branch, National Guard Personnel Center

	b.  Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) contains the list of all documents approved 
by Department of the Army and required for filing in the OMPF. The DA Form 1059 is 
filed in the performance folder of the OMPF.

3.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), effective 20 January 1987, set 
forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about 
Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information 
that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official 
personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are 
served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, 
removed from official personnel files.

	a.  Chapter 7 (Appeals and Petitions) provided the policies and procedures for 
appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from official personnel 
files.

	b.  Paragraph 7-2a (Appeals for Removal of OMPF Entries) contains guidance on 
removal of OMPF entries. Once an official document has been properly filed in the 
OMPF, 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 OMPF. Normally, consideration of appeals is restricted to grades E-6 
and above, to officers, and to warrant officers. Although any Soldier may appeal the 
inclusion of a document placed in his or her file under this regulation, the appeals of 
Soldiers in grades below E-6 will only be considered as an exception to policy. This 
does not include documents that have their own regulatory appeal authority such as 
evaluation reports and court-martial orders. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or 
error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered.

4.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), effective 10 August 2007, 
prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation 
Reporting System, including academic evaluation reports.

	a.  Paragraph 3-52 (Academic Evaluation) stated the DA Form 1059 is used to 
report the performance of students attending Army service schools, Department of 
Defense schools, U.S. Army Reserve schools, NCO academies, allied nation schools, 
and Reserve Component chaplain candidates for training, as well as formal school 
status as prescribed below.

	b.  Paragraph 6-7 stated an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official 
record of a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to:

*	be administratively correct
*	have been prepared by the proper rating officials
*	represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials 
at the time of preparation

	c.  Paragraph 6-7f stated an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. An 
appeal that alleges a report is incorrect or inaccurate or unjust without usable 
supporting evidence will not be considered.

	d.  Paragraph 6-7h(3) stated:

		(1)  Appeals based on alleged administrative errors in those portions of a report 
previously authenticated by the rated Soldier will be accepted only under the most 
unusual and compelling circumstances. Correction of minor administrative errors 
seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report. Removal of a report for 
administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude correction of 
errors, and then only when retention of the report would clearly result in an injustice to 
the Soldier.

		(2)  Alleged bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, or any matter other than 
administrative error are substantive in nature and will be adjudicated by the Department 
of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Special Review Board. These are 
generally claims of an inaccurate or an unjust evaluation of performance or potential or 
claims of bias on the part of the rating officials.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (continued)	AR20210008589


1
1