IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 4 January 2023 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220004264 


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  removal of referred DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) from his performance section of his Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

•DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

•Two (2) DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)

•Email correspondence



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 Records(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in theinterest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.The applicant states, in effect, in February 2011, he received a referred DA Form1059, also known as Academic Evaluation Report – Referred (AER-R), from the U.S.Army Infantry Center of Excellence (USAICOE) Noncommissioned Officer Academy(NCOA) for being dismissed from the 35F Advance Leaders Course.  He was told bythe former commandant that upon returning and successfully graduating, he wouldreceive a new AER that would replace the AER-R.  In addition, the AER-R would beremoved from the performance portion of his iPERMS.  He was told the sameinformation by both the USAICOE NCOA and his unit human resources specialist.However, the AER-R is still located in the performance section of his iPERMS.

3.The applicant provides:

a.Two (2) DA Forms 1059 as follows:



(1)Intelligence Analyst ALC, 21-007, duration of course from 13 January 2021thru 10 February 2021. 



a)Part II (Academic Achievement (Academic Rater)), item l (Comments)state, “[Applicant] failed to achieve course standards as outlined in paragraph Q1 of the Advanced Leader Course Individual Student Assessment Plan dated 17 October 2020.  [Applicant] violated General Order and disobeyed a direct order from the commandant.  [Applicant] demonstrated poor leadership by failing to display appropriate standards of conduct; he failed to demonstrate the professionalism expected of a Noncommissioned Officer.” 



b)Part III (Overall Academic Achievement (Reviewing Official)), item b(Comments) state, “[Applicant] was released from ALC for Administrative reasons.  He violated General Order and disobeyed a direct order from the Commandant.  He requires additional mentorship prior to attending additional Professional Military Education.  [Applicant] would benefit from additional mentorship opportunities prior to being placed in a role of increased responsibility.” 



c)In Part VI (Authentication), item c1 (This is a Referred Report, do youwish to make comments) reflects an “X” in “Referred” and in “No.”  In item d1 (Rated Student’s Signature) contains the applicant’s digital signature. 



(2)Intelligence Analyst ALC, 22-011, duration of course from 12 January 2022thru 25 February 2022. 



a.Part I (Administrative Data), item l (Reason for Submission) reflects an “X”in the “Course Completion.” 




b.Part II (Academic Achievement (Academic Rater)), item d (Overall GradePoint Average) reflects 3.5 of 4.0. 




c.In Part VI (Authentication), item d1 (Rated Student’s Signature) containsthe applicant’s digital signature. 




b.Email correspondence between the applicant, his S1 noncommissioned officer,and a Human Resources Command (HRC) Evaluations Policy Team representative regarding removal of the AER-R from the applicant’s iPERMS. 



4.A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

a.He enlisted in Regular Army on 11 August 2015.



b.DA Form 2166-9-2 (NCO Evaluation Report (SSG-1SG/MSG)), covering theperiod from 29 October 2020 thru 15 July 2021, shows the applicant’s principal duty title as drill sergeant.  In Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, and Competencies), his rater indicated two “Met Standard” and four “Exceeded Standard.” c.The applicant currently serves as the Senior Intelligence Sergeant with theHeadquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Special Forces Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. 



5.There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Enlisted Special Review Board(ESRB) to remove his AER-R from the performance section of his iPERMS.

6.Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies andprocedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served byauthorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed froman individual’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

7.Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy forcompleting DA Form 1059 (Service School AER) and DA Form 1059-1 (CivilianInstitution AER).  Specifically, paragraph 4-11 provides policy in regards to burden ofproof and type of evidence to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report.


BOARD DISCUSSION: 




After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military records, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting removal of the contested DA Form 1059.  The Board found that the contested document was placed in the applicant's record as a result of his failure to achieve course standards; it was not entered in error.  Without appropriate justification as to why the document is now causing an injustice to the applicant, the Board concluded there is no basis for its removal.BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 

:X :X :X 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. 



Microsoft Office Signature Line...
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, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications forcorrection of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the allegederror or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant'sfailure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the Army Board forCorrection of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justiceto do so.

2.Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies andprocedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served byauthorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed froman individual’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

a.Paragraph 6-2e states, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board(DASEB) makes determinations upon appeal of unfavorable information filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR.  The DASEB may determine to revise, alter, or remove such unfavorable information if it is determined to be untrue or unjust, in whole or in part (see chap 7). 



b.Paragraph 6-2f states, the DASEB makes determinations, upon appeal, onrequests to transfer unfavorable information from the performance to the restricted portion of the AMHRR (see chap 7).  The DASEB may recommend the transfer of those administrative memoranda of reprimand when such transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  Transfer of such memoranda is further subject to the stipulations stated in paragraph 6–1d, paragraph 6–1e, and chapter 7. 


 
c. Paragraph 7 states, The DASEB is the initial appeal authority and makes recommendations for removal, alteration, or transfer of unfavorable information entered in the AMHRR.  This chapter sets forth the policies and procedures whereby a person may seek removal of unfavorable information from his or her AMHRR, or transfer of unfavorable information from the performance file to the restricted file of his or her AMHRR. 


 
3.  Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes the policy for completing DA Form 1059 (Service School AER) and DA Form 1059-1 (Civilian Institution AER).  Procedures, tasks, and steps pertaining to the completion of each evaluation report and support form are contained in DA Pamphlet 623-3. 
 
a. Paragraph 2-15e states that qualification to serve as the reviewing official is determined by the standards of the military course of instruction and/or civilian institution.  For Service school AERs, the reviewing officer will normally be the individual above the rater in the chain of supervision.  The review function for Service school AERs will go no higher than the school commandant.  School commandants will ensure that military, DA civilian, or SES reviewing officials meet the minimum senior rater rank or grade requirements.  Reviewing officials will ensure timely submission of completed AERs to HQDA and a copy is provided to the rated Soldier (in accordance with this regulation and DA Pamphlet 623-3).  


 
b. Paragraph 3-14 states the service school AER 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 AER.  The time period covered by an AER is counted as nonrated time on an NCOER covering the same period.  


 
c. Paragraph 4-11 states, in pertinent part, that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the Soldier's official record are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence establishing 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.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant. 


 

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//