IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 20 December 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230005461


APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic 
Evaluation Report (AER)), 7 November 2018, covering the period 27 October 2018 
through 9 November 2018 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552)
*	AER covering the period 27 October 2018 through 9 November 2018
*	Department of the Army and the Air Force Land Component, Joint Force 
Headquarters Kansas, Orders 066-731, 7 March 2019

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states the DA Form 1059 covering the period 27 October 2018 through 
9 November 2018 should be removed from his AMHRR.

	a.  During this time, he was in compliance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted 
Promotions and Reductions) which reads, in part: "completion of the Master Leader 
Course (MLC) is a promotion pin-on requirement to the rank of master sergeant/ 
first sergeant (MSG/1SG) effective 1 January 2019 for Army National Guard (ARNG) 
Soldiers. ARNG Soldiers promoted to the rank of MSG/1SG prior to 1 January 2019 are 
not required to attend MLC as a prerequisite to attend the USASMC [U.S. Army 
Sergeants Major Course]."

	b.  The requirements for MSG at the time were 36 months of time in grade, 13 years 
of time in service, graduate of senior leader course (SLC), and completion of Distributed 
Leader Course (DLC) Level 4. At the time he was number 2 on the promotion list and 
had a pending control number. He was promoted to MSG on 30 December 2018.

	c.  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 
paragraph 2-17a: "Reviewers of 'Relief for Cause OERs [Officer Evaluation Reports],' 
'Relief for Cause NCOERs [Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports]', or 'Failed to 
Achieve Academic Standards AERs' will ensure that the narrative portions of the OER, 
NCOER, or AER contain factual information that fully explained justify [sic] the reason 
for the relief or AER failure." His AER does not list the reason for failure when item 11 
(Performance Summary) was marked "Failed To Achieve Course Standards," no areas 
were evaluated for item 12 (Demonstrated Abilities), and item 14 (Comments) contains 
the comments: "[Applicant] was dismissed from [sic] for failing to maintain the minimum 
grade point average of 70%. He should not attend a future class until the reasons that 
led to this dismissal no longer exist."

	d.  This has been a black mark on his file that has hindered promotion and 
assignment considerations when course attendance was not required, and the 
document was not complete so that he could make corrections to facilitate a passing 
grade for something not stated or evaluated. He asked for an explanation at the time but 
was given none. He attempted to work through his State headquarters to have the 
document removed several times and then the coronavirus disease pandemic hit and 
most noncritical matters were deemed nonessential. He requests an exception to policy 
pertaining to the time limitation due to the pandemic and desires removal of the AER so 
he can continue with his otherwise unmarred military career.

2.  He enlisted in the Kansas ARNG on 14 August 2000. He was promoted to the 
rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 effective 6 November 2013.

3.  His AER, 20 March 2014, shows he attended the Ordnance SLC in the rank of SFC 
from 3 March 2014 through 20 March 2014 at the Regional Training Site, Salina, KS, 
and achieved course standards.

4.  His AER, 7 November 2018, shows he attended MLC Class 2-19 in the rank of SFC 
from 27 October 2018 through 9 November 2018 at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major 
Academy, Fort Bliss, TX, and failed to achieve course standards. This form shows in:

	a.  item 9 (This Is a Referred Report, Do You Wish to Make Comments?), a 
checkmark was placed in the "Referred" box and a checkmark was placed in the "No" 
box indicating no comments would be attached;

	b.  item 11 (Performance Summary), an "X" was placed in item 11d (Failed to 
Achieve Course Standards);

	c.  item 12 (Demonstrated Abilities), an "X" was placed in the "Not Evaluated" box in 
item 12a (Written Communication), item 12b (Oral Communication), item 12c 
(Leadership Skills), item 12d (Contribution to Group Work), and item 12e (Evaluation of 
Student's Research Ability);

	d.  item 13 (Has the Student Demonstrated the Academic Potential for Selection to 
Higher Level Schooling/Training?), an "X" was placed in the "No" box; and?
	e.  item 14 (Comments), contains the following entries:

*	[Applicant] was dismissed from [sic] for failing to maintain the minimum grade 
point average of 70%
*	He should not attend a future class until the reasons that led to this dismissal 
no longer exist
*	he was not evaluated on the SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response 
and Prevention] program due to early release
*	APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test]: PASS 20181029 [29 October 2018]; 
HT/WT [Height/Weight]: 71/180 YES

5.  The contested AER is filed in the performance folder of his AMHRR.

6.  Department of the Army and the Air Force Land Component, Joint Force 
Headquarters Kansas, Orders 066-731, 7 March 2019, promoted him to the rank/grade 
of MSG effective 30 December 2018.

7.  Department of the Army and the Air Force Land Component, Joint Force 
Headquarters Kansas, Orders 066-732, 7 March 2019, laterally appointed him to the 
rank of 1SG effective 30 December 2018.

8.  He is currently serving on active duty in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8 in an Active 
Guard Reserve status in the KSARNG Element, Joint Force Headquarters Kansas.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the applicant's military records, 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 found the applicant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of 
evidence that procedural error occurred that was prejudicial to the applicant and by a 
preponderance of evidence that the contents of the AER are substantially incorrect to 
support removal of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Repot 
(AER)) covering the period 27 October 2018 through 9 November 2018 from his Army 
Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Evidence in the records shows the 
applicant was dismissed for failure to achieve course standards as required by the 
schoolhouse. 

2.  Furthermore, the Board agreed there does not appear to be any evidence the 
contested AER was unjust or inappropriately files in the applicant’s AMHRR. The Board 
determined the applicant was promoted to the grade of master sergeant after his 
dismissal and from the master leader course at Fort Bliss Texas.  The Board noted the 
applicant’s statement of his AER being a black mark on his record, however the 
applicant continues to excel with increased responsibility based on his promotion in 
2019. Based on insufficient evidence that his AER was in error, the Board denied relief 
to remove the DA Form 1059 from his record.

3.  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

: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.

	 
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.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes 
the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the 
Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are 
properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is 
not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

2.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), effective 25 May 
2017 and in effect at the time, prescribed the enlisted promotions and reductions 
function of the military personnel system. It was linked to the Army Regulation 600-8 
series and provided principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, 
and steps governing all work required in the field to support promotions and reductions. 
It provided the objectives of the Army's Enlisted Promotions System, which include 
filling authorized enlisted spaces with the best qualified Soldiers.

	a.  Paragraph 1-28a (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation System (NCOES) 
Requirement for Promotion and Conditional Promotion) stated that except for 
promotions completed under the provisions of paragraphs 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-22,  
3-5a(2), and 8-3, Soldiers (all components) must complete the following professional 
military education courses:

*	graduation of the SLC is a promotion requirement to SFC
*	completion of structured self-development level 4 is an eligibility requirement 
for promotion consideration to MSG

	b.  Paragraph 5-7 (Eligibility Criteria for Selection Board Consideration) stated the 
eligibility criteria for selection board consideration are listed below. A Soldier must meet 
these criteria before the selection board convenes to qualify for inclusion in a zone of 
consideration, in part:

*	NCOES – Soldier must meet NCOES requirements of paragraph 1-28
*	time in grade for selection to MSG – 36 months as an SFC (nonwaivable)
*	time in service for selection to MSG – 12 years

	c.  Paragraph 7-23 (NCOES Requirements for Promotion) stated Soldiers who are 
boarded and placed on a promotion list after 1 January 2016 must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraph 1-28a for (pin-on) promotion to the next higher 
grade. Soldiers on an approved promotion list prior to this publication will remain under 
the NCOES requirements until the next annual board cycle. The provisions of 
paragraph 1-28a also applied.

3.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Demotions), effective 
26 November 2023 and currently in effect, prescribes enlisted promotion and demotion 
(previously known as reduction) functions. It is linked to the Army Regulation 600-8 
series and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, 
and steps governing all work required to support promotions and demotions.

	a.  Paragraph 1-28a (NCOES Requirement for Promotion and Conditional 
Promotion) states that except for promotions completed under the provisions of 
paragraph 1-11, Soldiers (all components) must complete the following professional 
military education courses:

*	graduation of SLC – for SFC except for Regular Army Soldiers awarded primary 
military occupational specialty (PMOS) 42S (Special Band Musicians)
*	completion of DLC Level 4 – for consideration to MSG and a pin-on requirement 
for MSG for Regular Army Soldiers awarded PMOS 42S
*	completion of MLC – for pin-on to MSG except for Regular Army Soldiers 
awarded PMOS 42S

	b.  Chapter 6 (Enlisted Promotions of ARNG Personnel), section IV (Promotion to 
Sergeant through Sergeant Major), paragraph 6-19 (Criteria), notes for those promoted 
to MSG prior to 1 January 2019, MLC and DLC Level 5 is not required.

4.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 1 January 2016 and in effect 
at the time, prescribed the 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 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 DA Form 1059.

		(1)  School commandants or training division or brigade commanders will ensure 
that AER comments are based on observation of a student's qualities, strengths, 
weaknesses, deficiencies, and overall performance.

		(2)  Schools will submit AERs to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) 
(or the appropriate headquarters), by mail or e-mail, until electronic submission 
capability is available, for inclusion in the Soldiers' Official Military Personnel Files 
(OMPFs).

	b.  Paragraph 3-17 (Comments) stated that in preparing their comments, rating 
officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation to communicate a meaningful 
description of a Soldier's performance and potential. In this manner, both HQDA 
selection boards and career managers are given the needed information on which to 
base a decision.

	c.  Paragraph 3-27 (Referred DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059-1) stated 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 HQDA:

		(1)  any "NO" response;

		(2)  a "Failed to Achieve Course Standards" rating. If item 11d (Failed to Achieve 
Course Standards) 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" AERs require an additional 
review; and

		(3)  any comments so derogatory that the AER may have an adverse impact on 
the Soldier's career.

	d.  Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) 
stated an evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a 
rated Soldier is presumed to:

		(1)  be administratively correct,

		(2)  have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the 
minimum time and grade qualifications, and

		(3)  represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating 
officials at the time of preparation.

	e.  Paragraph 4-7f (Policies) stated an appeal will be supported by substantiated 
evidence. An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust 
without usable supporting evidence will not be considered. The determination regarding 
adequacy of evidence may be made by the HQDA Evaluation Appeals Branch, National 
Guard Bureau Appeals Section, or the appropriate State Adjutant General.

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

		(1)  the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-36a and 4-7a will 
not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration; and

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

	g.  Paragraph 4-13 (Appeals Based on Substantive Inaccuracy) stated a decision to 
appeal an evaluation report will not be made lightly. Before deciding whether or not to 
appeal, the prospective appellant will analyze the case dispassionately. This is difficult 
but unless it is done, the chances of a successful appeal are reduced. The prospective 
appellant will note that:

		(1)  Once the decision has been made to appeal an evaluation report, the 
appellant will state succinctly what is being appealed and the basis for the appeal. For 
example, the appellant will state:

		(a)  whether the entire report is contested or only a specific part or comment, and

		(b)  the basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an 
erroneous perception of his/her performance. Note that a personality conflict between 
the appellant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal; it 
will be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust 
evaluation.

		(2)  Most appellants will never be completely satisfied with the evidence 
obtained. A point is reached, however, when the appellant will decide whether to submit 
with the available evidence or to forgo the appeal entirely. The following factors are to 
be considered:

		(a)  The evidence must support the allegation. The appellant needs to remember 
that the case will be reviewed by impartial board members who will be influenced only 
by the available evidence. Their decision will be based on their best judgment of the 
evidence provided.

		(b)  Correcting minor administrative errors or deleting one official's rating does 
not invalidate the report.

	h.  There were no provisions for removal of properly executed DA Forms 1059 from 
Soldiers' AMHRRs on the basis of elective (not required for promotion eligibility) 
attendance. (Note: This remains unchanged in the current version of the regulation 
effective 20 June 2019.)

5.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and 
procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in 
individual official personnel files. Chapter 7 contains the policy for appeals and petitions 
for removal of unfavorable information from official personnel files. It states that 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. It 
further stipulates that only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the 
subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the OMPF.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) 
prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and 
disposition of the AMHRR. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the OMPF, 
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. Table 3-1 (Composition of the OMPF) shows a 
DA Form 1059 is filed in the performance folder of the OMPF.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230005461


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1