APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the NCOER for the period 8806-8812 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that the period be declared nonrated time.
APPLICANT STATES: That the NCOER is administratively and substantively inaccurate. He adds that the rater on the contested report was not the person listed on the unit rating scheme.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was a sergeant first class (SFC) serving as a maintenance instructor for the M1/M1A1 tank at the Armor Center and School, Fort Knox, Kentucky, at the time of the contested NCOER. He was rated by the chief enlisted instructor and senior rated by the warrant officer-in-charge of the Branch.
The report is extremely adverse. The rater indicated that the applicant exhibited no NCO values/responsibilities save supporting equal opportunity (Part IVa). He stated that the applicant needed some improvement in his level of competence (Part IVb) and much improvement in his leadership ability (Part IVd). In Part Va, the rater evaluated his potential as marginal.
The senior rater stated that the applicant lacked good communications skills, made hasty decisions under pressure, and placed personal convenience above organizational interests. He rated the applicants performance and potential as fair in Part Vc.
Because the rater for the contested report was not the person indicated as the rater on the unit rating scheme, the Division Chief, a lieutenant colonel, attached a memorandum to the NCOER. He explained that all SFCs in the Branch were supposed to be rated by the Branch NCO-in-charge (NCOIC) who was also the senior enlisted instructor; however due to an oversight caused by his numerous permanent change of station (PCS) deferments, the applicant was listed on the rating scheme as being rated by a different NCO. The Division Chief considered the rating appropriate despite the administrative error.
The applicant appealed the NCOER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB). Because he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, the ESRB returned his appeal without action on 13 July 1995 and instructed him to gather the appropriate documentation and resubmit his claim in accordance with chapter 4, Army Regulation (AR) 623-205. There is no evidence in the applicants record to indicate that he complied with the ESRBs request.
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the ESRB. It contains no information, advice or recommendation which would constitute a basis for granting the relief requested and points out that, during the period in question, the applicant received NJP (nonjudicial punishment) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer. This warrant officer was his senior rater on the contested NCOER.
Army Regulation 623-205 establishes the policies and procedures for the NCOER system. Pertinent paragraphs provide that an NCOER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an NCO, is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. The regulation states that the burden of proof in an appeal of an NCOER rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an NCOER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 the aforementioned requirement.
2. Although the rater on the contested report was not the person named on the unit rating scheme, he was the Branch NCOIC and the proper rater for all SFCs within the Branch. This was verified by the Division Chiefs memorandum, which also explained the administrative oversight that caused the rating scheme to be incorrect.
3. The applicant received NJP for insubordination to his senior rater during the contested rating period. This lends credence to the contention that the applicant was not behaving and performing to standard, and supports the adverse rating.
4. The applicants appeal to the ESRB was returned without action because he failed to support his contentions with sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate error or injustice.
5. The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from his OMPF.
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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009096C070205
The applicant’s appeal was denied; however, the ESRB noted there was evidence that the rated months (apparently based on CW3 H___’s statement that he departed in September 2004) and the duty MOS on the contested NCOER were in error and administratively corrected these two entries. Army Regulation 623-205, paragraph 3-31(b) states that an NCO on TDY (other than for school) who is not responsible to rating officials in his or her parent organization will be rated by the TDY supervisor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091493C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, the ESRB partially approved the applicant’s appeal on 21 January 2000 and directed: a. that USAEREC will change Part IVc (Height) of the contested report from 64 inches to 66 inches; b. that promotion reconsideration is not warranted because of the change in height; c. that the rating officials on the contested report are correct; d. that the supporting documentation submitted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008764C070205
He hereby requests that the Board remove the negative NCOER from his "R" fiche, of his OMPF for the same reasons as he sent to the NCOER Appeal board. The administrative error was that the SR listed on the NCOER was not the officer that served in that position during the rating period. Second, he never saw the NCOER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608497C070209
The commander will confine the inquiry to matters relating to the clarity of the report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the report with the regulation, and the conduct of the rated NCO and rating officials. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the this requirement. Also, by regulation, a Commanders Inquiry will be made by a commander in the chain of command above the designated rating official(s) involved in the allegations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022665
The applicant states: * the contested NCOER contains a false rating scheme and the information within it is incorrect * the contested NCOER was placed in her official records after she had signed out of her unit to make it difficult for her to oppose and have corrected * the chain of command refused to cooperate with correcting the contested NCOER and she was only given 24 hours to sign or rebut the contested report * she submitted two appeals to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, only...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608569C070209
The record indicates that the applicant was counseled about his association with the female SSG on at least three other occasions on 3 June 1991, 18 August 1991 [which also served as a counseling for the contested NCOER], and on 9 September 1991. The ESRB contacted the rater, senior rater, and reviewer of the contested report. The senior rater stated that he assumed command of the detachment in December 1990 and published a new rating scheme immediately thereafter.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065426C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Part IIIc is almost verbatim with Part IIIc of his NCOER for the period ending March 1993 except for mentioning 55 sites (vice 64) and “maintains two Network Control Centers for two uniquely different systems worth over $6 million…” The entry leaves the entire first line blank. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011933
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077596C070215
).There is no evidence that the applicant ever appealed the NCOERs for the periods 9607-9706 and 9701-9711. In Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities), the rater rated the applicant in Part IVb. The ESRB reviewed the applicant’s NCOER for the period and denied his appeal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084388C070212
The rating schemes submitted by the applicant with his appeal consists of a draft copy of a rating scheme dated 14 January 1999, which indicates that the NCO who the applicant says was his rater was marked out and the NCO who rendered the contested report was written in. On 18 June 1999, a new rating scheme was published which shows the NCO who rendered the contested NCOER as the applicant's rater. In the applicant's case, not only did the rating chain at the time believe that the NCO who...