APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that a letter of reprimand and an adverse NCO evaluation report (NCOER) be removed from his official file.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was selected to attend the NCO advanced course in 1987 and should have been promoted to pay grade E-7, however, the following year he received a letter of reprimand for driving while intoxicated, and an adverse NCOER.  In 1992 he received a DA bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program for these reasons.  He appealed this bar and his appeal was approved on 
16 June 1992.  Nevertheless, the letter of reprimand and the adverse NCOER in his records cause him not to be selected for promotion.  

The applicant states that an error or injustice was made during the years 1986 through 1995.  He has been an outstanding soldier, has met all the qualifications for promotion to pay grade E-7, received numerous awards including the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and two Army Achievement Medals.  During Operation Just Cause in Panama he and his platoon were selected to guard General Noriega’s house, and he trained and evaluated National Guard and Reserve units during their annual training.  He received the adverse NCOER because of a personality conflict between himself and his rater.  He did not appeal the NCOER, but now realizes he should have done so.  During the entire rating period he was never counseled by his rater.  He is a professional and competent NCO.  

He states that he requested that the DA Suitability Evaluation Board transfer the letter of reprimand to his restricted fiche, but his request was denied.  He was considered for promotion under the January 1993 criteria by a DA Standby Advisory Board because of a material error in his records (the bar to reenlistment was still in his records), but he was not selected for promotion.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army in 1977 and has remained on continuous active duty.  He attained the rank of Staff Sergeant E-6, has received numerous awards, completed air assault and jungle training, NCO courses, drill sergeant school, master fitness course, and the Army recruiter course.  His assignments have included duty in the Sinai.
The applicant’s evaluation reports, except for the adverse report he received for the period June 1989 through January 1990, have been no less than outstanding.

In April 1988 the applicant received a letter of reprimand for driving while intoxicated.  He appealed that action, requesting that the letter be placed in his local file, as opposed to his official file.  On 24 August 1988 the applicant’s appeal was denied, and the division commander, a major general, directed that the letter be filed in his official file.

The applicant received an NCOER for the period June 1989 through January 1990 in which the rater stated that the applicant disregards orders for personal interest and that his off duty activities sometimes interfered with his duty performance.  The rater considered his overall potential for promotion only marginal, and the senior rater rated his performance and overall potential as fair.

On 15 January 1992 the applicant received a DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program (QMP).  He appealed that bar, and his appeal was approved on 16 June 1992.

On 13 October 1992 the applicant requested that the letter of reprimand be transferred from the performance to the restricted fiche of his official file.  That request was denied by the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) on 
10 December 1992.

The applicant received promotion reconsideration to pay grade E-7 by a standby advisory board which convened on 
26 October 1993.  He was not recommended for promotion.

Army Regulation 640-10 sets forth the basic authority for filing of documents in the OMPF (official file).  Table 4-1 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that NCOER will be filed in the performance fiche of the OMPF, and that administrative letters of reprimand or admonition of a nonpunitive nature would be filed on the performance fiche of the OMPF only if the provisions of Army Regulation 600-37 had been complied with.

Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth the basic authority for the filing of unfavorable information in the OMPF.  Paragraph 3-4 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a nonpunitive letter of reprimand or admonition would be filed in the OMPF only when directed by a general officer senior to the recipient or by direction of the officer having general court-martial jurisdiction over the recipient.

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.  The administrative letter of reprimand was properly imposed as an administrative measure and was properly filed on the performance fiche of the OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations.

2.  The applicant has not shown that the adverse NCOER contained any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  It was correctly filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board that the intended effect of the letter of reprimand has been served and that the removal of the letter would be in the best interest of justice; nor has he shown that the adverse NCOER was unfair or unjust, and that the report represented other than an objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing either document from his official file. 

4.  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.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

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