APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Removal of a noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering his performance for the period April 1993 through October 1993 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  The inaccurate assessment of his leadership skills, responsibility and accountability, and overall performance and potential was biased due to a personality conflict.  A Commander’s Inquiry or any other type of investigation was not requested.  He felt that he would not have received any favorable action since the chain of command supported any decision made by his rater whether right or wrong.

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

On 13 April 1977, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for 6 years.  On 25 May 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army and has remained on active duty through subsequent extensions and reenlistments.  He was promoted to pay grade E-7 effective 1 December 1989.  He has served in military occupational specialties (MOS) 75D (Personnel Records Specialist), 00J (Club Manager), and 75Z (Personnel Sergeant).

The applicant attended the Primary Leadership Development Course from 13 August 1983 through 9 September 1983.  He achieved the course standards academically.  However, he failed to achieve a passing score in the Army Physical Readiness Test administered in the 4th week of the course, and he also failed the diagnostic test administered during the 1st week.

The following is a record of the applicant’s available enlisted evaluation reports/NCOERs [i.e., DA Form(s) 2166-6 and DA Form(s) 2166-7]:  Note that, for DA Form(s) 2166-6 only, the average score is shown with 125 being the maximum score achievable.  Also, note that, for DA Form(s) 2166-7, the rating system depicted below is limited to three entries:  the first entry is derived from Part Va (the rater’s rating of the NCO’s overall potential for promotion and or service in positions of greater responsibility), expressed in Roman numerals, with “I” (Among the Best) the highest and “III” (Marginal) the lowest; and the last two entries are derived from Part Vc (the senior rater’s (SR) rating of the NCO’s overall performance) and Part Vd (the SR’s rating of the NCO’s overall potential for promotion and or service in positions of greater responsibility) respectively, also expressed in Roman numerals, with “I thru III” indicating a rating of “Successful/Superior”, “IV” indicating a rating of “Fair”, and “V” indicating a rating of “Poor.”

			 Score/
	Period	Rater/SR	 Rank  Position	   Type Report

May 78-Aug 79	125		 SP5	  Data Anal Sp	   Initial
Sep 79-May 81	125		 SP5	  Data Anal	   Ch of Rater
Jun 81-Feb 82 (Was invalidated by the U.S. Army Enlisted
			Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC))
Mar 82-Aug 82	125		 SP5	  OJT Club	   Ch of Rater
						  Manager
Sep 82-Apr 83	124		 SP5	  Annex Manager   Ch of Rater
May 83-Feb 84	125		 SSG	  Annex Manager   Ch of Rater
Mar 84-Sep 84	123		 SSG	  Annex Manager   Ch of Rater
Oct 84-Mar 85	125		 SSG	  Asst Annex	   Ch of Rater
						  Manager
Apr 85-Aug 85	124		 SSG	  Club Annex      Ch of Rater
						  Manager
Sep 85-Aug 86	125		 SSG	  Club Manager	   Annual
Sep 86-Apr 87	125		 SSG	  Club Manager	   Ch of Rater
May 87-Apr 88	125		 SSG	  Morale Welfare  Annual
						  Recreation NCO
Jun 88-Feb 89	I/II/II	 SSG	  NCOIC, Morale   Ch of Rater
						  Welfare, and
						  Recreation
						  Activities Div
Mar 89-Feb 90	I/I/II	 SFC	  NCOIC Enl	   Annual
						  Promotions Sec
Mar 90-Sep 90	I/III/III	 SFC	  NCOIC Enl       Ch of Rater
						  Promotions Sec
			 Score/
	Period	Rater/SR	 Rank  Position   	   Type Report

Oct 90-Jun 91	II/II/II	SFC	  NCOIC		   Ch of Rater
						  Promotions Br
Jul 91-May 92	II/III/III SFC	  NCOIC		   Ch of Rater
						  Promotions Sec
Jun 92-Mar 93	I/II/II	 SFC	  PAC Supervisor  Ch of Rater
Apr 93-Oct 93	III/III/IV SFC   PAC Supervisor  Ch of Rater*
Nov 93-Mar 94	III/IV/IV	 SFC	  PAC Supervisor  Ch of 
									   Rater**
Apr 94-Dec 94	II/II/II	 SFC	  PAC Supervisor  Ch of Rater
Jan 95-Jun 95	I/II/II	 SFC	  PAC Supervisor  Ch of Rater
Jul 95-Apr 96	I/II/I	 SFC	  PSNCO		   Ch of Rater
__________
*Contested NCOER.  The rater indicated, in effect, that the applicant repeatedly had multiple “USR“ errors, a skill level two task; that his skills were weak; that he failed the courtesy inspection on 17 August 1993; that he continually failed to properly utilize all section assets; that he did not place enough emphasis on mission accomplishment; that he failed to properly maintain facilities and equipment for 2 months as directed; that he repeatedly was directed to track NCOERs, but he assigned the task to a “PFC” resulting in failure; and that he failed to implement equipment upgrades as directed.  The SR indicated, in effect, that the applicant’s technical proficiency in his assigned MOS required improvement; that he worked hard for little success; that his potential was limited; and that he should not be promoted.
**The same SR as for the contested NCOER indicated, in effect, that the applicant worked very hard for little gain; that some actions were not completed; that his potential was limited; and that he should be promoted, only after all contemporaries.
________

With his application, the applicant submitted a statement from the former NCOER Clerk of his battalion, which was complimentary to the applicant.  Also, he submitted a copy of a letter of appreciation from a physician’s assistant and documents pertaining to maintenance requests and a 3 August 1993 physical security evaluation.

Facts relating to the applicant’s contention that the contested NCOER should be removed from the records are contained in the Case Summary (COPY ATTACHED) of the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated.

On 22 April 1996, the USAEREC sent a memorandum to the applicant advising him that the ESRB determined that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the report.

Army Regulation 623-205 establishes the policies and procedures for the preparation and submission of the NCOERs for corporals through command sergeants major.  Paragraph 
4-2 provides that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of the 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.  Paragraph 4-7 of that regulation states that the burden of proof in an appeal of a NCOER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration, and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Paragraph 6-4 provides that each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period.

Army Regulation 623-205, at paragraph 2-15, provides that, when it is brought to the attention of commanders that a report rendered by one of their subordinates or by a member of one of their subordinate commands may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of the regulation, they will look into the allegation.  These matters may be brought to the commander’s attention by the rated NCO or anyone having knowledge of the alleged illegality, injustice, or violation.  The Commander’s Inquiry will be made by a commander (major or above) in the chain of command above the designated rating official(s) involved in the allegations.  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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, 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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

3.  The applicant has not shown that the rating officials’ evaluations represented other than their objective judgment and considered opinions at the time they prepared the contested NCOER, or that they exercised faulty judgment in evaluating him as they did.

4.  Cognizance is taken of the supporting statement furnished on behalf of the applicant.  While the third party statement is complimentary to the applicant, the person submitting it did not occupy vantage points similar to the rating officials and was not privy to the interaction between the applicant and the rating officials, or the requirements and expectations of the rating officials.

5.  The Board is aware of the applicant’s EERs/NCOERs prior and subsequent to the contested NCOER.  However, by regulation, an NCOER must be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period.

6.  Also, by regulation, a Commander’s Inquiry will be made by a commander in the chain of command above the designated rating official(s) involved in the allegations.  Therefore, the Board questions the applicant’s rationale for not requesting a Commander’s Inquiry.

7.  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.

8.  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