| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Removal of a noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period June 1999 through March 2000 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the contested NCOER was unjustly given in retaliation for filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint for being in an unsafe working environment. He contends that the report and comments are inaccurate, unproven derogatory comments and nonfactual. He goes on to state that the entire allegations in the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation are taken out of context and blown way out of proportion or more or less an exaggeration and misguided information.
He states that his appeal of the ten-month relief for cause evaluation report was based on both administrative and substantive errors. He contends that the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) did not fully understand the pattern of the rating official to render an unjust and unfair report, that the evidence he provided with his appeal was not only clear but convincing to justify the removal of the NCOER, that the NCOER was not properly prepared by the proper designated rating officials according to the published rating scheme, and that the rating officials did not make an honest, fair evaluation based on his performance and potential. He goes on to state that at no time was he given any credit on his achievement and potential and that the rating official discriminated in their evaluation. He contends that the senior rater (SR) was not in his direct line of supervision.
He contends that the comments in Part IVa (Values/NCO Responsibilities) through IVf and Part Va (Overall Performance and Potential) through Ve on the contested NCOER are all unproven derogatory comments and that the reviewer initiated an AR 15-6 investigation which was never founded and substantiated by his chain of command. He further states that the ESRB case summary and the NCOER mentioned that he denied receiving counseling for rehabilitation. He contends that this is not true and is misguided information.
He further states that the commander’s inquiry stated that the contested NCOER does not form the basis to direct a relief of cause based on the facts he discovered in his investigation, that a command sergeant major (CSM) stated the same thing, and that the AR 15-6 investigating officer should have been someone from outside of the Judge Advocate General family, in order to make it a fair and honest process. He pointed out that the CSM also indicated that the applicant was being punished twice for something irrelevant to the NCOER, that the AR 15-6 investigation was tainted from the beginning and that the counseling received from the rater did not indicate a relief for cause, but the reviewer wanted it.
He goes on to state that his chain of command did not make a decision to relieve him, that during the time in question he never had any problems with female soldiers, and that the claim made by female soldiers in the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) that he can not work with female soldiers is disturbing and untrue.
He states that the AR 15-6 investigating officer found that he displayed a consistent pattern of lying or misleading matters. He indicates that what is being referred to here was the rating scheme that was published both by the SJA’s office and the Trial Defense Service (TDS). He states that this was changed by the SJA himself, that he had nothing to do with it and that’s the reason the counseling received from the SJA was not signed. He denies the allegations of being rude to customers, he states that his job performance was always above standard at all times and that he was never given any rehabilitation as they claimed.
The applicant contends that the AR 15-6 investigating officer recommended exactly what the SJA had wished for, but the appointing authority did not approve her findings and recommendations after he found out the facts. He claims the appointing authority later gave him a letter of support after he found out that the applicant was given a relief for cause NCOER. He contends that he was wrongfully referred for mental health counseling on two occasions and that he was not given any due process as claimed by the AR 15-6 investigating officer.
The applicant concludes by stating that the AR 15-6 investigation was found to be legally sufficient; however, the appointing authority did not support it based on the facts. The Commanding General of the 19th Theater Support Command (TSC) also did not support their recommendation and later appointed the commander’s inquiry investigating officer. He contends the rating officials did not follow the findings of the commander’s inquiry investigating officer, that the 19th TSC had a change of command and the major general that took command took action while the commander’s inquiry investigating officer was on leave and he based his decision on the advice given to him by the SJA on such a short notice. He indicated that he filed a reprisal with the Eighth U.S. Army Inspector General before he left Korea and that the case is still pending with the Department of the Army Inspector General. He states that he was an outstanding soldier before going to Korea and after leaving Korea, that he is proud to be a soldier and will continue serving regardless of any distractions, and that he did not receive any disciplinary action while in Korea. He claims that the AR 15-6 investigation was solely used to paint a negative picture and to destroy his character.
In support of his application, the applicant submits a letter of explanation, dated 22 March 2002; and numerous appeal documents.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant has continuously served on active duty since 22 February 1989 and was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) on 1 April 2000. He holds military occupational specialty 71D (legal specialist) and is currently serving as the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) for the Office of the SJA in Fort Hood, Texas.
A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 30 September 1999, shows the applicant was counseled for changing a rating chain (SR and reviewer) without permission. The applicant refused to sign the counseling statement. Subsequent to this counseling session a “Corrected Copy” of the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting Scheme was published showing the Deputy SJA of the 19th Theater Army Area Command (TAACOM) as the applicant’s SR effective 1 June 1999.
On 7 March 2000, a request for an informal investigation was initiated by the applicant’s command into the allegations of unprofessional conduct, aggressive behavior, acts of intimidation, and other misconduct alleged to have been committed by the applicant.
On 13 March 2000, a board of officers convened and found that the applicant displayed a consistent pattern of lying or misleading about matters that range from the important to the trivial and that this consistent pattern evidences that the soldier cannot be relied upon, even in the most trivial details, to tell the truth; that the applicant persistently engages in aggressive behavior toward others, both outside the office and with OSJA [Office of the Staff Judge Advocate] personnel; that the applicant routinely displays disrespectful, discourteous, and disruptive behavior to other legal personnel; that the applicant is routinely rude to clients, in both the OSJA and TDS offices; that in addition to rudeness and discourtesy, the applicant fails to perform his duties to the standard expected of a legal clerk of his rank and time in service; and that additional rehabilitative measures will not be in the best interest of the Army in light of the fact that he continues to be a disciplinary problem, in spite of having already been given multiple fresh starts in the last two years. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be given due process under the provisions of paragraph 1-8c, AR 15-6; that he be flagged; removed from the promotion list; barred from reenlistment; given a relief for cause NCOER; and processed for separation under paragraphs 14-12a and 14-12b, AR 635-200.
On 14 March 2000, a legal review of the investigation (board of officers) was conducted and it was determined to be legally sufficient. The investigation complied with legal requirements, sufficient evidence supports the findings, and the recommendations are consistent with the findings.
On 24 March 2000, the approval authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers that the applicant be given due process under the provisions of paragraph 1-8c, AR 15-6; that the applicant be flagged and that the applicant be removed from the sergeant first class promotion list. However, the recommendation that the applicant be given a relief for cause NCOER was not directed by the approval authority. He indicated that it is the responsibility of the rater, SR and reviewer. He further stated that they would proceed according to the applicant’s performance. He also disapproved the recommendation that the applicant be processed for separation under paragraphs 14-12a and 14-12b, AR 635-200.
On 4 April 2000, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Contemplated Relief for Cause NCOER and the AR 15-6 Report of Investigation.
On 17 April 2000, the applicant requested that a commander’s inquiry be conducted into the AR 15-6 investigation. He indicated that after reviewing the findings and recommendations, he believes there is good reason to believe that the report rendered is unjust and damaging.
On 27 April 2000, the applicant received a relief for cause NCOER covering the period June 1999 through March 2000, which evaluated the applicant as a staff sergeant while he was serving as the NCOIC for the TDS, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 19th TAACOM in Korea.
In Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) the rater, a captain, indicated that the applicant had been initially counseled on 15 June 1999 and received later counseling on 29 September 1999, 4 February 2000 and 25 February 2000. In Part IVa (Values/NCO Responsibilities) the rater responded “No” to the question “Is committed to and shows a sense of pride in the unit – works as a member of the team” and explained this response with the bullet comment “makes the extra effort to accomplish the mission when he chooses to do so” and “lack of self-control and sometimes poor attitude have caused conflict in the workplace and negatively impacted mission accomplishment.”
In Part IVb (Competence) the rater gave the applicant a “Needs Improvement Some” rating and the bullet comments were “can be temperamental and rude to others without provocation” and “behaves sullenly and resentfully weeks after being corrected on a deficiency.” In Part IVc-e the rater gave the applicant three success ratings with no accompanying bullet comments. Further, in Part IVf (Responsibility & Accountability) the rater gave the applicant a “Needs Improvement Some” rating and the bullet comments were “accountability and client service were often lacking when OIC [officer in charge] was TDY [temporary duty]”, “the rated NCO has been notified of the reason for relief” and “relief directed by senior rater, not rater.”
In Part Va (Overall Performance and Potential) the rater assigned a “Marginal” rating and in Part Vc (Overall Performance) and Part Vd (Overall Potential) the SR [Deputy SJA of the 19th TAACOM] assigned a 5 (Poor) score. The bullet comments in Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) were “generates extremely negative morale in office environment by intimidating and verbally abusing co-workers and clients”, “disrespectful and insubordinate to both officers and senior noncommissioned officer; lacks potential for next higher grade”, “displays poor military bearing; frequently displays seething anger and uncontrolled violent emotions”, “displays remarkable inability to tell the truth” and “does not respond to counseling or rehabilitation efforts.”
The evidence of record includes a statement from the reviewer wherein he states that he concurs with the SR that the applicant “displays a remarkable inablility to tell the truth”. He indicates that he does not concur with the rater that the block in Part IVa(4) [Is honest and truthful in word and deed] should be marked “Yes”. He further states that throughout the rating period the applicant frequently displayed an extreme lack of veracity, truthfulness, and honesty. In his opinion, the block in Part IV(a)(4) should be marked “No”. He also indicated that he had discussed the apparent discrepancy with the rater and the SR.
On 16 June 2000, a commander’s inquiry was conducted and the investigating officer found that the basis of the relief for cause NCOER was the AR 15-6 investigation. He noted that two approved investigation recommendations, that the applicant receive administrative flagging and removal from the sergeant first class promotion list, had received no support from the Commander as of 16 June 2000. Another key investigation recommendation, to give the applicant a relief for cause NCOER, was “not directed” by the appointing authority. The rating chain simply received guidance to proceed “according to the rated soldier’s performance.”
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer found that a review of verified face-to-face performance counseling statements administered throughout the disputed rating period, do not support the negative bullet comments on the NCOER or form the basis for a relief for cause NCOER. Unfavorable conduct during the rating period, alleged about the applicant in the AR 15-6 investigation, was not mentioned in any counseling statements reviewed.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer found that the record of counseling dates on the NCOER, Part IIIf is questionable. For the dates of 4 February 2000 and 25 February 2000, no verified counseling could be found. The counseling dates on the NCOER also show a required quarterly counseling, due December 1999, never happened. The commander’s inquiry investigating officer stated that the rater informed him that this was his first experience with NCOERs and the first time he had ever been a NCOER rater. He did not use the mandatory NCO counseling checklist/record, required by regulation, or counsel the applicant according to the rules and checklist of the form. However, he did counsel the applicant using the General Counseling Form and he completed all required counseling except a December 1999 quarterly counseling. The rater believes the applicant did not deserve a relief for cause NCOER, disagreeing with the SR.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer points out that the SR directed the relief for cause NCOER. His performance bullets and blocks checked, on the NCOER, are not supported by the rater’s verified face-to-face performance counselings. Additionally, the SR did no personal counseling with the applicant and his actions in the required process are questionable. The SR performance responsibilities, outlined in AR 635-205, paragraph 3-8, clearly state he was to “Use all reasonable means to become familiar with the rated NCO’s performance such as a periodical review of the counseling checklist to ensure initial and quarterly counseling is being accomplished.” No proof exists that the SR seriously overwatched the performance evaluation, mentored the applicant, or mentored the rater. This was clearly his primary role – especially when dealing with someone who was a first time rater of an NCO.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer also found that the reviewer acted in accordance with his responsibilities outlined in AR 15-6, paragraph 3-10. He counseled the applicant on 30 September 1999 for changing a rating chain without permission. The rater disputes the reviewer’s counseling supporting the applicant.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer points out that the applicant accomplished additional missions/tasks during the disputed rating period. These missions/tasks, normally and routinely, receive recognition in most NCO ratings. For example, the applicant completed three credit hours towards his master’s degree. Also, to his credit, the applicant was the company platoon sergeant – a job normally avoided in a Headquarters and Headquarters Company operating environment. Of note, the applicant’s platoon produced the 19th TAACOM [Theater Army Area Command] “KATUSA” [Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army Soldier] of the year.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer also pointed out that the applicant’s previous NCOER, prior to the contested relief for cause NCOER, documents no problems with his conduct or performance and the SR for the contested NCOER is also the SR of the applicant’s previous NCOER.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer found that a mental status evaluation clears the applicant of any psychiatric disorder.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer concluded that the AR 15-6 investigation did not form the basis to direct a relief for cause NCOER based on the soldier’s performance. He further concluded that considering the limited number of verified positive and negative face-to-face counselings, the relief for cause NCOER is inappropriate.
The commander’s inquiry investigating officer recommended that the NCOER be returned to the reviewer and that the reviewer be advised to correct the report based on verified face-to-face performance counselings and the applicant’s performance mentioned above.
On 10 July 2000, the Commanding General of the 19th TAACOM reviewed the findings of the commander’s inquiry investigating officer. The Commanding General did not adopt the findings and recommendations of the commander’s inquiry investigating officer. The Commanding General found that an extensive AR 15-6 investigation and the investigating officer’s uncontradicted approved findings provided sufficient grounds and support for the decision of the SR to relieve the applicant in accordance with AR 623-205, paragraph 2-10; the rating officials were properly designated and the SR directed relief; and the rated soldier received detailed and appropriate initial and follow-up counseling on DA Form 4856, but the DA Form 2166-7 was not used. The counseling was adequate despite the failure to use the DA Form 2166-7 and does not make the relief report inaccurate or unjust. The Commanding General concluded that the relief for cause NCOER was prepared in substantial compliance with AR 623-205 and is not illegal or unjust. He also noted that the applicant was in a promotable status when relieved and has subsequently been promoted to the rank of sergeant first class.
On 1 November 2000, the applicant prepared an appeal to the contested NCOER and his appeal packet was received by the ESRB on 15 May 2001. He based his appeal on the contention that the contested report contained administrative (incorrect SR) and substantive errors (the “No” rating and negative bullet comments in Part IVa; the “Needs Improvement Some” and negative bullet comments in Part IVb; the “Needs Improvement Some” and negative bullet comments in Part IVf; the “Marginal” rating in Part Va; and all of the SR ratings and comments in Parts Vc, d, and e) and that the NCOER be removed from his records.
During the processing of the applicant’s appeal, the ESRB deemed it unnecessary to contact the rating officials. The ESRB determined a just decision could be rendered based on the evidence presented.
The ESRB found the applicant’s contention regarding the SR was unsubstantiated. The ESRB noted that the applicant failed to provide any documentation to prove that his rater was not his rater at a minimum of “the last two rated months” of the rating period. The ESRB also pointed out that the commander’s inquiry results verifies that the “rating officials were properly designated and the senior rater directed the relief.”
The ESRB noted the applicant’s allegation that the NCOER contains inaccurate, unjust, biased comments, and references unproven derogatory information. The applicant contends that the NCOER is a result of a reprisal for filing an IG complaint, that the AR 15-6 investigation was conducted but the results were unsubstantiated “because it was based on lies and wrongful allegations.” The applicant states “the SR was influenced by the reviewer that I filed a complaint against, and also the SR has no direct supervision over me whatsoever, since I belong to TDS.” The applicant denies receiving counseling for rehabilitation as stated in the NCOER. The applicant concluded that the Department of the Army Inspector General is conducting their own investigation and he is currently pending the final report.
To dispute the contested NCOER the applicant provided the results of the commander’s inquiry and a letter from his battalion CSM. The commander’s inquiry investigating officer concluded that the AR 15-6 investigation did not form the basis to direct a relief for cause NCOER based upon the applicant’s performance. The commander’s inquiry investigating officer maintained that based upon the limited number of verified face-to-face performance counseling, “the relief for cause NCOER is inappropriate.” His recommendation was to return the NCOER to the reviewer and advise him to correct the report base upon verified face-to-face counseling. The CSM stated that he reviewed the finding of the AR 15-6 investigation and the CSM felt that the investigating officer should have been someone outside of the SJA chain. He stated “My review of the counseling conducted by his rater at time did not indicate anything that would warrant removable from the promotion list or a Relief for Cause EER.”
The ESRB noted that the AR 15-6 investigation found that “[the applicant] has displayed a consistent pattern of lying or misleading about matters that range from the important to the trivial: …this consistent pattern evidences that the soldier cannot be relied upon, even in the most trivial details, to tell the truth. … That [the applicant] is routinely rude to clients, in both OSJA and TDS offices. … That in addition to rudeness & discourtesy, [the applicant] fails to perform his duties to the standard expected of a legal clerk of his rank and time in service: … That additionally rehabilitative measures will not be in the best interest of the Army in light of the fact that he continues to be a disciplinary problem, in spite of having already been given multiple fresh starts in the last two years.”
The investigating officer states in her recommendation “While early in the investigation I thought perhaps mental health counseling with emphasis on anger management, and reclassification into a MOS that required fewer ‘people’ skills might be appropriate, at the conclusion of my investigation when faced with such a consistent pattern of misbehavior, I decided that an NCO who can not work with soldiers, whether subordinates, peers, or superiors, and most importantly cannot be trusted to tell the truth, on top of all other issues, does not belong in the U.S. Army.” The investigating officer recommended that the applicant be given due process, removed from the promotion list, barred from reenlistment, given a relief for cause NCOER, and processed for separation.
The ESRB points out that a legal review of the AR 15-6 investigation was conducted and found “legally sufficient.” The investigation complied with the legal requirements, sufficient evidence supported the findings, and the recommendations were consistent with the findings. Based upon the extensive AR 15-6 investigation conducted by the AR 15-6 investigating officer, the Commanding General, overturned the findings and recommendations by the commander’s inquiry investigating officer. The General stated that the AR 15-6 provided sufficient grounds and support for the decision of the SR to relieve the applicant. He confirmed that the applicant received detail and appropriate initial and follow-up counseling, despite the failure to use the correct form.
The ESRB opined that the applicant has failed to provide any documentation to support his contention that the SR was influenced by the reviewer to render the relief for cause evaluation report. On the contrary, the four page “Affidavit of Major [last name]” gives a chronological sequence of events centered on the preparation/presentation of the contested report that refutes the applicant’s claim. The board agrees with the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation and the Commanding General. The board also determined that if the “future” findings of the Department of the Army Inspector General investigation, that the applicant makes reference to, significantly increase the validity of the applicant’s appeal, he may resubmit his request as a second appeal. Based upon the evidence provided, the applicant’s contentions lack merit for approval.
Third party statements from superiors speak highly of the applicant’s performance. The memos provided by the applicant recognize him as a professional NCO and a good soldier. In addition, the statement from the battalion CSM questions the “soundness” of having someone within the SJA chain conduct the AR 15-6 investigation. However, the CSM does not indicate that the information contained in the AR 15-6 investigation is inaccurate or that the investigating officer failed to perform her assigned duties. Therefore, the statements provided by the applicant’s supervisors and the CSM do not substantiate any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of regularity.
In summary, the applicant did not provide and the ESRB did not find either probative evidence or persuasive argument in support of his contentions. The board concluded that based upon the information provided by the applicant there is not sufficiently convincing evidence that the contested NCOER is inaccurate, unjust, and does not adequately reflect the applicant’s performance and potential demonstrated during the rating period. In view of these determinations, the board concluded there was no basis to grant the applicant’s request for appeal.
On 24 January 2002, the applicant was notified of the ESRB’s decision to deny his appeal.
The applicant provided no evidence regarding the findings of the Department of the Army Inspector General. However, the AR 15-6 investigation contained a statement by the applicant’s reviewing officer for the contested NCOER, dated
8 March 2000, which stated, “[The applicant] then went to the Inspector General with his complaint. The IG investigated and found nothing amiss.”
Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System) sets the policies and procedures governing the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS). It gives instructions for preparing, processing, submitting DA Form 2166-7 (NCOER), and DA Form 2166-7-1 (NCO Counseling Checklist/Record). It also gives guidance for appealing evaluation reports.
Paragraph 3-1 of Army Regulation 623-205 provides the evaluation role of the rating official. It states, in pertinent part, that rating officials must prepare complete, accurate, and fully considered evaluation reports and that evaluations will not normally be based on isolated minor incidents.
Paragraph 4-2 of Army Regulation 623-205 states that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a noncommissioned officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.
Paragraph 4-7 of Army Regulation 623-205 contains guidance on the burden of proof and type of evidence necessary to support an NCOER appeal. It states, in pertinent part, that to support a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence must include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated NCO or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant’s performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions affording them good opportunity to observe, firsthand, the applicant’s performance as well as interactions with rating officials.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the contested NCOER was unjustly given in retaliation for filing an IG complaint for being in an unsafe working environment. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.
2. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that the report and comments are inaccurate, unproven derogatory comments and nonfactual. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that the contested NCOER was based on substantive errors. However, the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation and the decision rendered on 10 July 2000 by the Commanding General of the 19th TAACOM do not support this contention.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the allegations in the AR 15-6 investigation are taken out of context and blown way out of proportion or more or less an exaggeration and misguided information. However, the evidence of record does not support this contention. Evidence of record shows that a legal review of the AR 15-6 investigation was conducted and found to be “legally sufficient.”
4. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the contested NCOER reflects the wrong SR. However, the evidence of record does not support this contention. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was counseled on
30 September 1999 for changing a rating chain (SR and reviewer) without permission. Subsequent to this counseling session a “Corrected Copy” of the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting Scheme was published showing the Deputy SJA of the 19th TAACOM as the applicant’s SR effective 1 June 1999. The Deputy SJA of the 19th TAACOM was the SR on the contested NCOER. Additionally, on 10 July 2000, the Commanding General of the 19th TAACOM stated “The rating officials were properly designated and the senior rater directed the relief.”
5. The Board notes that the applicant has failed to show to the satisfaction of the Board that the rating for the period June 1999 through March 2000 was unfair.
6. The applicant appealed his NCOER to the ESRB who determined that the evidence provided by the applicant did not justify altering or withdrawing the contested report.
7. 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 this requirement.
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
JL_____ LE_____ ALR_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070890 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030220 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 134.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000451C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the removal of a noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period from January 2002 through August 2002, from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). While the third party statements are complimentary of the applicant’s performance, none of those statements serve to substantiate the applicant’s allegation that her battalion commander, who was not in her rating chain, exerted undue...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000182C070206
The applicant requests the removal of a noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period from August 2001 through December 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion to the pay grade of E-8 retroactive to fiscal year (FY) 2001. He further states that a commander’s inquiry found that there were violations of the regulation; however, no attempt has been made to correct the errors and the report resulted in his not being selected for promotion to...
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 | CY2003 | 2003089417C070212
The ESRB stated that the applicant noted she had received three different "draft" (quotation marks in the original) NCOERs with varying SR comments and evaluations and that her evaluation was changed and the rating lowered after the second Commander's Inquiry. The applicant requested a Commander's Inquiry regarding the contested NCOER. It appears that as a result of this Commander's Inquiry, a second version of the NCOER, signed by the applicant and all rating officials on 21 January 1998,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074799C070403
In Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) of this report, he was rated as Among the Best by his rater, and he received Successful and Superior evaluations from his SR. His substantive claims were in regard to the rater ratings and bullet comments contained in Part Vb-f and the SR ratings and comments in Part Vc-e. Given the substantiated changes to the report directed by the ESRB, the lack of counseling by the rater, the numerous questions as to the validity of the bullet comments used...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011933
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067075C070402
The applicant then worked with her chain of command, the NCOER section at the PSB and a legal assistance officer to have the corrected NCOER placed in her official record. In support of her application, she submits copies of the contested NCOER and the corrected NCOER, statements from the rater, her battalion CSM, a military legal assistance officer and the decision document from the ESRB denying her appeal. Further, the Board believes that the applicant has produced arguments and evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001816
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: a. c. Paragraph 2-1 7b(4) states the reviewer may not direct that the rater and/or senior rater change an evaluation believed to be honest.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001816
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: a. c. Paragraph 2-1 7b(4) states the reviewer may not direct that the rater and/or senior rater change an evaluation believed to be honest.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005135
The applicant requests her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 30 September 2010 through 29 September 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) be corrected by: * removing the negative comment entered in Part IVd (Leadership) * removing the comments in Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) 2. On both reports the rating scheme is the same as the contested report. After a comprehensive review of the applicant's contentions and arguments, evidence...