MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 17 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077596

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member
Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) covering the periods 9507-9606, 9607-9706, and 9701-9711 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that these reports are in error, are unjust, and have hindered his career. He states that Parts IVb. (Rater Values/NCO Responsibilities); IVc. (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing); IVe. (Training); IVf. (Responsibility and Accountability) are incorrect in their evaluation of him. He states that these NCOERs and DA Forms 2166-7-1 (NCO Counseling Checklist Record) reflect errors that are unjust in accordance with Army Regulation 623-205.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted: a copy of a memorandum from the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), dated 10 September 2001, indicating his appeal did not justify removal of his NCOER for the period covering 9507-9606; his Enlisted Record Brief; his DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record; 8 supporting memorandums from personnel of the St Louis Recruiting Battalion; and all other supporting documents (i.e. NCOERs, Awards, Counseling Forms, etc.).

There is no evidence that the applicant ever appealed the NCOERs for the periods 9607-9706 and 9701-9711. Because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies in accordance with Army Regulation 623-205, the Board will not address these reports.

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

He is a sergeant first class (SFC/E-7) serving as an administrative NCO in the United States Army Recruiting Battalion, St. Louis, Missouri.

The applicant received the subject NCOER as an annual report covering a
12-month period from July 1995 through June 1996. At the time he received this report, the applicant was a staff sergeant/E-6 and performing the job of an administrative sergeant. In Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities), the rater rated the applicant in Part IVb. (Competence), Part IVc. (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing), and Part IVe. (Training) as “Success.” He was rated as “Needs Improvement” in Part IVf. (Responsibility and Accountability). It was noted that the applicant had difficulty accepting responsibility for his own actions.

The rater, in Part Va. (Overall Performance and Potential), rated the applicant's overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as "Fully Capable." In Part Vb (Positions in which NCO Could Best Serve), the rater recommended that the applicant could best serve the Army as an Administrative Sergeant, Squad Leader, or a Postal Sergeant.

In Part Vc (Overall Performance), the senior rater rated the applicant’s overall performance as successful, placing him in the 3rd block of 5 blocks. The senior rater rated the applicant’s overall potential for promotion in Part Vd as superior, placing him in the 3rd block of 5 blocks. In Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments), the senior rater stated that the applicant should continue to be developed at the staff sergeant level; that he required little supervision to accomplish most tasks; and that he accomplished the mission when focused.

The applicant was counseled on three separate occasions (7 July 1995, 3 October 1995, and 31 January 1996) during the rating period for the subject NCOER. During his counseling in July, the applicant was told to keep his rater informed and to make sure he stayed on top of his duties and responsibilities. In October, the rater instructed him to ensure all suspenses were met, monitor his responsibilities and be prepared for class. He was counseled in January 1996 regarding keeping the rater informed and staying on top of his duties and responsibilities.

The applicant submitted an appeal of the NCOER covering the period 9507-9606 to the ESRB, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER). The ESRB reviewed the applicant’s NCOER for the period and denied his appeal. The ESRB Case Summary concluded that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient information to convince the ESRB that his NCOER was inaccurate, unjust, or did not adequately reflect his performance and potential demonstrated during the rating period.

Further details concerning the applicant's military career, NCOER history, the contested NCOER, and the ESRB's rationale for denying favorable action on the contested report are set forth in the ESRB case summary and need not be reiterated.

Army Regulation 623-205 prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the military personnel system. It is linked to AR 600-8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS). It also provides guidance regarding redress programs including commander’s inquiries and appeals.

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 contested report covering the period 9507-9606 appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of the applicant's demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from his OMPF.
2. The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies, or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

3. The applicant has submitted no evidence of the substantive inaccuracy of the contested report from anyone in a vantage point equivalent to that of members of the rating chain.

4. Since there is no basis to grant the portion of his request pertaining to the contested evaluation report, there is likewise no basis to grant the remaining requests.

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

__wtm___ __hbo___ __rjw___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077596
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030417
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	111.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.