| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
3. Both the above mentioned command sergeant major and colonel state that her duty title on the four NCOERs for which she requests corrections should be career counselor. They also provide a description of daily duties and scope that should be substituted for the description on those four reports.
4. The report for the period 9801-9810 shows that her principal duty title was as a battalion career counselor, duty MOSC 79S40, with the 181st Transportation Battalion in Germany. Her daily duties and scope are as indicated on the report. Her ESRB reflects that duty title. Her DA Form 2-1 shows her duty MOSC as 79S30 and her principal duty as career counselor (separate bn – brigade size).
5. The report for the period 9811-9908 shows that her principal duty title was as a retention NCO, duty MOSC 79S40, with the Medical Department Activity at Fort Sill. Her daily duties and scope are as indicated. Her ESRB reflect her duty position as career counselor. Her DA Form 2-1 reflects her MOSC as 79S40 and her principal duty as career counselor (brigade level).
6. The report for the period 9909-0008 reflects the same information as the previous report. Her ESRB and her DA Form 2-1 are the same.
7. The report for the period 0009-0108 shows that her principal duty title was as a career counselor, duty MOSC 79S40, with the Medical Department Activity at Fort Sill. Her daily duties and scope are as indicated. Her ESRB and DA Form 2-1 are the same.
8. All the reports were signed by the rating officials and the applicant verifying that the administrative information on those reports was accurate. The rating officials on all these reports are not her current rating officials [the command sergeant major and colonel who support her request].
9. Army Regulation 623-205 prescribes responsibilities and provides instructions for the completion of the NCOER. It states in pertinent part that the senior rater will obtain the rated NCOs signature in part II of the NCO-ER. The rated NCO's signature indicates that he or she has seen the completed report (except parts II d and e), has verified that the administrative data (part I) is correct, the rating officials are proper (part II), and the duty description is accurate (part III) and includes the counseling dates.
10. The regulation provides for an NCO Counseling Checklist/Record (DA Form 2166-8-1). That form provides examples, definitions, and step-by-step assistance to the rater for preparing and communicating performance standards and directions to the rated NCO. Specifically, the rater shows the rated NCO the rating chain and a complete duty description. The rater updates the duty description periodically, if necessary.
11. The rated NCO's signature verifies that the duty description (part III) on the NCOER is accurate and includes the counseling dates.
12. Part III provides for the duty description of the rated NCO. It is the responsibility of the rating officials to ensure the duty description information is factually correct. The duty description is entered by the rater and verified with the rated NCO. It is an outline of the normal requirements of the specific duty position, should show type of work required rather than frequently changing tasks, and is essential to performance counseling and evaluation. It is used during the first counseling session to tell the rated NCO what the duties are and what needs to be emphasized. It may be updated during the rating period, and is used at the end of the rating period to record what was important about the duties.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant and her previous rating officials verified the information contained in part III of the contested reports, attesting to their accuracy. She had no problem with the reports when they were prepared and completed. She had ample opportunity prior to completion of those reports to correct any inaccuracies. Notwithstanding the information she has provided, it is presumed that she and her rating officials determined what her duties were at that time. Appropriately, she was rated on how well she performed those duties, not the duties that she now wants to substitute. There is no good reason to correct these reports as she requests because she is now dissatisfied with her duty title and description of her duties on the reports.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RJW__ __GJW__ ___WDP_ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
| CASE ID | AR2003093516 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040408 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2011 | 20110024457
The applicant states: * The Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) failed to properly address numerous errors in the contested report and compounded this with errors of its own * Each of the ESRB's concluding statements is either logically or legally erroneous and require her to prove the counseling did not take place * The bullet comment of "demonstrated poor judgment" under the Leadership block is prohibited since it is brief and may be misinterpreted by selection boards * If the bullet was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002766C070208
In Part IVb-f of the first contested report, the rater gave the applicant three “Success” ratings and two “Needs Improvement (Some)” ratings. The applicant based her appeal on the following factors: the areas of special emphasis identified in Part IIIb were not addressed in Part IV; the counseling dates in Part IIIf were fabricated; the ratings in Part IVa1 and 2 do not equal a Needs Improvement- Some rating; the Needs Improvement-Some rating in Part IVb was for failing a Skill Development...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060262C070421
The Commander’s Inquiry procedures will not be used to document differences of opinion between rating officials (or between the commander and rating officials) about an NCO’s performance and potential. Army Regulation 635-205, paragraph 4-2 states that an NCOER accepted for inclusion in an NCO’s official military personnel file (OMPF) is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and...
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 | CY2012 | 20120007748
d. She is positive the U.S. Army Alaska (USARAL) Command Sergeant Major (CSM) purposely extended her punishment and reprised against her because: * her assignment was curtailed * her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and her NCOER were held up until her supervisor's court-martial concluded * she was flagged from 15 March 2010 to September 2010 when she was permitted to make a permanent change of station (PCS) move * she received a bar to reenlistment without being counseled, and the bar was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150009127
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating period 31 August 2012 through 5 July 2013, specifically to recreate the NCOER with the proper rating chain and change her duty position to Platoon Sergeant. The applicant's available records do not contain evidence that shows she requested a Commander's Inquiry (CI) regarding the contested NCOER. The applicant provides: a.
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 | CY2006 | 20060001597C070205
The regulation states that rating officials must prepare complete accurate and fully-considered evaluation reports. Paragraph 2-9 states that the rater’s primary role is that of evaluation, focusing on performance and performance counseling. The rater will counsel the rated NCO on his or her duty performance and professional development throughout the rating period.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016517
On 10 May 2007, the squadron commander directed the appointment of an investigating officer (IO) to conduct an informal investigation into the applicant's misconduct. While the fact that a rated individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chains use of verified derogatory information. This action however, does not invalidate the contested NCOER or warrants its removal from...