| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his last Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period June 1983 through May 1984 be removed from his Performance (P) fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states that upon retirement it is not required that a final NOCER be prepared. He signed and received an adverse NCOER prior to his retirement. However, this report does not reflect his past evaluation for historical purposes. He now desires that his records reflect that his service to his country was of the highest caliber.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his NCOER for the period June 1983 through May 1984.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of error which occurred on 25 June 1984, the date he authenticated his NCOER. The application submitted in this case is dated 23 January 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 May 1962, with prior military service. He continued to serve until he was placed on the Army of the United States Retired List effective 31 October 1984 in the rank and pay grade of 1SG/E-8.
4. The applicant provided a copy of his NCOER for the period June 1983 through May 1984, which was an annual report. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that he appealed his NCOER to the Department of the Army, Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB).
5. Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that his last NCOER was an annual report for the period June 1983 through May 1984.
6. Army Regulation 623-205, in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for the enlisted evaluation system. It provided that an EER, accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of the soldier, 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. The regulation states that the burden of proof in an appeal of an EER rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an EER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly
overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted. It also states that substantive appeals must be submitted within 5 years of the NCOER’s completion date.
Failure to submit an appeal within this time may be excused only if the appellant provides exceptional justification to warrant this exemption.
7. Paragraph 2-8 of the same regulation pertains to change of rater reports. It states, in pertinent part, that a final change of rater report upon retirement will be submitted when requested by the ratee.
8. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the Official Military Personnel File it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records, DASEB, Army Appeals Board, the Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command, or the Official Military Personnel File custodian when documents have been improperly filed, Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC-PDO-PO) as an exception, Chief of the Appeals Branch of the Army Reserve Personnel Center, and Chief of the Appeals Branch of the National Guard Personnel Center. Table 2 of the
regulation pertains to the composition of the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that NCOERs will be filed on the Performance Fiche.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record shows that the applicant received an annual NCOER for the period June 1983 through May 1984 which was adverse in nature. He authenticated his NCOER on 25 June 1984. There is no evidence to show that he appealed his NCOER to the ESRB or to show that a final change of rater report was prepared or requested by the applicant prior to his retirement.
2. The applicant has failed to provide compelling evidence that his NCOER for the period June 1983 through May 1984 should be removed from his P fiche of his OMPF. His report was properly filed on the Performance fiche of his OMPF in accordance with regulations. Therefore, there is no basis to remove his last NCOER for the period June 1983 through May 1984 from the Performance fiche of his OMPF.
3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 25 June 1984; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 June 1987. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fe___ __pm____ __mm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085538 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031203 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19831031 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chap 12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 281 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022448
The applicant states: * her initial appeal packet was returned without action in August 2008 due to insufficient evidence * the NCOERs were biased due to a Inspector General (IG) complaint and were prepared in retaliation of her grievance * her gathering of documents under the Freedom of Information Act caused her appeal to go past the 3-year limitation for NCOER appeals * she signed NCOER #1 on 25 August 2006, but the version in her OMPF is unsigned * the two contested NCOERs contained...
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 | CY2007 | 20070003312
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of his Relief from Annual Training (REFRAT) Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering the period January 2001 to February 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). AHRC indicated that their records did not indicate that the applicant ever appealed the NCOER in question, and suggested that he prepare an NCOER appeal per Army Regulation 623-205, chapter 6. The ESRB indicated that the applicant was retired and he had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069123C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant submitted a request for retirement on 28 August 1998, requesting that he be placed on the Retired List effective 1 March 1999. The ESRB also determined that under the circumstances in which an investigation was being conducted during the rated period, the rating officials could not complete the report properly until the investigation was completed and was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608497C070209
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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the this requirement. Also, by regulation, a Commanders Inquiry will be made by a commander in the chain of command above the designated rating official(s) involved in the allegations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066559C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that she submitted an appeal to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) requesting correction of an NCOER for the period of August 1993 to July 1994 and the removal of three NCOERs covering the periods from June 1995 to May 1996, June 1996 to October 1996 and November 1996 to October 1997. The applicant submitted an appeal of an NCOER covering the period from August 1993 to July 1994 and the three contested NCOER’s to the ESRB. After reviewing the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062896C070421
On 28 September 1992, the applicant submitted an appeal of the LOR to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), requesting that the LOR be filed in the R-fiche rather than the P-fiche portion of his OMPF. In addition, the Board noted that the applicable regulation does not provide for the local MPRJ filing in the applicant’s case based on his rank and years of service and that the applicant failed to inform the official making the filing determination that he already...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005821C070206
In January 1997, he filed an appeal with the ESRB to have the two contested NCOERs removed. However, although the applicant performed duties as a First Sergeant, he was a recruiter. Correction of the applicant's contested NCOERs to show they were relief- for-cause NCOERs rather than change-of-rater NCOERs would not have resulted in a reasonable chance he would have been selected for promotion (thereby warranting consideration by a STAB).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001208C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering the period December 2000 through November 2001 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). He states he was never counseled during the rating period, which is required by regulation and an important part of the responsibilities of rating officials. He further found that the reviewer nonconcurrence memorandum properly addressed the applicant’s issues and would be filed in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072548C070403
The applicant provided a copy of an e-mail message, dated 27 October 1999, which was prepared by the battalion commander/reviewer to the company commander/senior rater. The review stated that the senior rater evaluated the applicant in Part V(a) as "among the best", and in Part V(c) and V(d) placed an "X" in the number "1" block. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...