| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for correction of his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period February 1999 through October 1999 except he now is requesting removal of this NCOER and the related reviewer nonconcurrence letter from his records.
APPLICANT STATES: That his immediate commander drafted a memorandum to the battalion commander which was not true. The first sergeant provided a statement indicating that he (the applicant) never received any letters of concern or counseling on areas that he needed to improve. He sent it to the previous Board but there was no indication in the memorandum that it had been considered. The U. S. Army Recruiting Command Inspector General's office (USAREC IG) expressed their concerns about this matter to the battalion commander.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 17 October 2002 (AR2002072548)
As new supporting evidence the applicant provides the first sergeant's email message regarding the lack of counseling; 3 NCOERs he received prior (for the periods November 1996 through October 1997 and November 1997 through April 1998 for which his principal duty title was Assistant Inspector General and for the period May 1998 through January 1999 for which his principal duty title was Station Commander) to the contested NCOER (for which his principal duty title was Limited Production Station Commander); and 3 NCOERs subsequent (for the periods November 1999 through October 2000 and November 2000 through July 2001 for which his principal duty title was Senior Guidance Counselor and for the period August 2001 through July 2002 for which his principal duty title was Master Trainer) to the contested NCOER.
The applicant's NCOER for the period May 1998 through January 1999 (for which he had the same reviewer as on the contested NCOER and for which his rater was the senior rater on the contested NCOER) shows he was rated similarly by the raters as on the contested NCOER (2 "excellence" and 3 "success" ratings in Part IV; a rater potential rating of "among the best," and senior rater performance and potential ratings of "1"). The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater ratings.
On 27 October 1999, the applicant's company commander responded to a comment by the battalion commander by stating that his (the company commander's) research of his current counseling folder revealed he provided the applicant with a 90-day Letter of Concern after the Recruiting Station Manager (RSM) April 1999 (Station Performance) and one for the June 1999 RSM for an excessive amount of last minute delayed entry program losses. In addition, the company commander told the battalion commander there were routine monthly counseling letters but no letter of reprimand during the report period.
By email dated 23 April 2002, the applicant's first sergeant (the rater on the contested OER) stated that while he was first sergeant of the Gulf Coast Recruiting Company, he did the applicant's performance counseling once in a while. He stated the applicant never received any letters of concern or "needs improvement" performance counseling.
Army Regulation 623-205 (Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, stated in paragraph 6-4 that each report would be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period. It would not refer to prior or subsequent reports and would not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period.
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. 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.
2. The Board considered the applicant's NCOERs received prior to and subsequent to the contested NCOER. The Board notes that, except for the NCOER immediately prior to the contested NCOER, the applicant performed principal duties different from that for which he was rated on the contested NCOER and so comparability would not be appropriate.
3. The Board notes that the same reviewer who nonconcurred with rater and senior rater ratings on the contested NCOER concurred with similar ratings on the NCOER immediately prior to the contested NCOER. However, each report was an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period. It appears to the Board that the reviewer had different views of the applicant's performance during the two different rating periods.
4. The Board considered the email from the applicant's first sergeant which indicated he (the first sergeant) did the applicant's performance counseling once in a while and that the applicant never received a letter of concern or "needs improvement" performance counseling. The Board notes that the applicant mentioned he had involved the USAREC IG's office in his NCOER concerns; however, he does not provide the results of an IG investigation for the Board to consider.
5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary that an IG investigation may have revealed, the Board must presume that the applicant's company commander did not lie to the battalion commander. The Board therefore presumes that the company commander did not keep the first sergeant informed of the commander's independent counseling of the applicant.
6. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
7. 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
__sc___ ___jm__ __sp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088490 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030610 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
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 | CY2015 | 20150001245
The applicant states, in effect: * his appeal is based on substantive error; it has already been reviewed by the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) * he is providing additional information not considered by the ESRB which includes: * Individual Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) for the period July 2011 through June 2012 showing no participation with the rating unit other than the period 19 February 2012 to 25 February 2012 * Retirement Points Detail for the period January 2011 through...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068827C070402
The applicant requests, in effect, removal from his record the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) dated February 1999 through November 1999. A DA Form 4187 (Request for Personnel Action), dated 17 September 1999 was presented to the applicant. The USAREC IG, after conducting its investigation, concluded that the applicant’s allegations were substantiated and that members of his chain of command took reprisal action against him for making a protected communication to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014622
He states the individual rating him on the NCOER he wants replaced was never his rater on any NCOER rating schemes. It shows his rated position as Rear Detachment NCOIC and shows the date of his last NCOER was 18 June 2008 with the next NCOER to be through 18 June 2009. Although he submits rating schemes, none of which list as his rater the rater on the contested NCOER, his company commander who is the individual responsible for the rating scheme stated in an email that he designated that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005235
The applicant requests his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period covering 1 October 2007 through 30 September 2008 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) and any appeal documentation be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The third copy of the contested NCOER, dated 3 March 2009, is a 6-month rated annual report for the period 1 October 2007 through 30 September 2008 which rated his performance as a recruiter within...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087855C070212
He further stated that the applicant never served as a field recruiter, was assigned to the recruiting command for less than 90 days, and should never have received a Relief for Cause NCOER. Paragraph 3-32 of this regulation states that a report is required when an NCO is relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing the Relief for Cause NCOER for the period January 1997 through May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004596
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A memorandum authored by COL C____ T___ to MG D____ B. A____, subject: Request for GOMOR, dated 11 July 2011, that shows he requested a GOMOR be issued to the applicant based on an incident on 26 June 2011, in which the applicant was involved in a verbal argument with his (the applicant's spouse) that turned physical when he grabbed her by the neck to prevent her from walking away from him. (1) It shows the rating chain as: * Rater: CW2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011490
The applicant requests removal of his relief-for-cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report [NCOER]) covering the period September 2003 through April 2004 from his official military personnel file (OMPF). On 29 December 2004, the applicant requested a CI and to have the relief-for-cause NCOER removed from his record. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * Removing the DA Form 2166-8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019799
There is also a "no" in the Army values Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions (Rater)). There is no indication in the applicant's records that he requested a Commander's Inquiry or that he appealed this NCOER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a change of rater NCOER for the period ending 3 January 2009.