| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that a memorandum initiated by his former commanding officer be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File).
2. The applicant states that a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found him to be medically fit for continued service. His previous commander's comments were not supported by facts. He did not work for him and he did not have a first hand knowledge of his performance. The fact that the PEB found him medically fit shows that his comments carried no weight in the PEB process; however, his (former commanding officer) comments reflect negatively on him and are inconsistent with the information contained on his evaluation reports.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 8 January 1986 and has remained on continuous active duty.
2. In 1987 while stationed in Germany he injured himself when he fell off a truck. He did not realize the extent of his injury until 1989 when he learned [or was made aware] that his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was torn.
3. The applicant completed the basic noncommissioned officer course in 1992 and was promoted to staff sergeant on 1 August 1993. The applicant's NCO evaluation reports (NCOERs) prior to the November 1996 PEB show that his rating officials considered him to be an excellent soldier, worthy of promotion and selection for the advanced NCO course.
4. On 1 November 1996 a MEB (Medical Evaluation Board) determined that he should be referred to a PEB because of his right ACL deficiency.
5. In a 23 October 1996 memorandum to the President of the PEB, the applicant's commanding officer, Captain L, in providing his evaluation to the PEB, stated: "SSG [the applicant] superiors observe him to be an average NCO, requiring periodic supervision from his chain of command concerning the execution of his duties."… "SSG [the applicant] superiors notice him using his medical condition to be excuse from work."… "[The applicant] continues to work in the battalion S-1, performing in an mediocre routine."… "His career is in doubt because of his injury and unconcerned performance. It would be in the best interest of the Army to discharge [the applicant]."
6. On 18 November 1996 a PEB found the applicant physically fit and directed that he be returned to duty as fit. The applicant did not concur and requested a formal hearing; however, on 9 December 1996 he waived his right to a formal hearing, and stated that he concurred with the PEB's finding. On 16 December 1996 the findings of the PEB were approved.
7. The applicant's NCOER for the period April 1996 through November 1996 shows that his rater considered him a fully capable NCO, whose profile did not hinder his duty performance. The applicant's senior rater rated him in the second from the top block in duty performance and in the third from the top block in overall potential, and stated, "fully capable and technically competent to perform better than he normally does," … "potential to assume greater responsibility is limited by his desire to take care of personal interests before mission interests."
The applicant's rater was the battalion adjutant, Captain N, and his senior rater was the battalion executive officer.
8. The applicant's NCOERs subsequent to the above-mentioned report have been consistently excellent. He was promoted to sergeant first class on 1 November 1998. He completed the Advanced NCO Course in April 1999.
9. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determine whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform his duties. As part of the physical disability evaluation processing, and prior to a PEB, the medical treatment facility commander will notify the unit commander of the planned referral of a Soldier to a PEB and obtain a written statement from the commander describing the Soldier's current duty performance, any special limitation of duty due to the Soldier's physical condition, the Soldier's ability to adequately perform the duties normally expected of an individual of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or ranting, and the Soldier's current duty assignment, anticipated future assignments, branch, age, and career specialties.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's commanding officer stated his opinion of the applicant's duty performance and his ability to perform his duties in his 23 October 1996 memorandum to the President of the PEB. This is in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned regulation. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any, to show that the information provided to the PEB was anything other than the honest judgment of that official based on his knowledge and the information available to him. The applicant's NCOER for the seven-month period ending in November 1996 indicates that he was less than the stellar NCO as he claimed to be at that time, and as indicated on his previous and subsequent reports. Consequently, notwithstanding the applicant's contention, it appears that the information contained in the 23 October 1996 memorandum is not inconsistent, at least with that particular NCOER.
2. Nonetheless, the memorandum has served its purpose. The applicant was returned to duty. Seven years has elapsed since then. His performance as indicated by his evaluation reports and by his promotion to sergeant first class has been excellent.
3. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to delete the memorandum from the applicant's OMPF, as he requests.
BOARD VOTE:
__MKP __ __ALR __ __WDP__ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003091303 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 134.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075728C070403
(1) QMP Notification Memorandum from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM), dated 6 June 2001 with list of documents; (2) DA Form 4941-R (Statement of Options, QMP), dated 25 June 2001; (3) QMP Appeal Memorandum, dated 14 August 2001; (4) Four DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) covering the periods January 1995 through January 1998; (5) Eight Character References; (6) Commander’s Appeal to QMP, dated 11 September 2001; (7) Battalion Commander’s Appeal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040006754C070208
Captain “L” stated that he informed the battalion commander that the command sergeant major told the applicant’s rater to hold off (submitting it) and try to get something on her. The Commander, United States Army Recruiting Command, indicated that the applicant’s NCOER was mishandled. The evidence shows that the battalion commander improperly acted as the reviewer on the applicant’s NCOER for the period July 1995 through December 1996, inserting himself into the applicant’s rating scheme,...
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 | CY2015 | 20150012984
The applicant provides the following documents: * the contested DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER) * his NCOER appeal CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. In pertinent part, he contended, the NCOER contained: * unverified derogatory information (i.e., that the applicant's actions "immediately caused a hostile work environment" and "disrupted the good order and discipline of the unit") * references to issues with integrity (i.e., he declined to make a statement, which is not the same as retracting his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022350
This document shows that during a review of the applicant's file, the board considered his record of service, including performance and future potential for retention in the Army. The applicant provided a List of Documents, dated 1 August 1996, showing the board identified the NCOERs for the rating periods 9112-9206 and 9408-9507 and the DA Form 2627 dated 25 August 1995 as the basis for his bar to reenlistment. c. Paragraph 10-8 provides that a Soldier may appeal the bar to reenlistment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011565C070206
In all of these reports, he received “Among the Best” evaluations from his raters in Part Va. (Rater. In Part IVb-f of the contested report, the rater gave the applicant four “Success” ratings and one “Needs Improvement (Some)” rating. The senior rater also informed the ESRB that he counseled the applicant during the contested rating period, which is documented in a DA Form 4856, dated 25 April 02.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086015C070212
The applicant requests that her noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period May 1991 through September 1991 be removed from her records, that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The Board has considered the applicant's further requests that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000900C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged in 1999 due to being selected for a bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). Army Regulation 635-40, in pertinent part, provides that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002086389C070215
On 28 February 1995, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and training as an administrative specialist. The applicant's battalion commander at the time recommended that the GOLOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF and made handwritten comments to the effect that he made his recommendation with regret because the applicant had been and continued to be an outstanding soldier. Included among nonpunitive measures are administrative reprimands and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016386
The applicant requests removal of his Relief for Cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 30 June 2012 through 30 July 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant provides copies of the following documents: * an extract from Army Regulation 623-3 * the contested NCOER * two Enlisted Record Briefs (ERB) * an article from the NCO Journal magazine * six NCOERs rendered...