RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 MAY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006754


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Seema Salter                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the NCOER (Noncommissioned Officer
Evaluation Report) for the period July 1995 through December 1996 be
expunged from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that the rater stated that he did not have enough
time to rate her, which is incorrect as shown by the published rating
scheme.  No person can require changes be made to an NCOER.  The battalion
command sergeant major (CSM) violated this rule as verified by the company
commander.  The      15-6 investigating officer substantiated an improper
change to the rating scheme. She submitted an appeal to the NCOER in 1997;
however, she was informed in September 2003 that there was no record of an
appeal, and before she could request consideration for promotion by a STAB
(standby advisory board), she had to submit an appeal.  She submitted all
documentation again; however it was never forwarded.  She has used the
proper channels to resolve the issue but has been stymied in her efforts.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 10 September 2003 memorandum to the
Commander, Enlisted Records and Evaluations Center, appealing her
evaluation report, a copy of a 9 April 1997 report of investigation, a copy
of a 23 April 1996 NCOER rating scheme for Soldiers of the Army Recruiting
Battalion Philadelphia, a copy of a 4 November 1996 NCOER rating scheme for
Soldiers of that same unit, a copy of a statement by a Captain “L,” a copy
of the applicant’s NCOER for the period July 1995 through December 1996, a
copy of a 27 May 1997 letter to a Member of Congress (MC), and a copy of a
23 October 2000 memorandum to the Total Army Personnel Command pertaining
to an NCOER for the period February 2000 through August 2000.  This latter
memorandum has nothing whatsoever to do with her case and will not be
further discussed.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 5 years on 25 October 1988 and
has remained on continuous active duty.  She was trained as a supply
specialist and completed the Supply Specialist Basic NCO Course (BNCOC) in
April 1995.  She was promoted to sergeant on 1 July 1994.

2.  The applicant has completed numerous courses of instruction, to include
the Army Recruiter Course in June 1995.  She has received multiple awards
of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and the Army Good
Conduct Medal.

3.  The applicant was assigned as a supply sergeant with the 1st Battalion,
     10th Aviation Regiment from July 1994 to June 1995.  Her two NCOERs
during that period show that her rating officials considered her an
excellent NCO who should be promoted immediately.

4.  She received the Basic Recruiter Badge with one gold achievement star
for the period 1 August 1995 to 31 October 1995 and the Basic Recruiter
Badge with two gold achievement stars for the period 1 December 1995 to 31
January 1996.

5.  The applicant’s NCOER for the period July 1995 to December 1996, of
which only 3 months were, rated months, shows that she was a field
recruiter assigned to the Army Recruiting Battalion Philadelphia with duty
at the Abington Recruiting Station.  Her rater was SFC (Sergeant First
Class) “W,” the station commander; her senior rater, Captain “L,” the
company commander; and her reviewer, LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) “B,” the
battalion commander.  In Part IV of that report, her rater indicated that
she lacked the convictions necessary to succeed, but indicated in Part V
that he considered her to be a fully capable NCO.  Her senior rater rated
her in the third from the top block in both overall performance and overall
potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater
responsibility. He also stated that she had untapped potential.

6.  The applicant’s reviewer nonconcurred with the senior rater’s
evaluation, and stated that the applicant did not have “untapped
potential.”  He stated that she had shown no attempts at improving her
performance since she had been a recruiter in the battalion, and that her
performance in fact had declined.  He stated that her attitude was one of
contempt for authority, and she had used the autonomy of a recruiter to not
meet prescribed recruiting practices in order to meet minimum standards.
He went on to state that she did not display any of the potential necessary
to lead other Soldiers, and that the senior rater’s evaluation for
performance and potential should indicate “poor.”  He stated that the
company commander had ample opportunities to witness both her poor
performance and poor potential for promotion during his many visits to her
recruiting station and that he had shown him both on two occasions.

7.  The NCOER rating scheme for the Army Recruiting Battalion Philadelphia,
dated 23 April 1996 shows that her rater was the above mentioned SFC “W,”
but that her senior rater and reviewer were SFC “J,” and Captain “B,”
respectively.  The rating scheme, dated 4 November 1996, shows that her
rater was SSG (Staff Sergeant) “W,” her senior rater, 1SG (First Sergeant)
“A,” and her reviewer the above-mentioned Captain “L.”  The effective date
of each rating official was indicated in the rating schemes.  The effective
date of the applicant’s rater on the 4 November 1996 rating scheme was 1
April 1996, the effective date of the senior rater was 30 September 1996,
and the effective date of her reviewer on that rating scheme was 17
September 1996.

8.  In an undated statement, Captain “L,” stated that on 4 March 1997, he,
the applicant, and another NCO met the battalion commander at his
direction, who questioned them about a congressional inquiry, apparently as
a result of an action instigated by the applicant.  The meeting evolved
into a discussion of the applicant’s NCOER, and the command sergeant
major’s involvement in the processing of the report.  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 battalion commander lectured them about the chain of
command, and stated that if the applicant was not willing to tell him he
would let someone else fix his battalion’s problems.  Shortly thereafter,
they were accused of undermining the chain of command and thrown out of the
battalion commander’s office.  Afterward, the applicant had an emotional
breakdown.

9.  On 9 April 1997, an investigating officer, LTC “B,” submitted a report
of  investigation to the Commander, 1st Recruiting Brigade, regarding the
allegations that CSM (Command Sergeant Major) “J”  of the Army Recruiting
Battalion Philadelphia physically and emotionally harassed the applicant,
and that a MSG (Master Sergeant) “K” threatened SFC “F.”  The investigating
officer found that the allegations of physical harassment of the applicant
by the CSM was unsubstantiated, but that the allegation of mental
harassment was substantiated. He found that the battalion chain of command
appeared to have improperly changed the NCOER rating scheme to adversely
impact the applicant’s rating; and that the NCOER process, in this
instance, was broken.  He stated that the applicant’s NCOER should have
been submitted timely with the correct rating officials.  On 9 April 1997
the Commander, 1st Recruiting Brigade forwarded the report of investigation
to the Commander, Army Recruiting Command, and stated that he concurred
with the investigatng officer’s findings and recommendations.

10.  In a 27 May 1997 letter the Army Recruiting Command informed a Member
of Congress (MC) that the mishandling of the applicant’s evaluation report
was found to be substantiated and that the applicant was informed by
officials of the Inspector General’s office of the actions required to
request a correction to her evaluation report.

11.  The applicant’s next NCOER for the period January 1997 to June 1997
shows that her rater, SFC “F,” considered her among the best for overall
potential for promotion and service in positions of greater responsibility
and that her senior rater, 1SG “A,” indicated that she should be promoted
with her peers. Her reviewer, the above-mentioned Captain “L,” concurred
with the evaluations.

12.  The applicant’s NCOERs thereafter, beginning in July 1997 through
January 2004, show that she reverted back to the supply field, and that her
rating officials, for the most part considered her an outstanding NCO,
e.g., promote immediately, send to ANCOC (Advanced NCO Course) immediately.


13.  On 10 September 2003 the applicant appealed the NCOER to the Enlisted
Records and Evaluations Center, requesting that it be removed from her
records. In doing so, she indicated that she had previously submitted an
appeal, but was informed that there was no record of her appeal on file.

14.  On 25 May 2004 the Enlisted Records and Evaluations Center informed
the applicant that her appeal was returned without action because it was
not submitted within five years of the report’s completion date, and that
she had not provided exceptional justification to warrant an exemption.
She was advised to apply to this Board for relief.

15.  Army Regulation 623-205 sets the policies and procedures governing the
NCO evaluation reporting system.  It provides for rating schemes and states
that rating schemes must correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of
command and supervision within an organization.  Commanders will ensure
that official rating schemes are published by name, and are posted in the
unit so that all NCOs know their rater, senior rater, and reviewer.  The
schemes will include the effective dates of each rating official.

16.  That regulation states that the rater must be the immediate supervisor
of the rated NCO and designated as the rater for a minimum period of 90
days, and       that the senior rater must be in the direct line of
supervision of the rated NCO and designated as the senior rater for a
minimum period of two rated months.  There is no minimum time period for
reviewer qualification.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Copies of the two rating schemes, one dated in April 1996 and the other
in November 1996, both show that the applicant’s rater was SFC (or SSG)
“W,” her senior rater another NCO, and her reviewer a captain.  On the 4
November 1996 rating scheme, her senior rater was shown as 1SG “A,” and her
reviewer, Captain “L,” the same two officials who were her senior rater and
reviewer on her report ending in June 1997 – the report subsequent to the
one she is appealing.  LTC “B” is not shown as a rating official or
reviewer in either rating scheme.
2.  The 9 April 1997 report of investigation clearly indicates that the
battalion commander improperly changed the rating scheme to adversely
impact the applicant’s rating on her NCOER.  The investigator’s finding was
concurred in by the commander of the 1st Recruiting Brigade.

3.  The Commander, United States Army Recruiting Command, indicated that
the applicant’s NCOER was mishandled.

4.  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, in order to
influence the report.  The evidence, therefore, supports the applicant’s
contention that she was not evaluated by members of her chain of command in
accordance with the published rating scheme, an action that violated the
provisions of Army Regulation 623-205.

5.  Therefore, the applicant’s NCOER for the period July 1995 through
December 1996 should be expunged from her Official Military Personnel File,
and that an adequate explanation be placed therein to show that the gap for
the period July 1995 through December 1996 was not caused by any fault on
her part and to indicate that she should not be prejudiced thereby in any
future personnel actions.

 BOARD VOTE:

___MM__  __SS         ___SP __  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
expunging the NCOER for the period July 1995 through December 1996 and
inserting an adequate explanation therein to show that the gap for the
period July 1995 through December 1996 was not caused by any fault on her
part and to indicate that she should not be prejudiced thereby in any
future personnel actions.





                                  _____  Melvin Meyer________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006754                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|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.       |111.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]