RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         24 FEBRUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000806


      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:

|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathon Rost                 |     |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 August 2001 to March 2002 be removed from
her Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that the report is unjust.  She appealed the
report and the derogatory information was corrected or removed; however,
the NCOER is still damaging to her career.  The report does not accurately
describe what she did or her performance and potential.  The report can
hurt her career with its inaccurate and unjust ratings.  The ratings were
given in anger.  She is currently eligible for promotion to Sergeant Major.
 The report will hinder her chances of being selected.  She is a student at
the Sergeants Major Academy with a graduation date of 30 June 2004.  The
NCOER will prevent her from being selected for Command Sergeant Major.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the decision regarding her appeal of
the report, a letter of support from a sergeant major, a NCOER for the
period 0001 to 0011 and a NCOER for the period 0012 to 0107, and a copy of
a memorandum concerning her appeal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 27 December 1984
and has remained on continuous active duty.  Her service included
assignments to Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Benjamin Harrison,
Indiana; Washington, DC; Alexandria, Virginia, two tours of duty in Korea,
and a tour of duty in Hawaii.  Trained as a personnel specialist, she
completed the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) in 1996 exceeding course
standards, completed the drill sergeant course in December 1996, and
performed duties as a drill sergeant from June 1996 to January 1999 at Fort
Jackson.  In January 2002 she completed the first sergeants course.

2.  The applicant has completed numerous other military courses during her
career.  She has received multiple awards of the Meritorious Service Medal,
Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and Army Good Conduct
Medal.

3.  The applicant’s evaluation reports in her OMPF, 22 in all, show that
her rating officials considered her a superior NCO, with comments such as
“promote now,” “promote ahead of peers,” “dynamic leader,” “model NCO,” “a
future CSM [Command Sergeant Major],” and so on.  She was promoted to
master sergeant and laterally promoted to first sergeant on 1 May 2002.

4.  In December 1999 the applicant, then a sergeant first class, was
assigned as an assignment manager at the Total Army Personnel Command
(PERSCOM) in Alexandria, Virginia.  Her NCOER for the period January 2000
to November 2000 showed that her rating officials, a sergeant major
(rater), lieutenant colonel (senior rater), and colonel (reviewer)
considered her a superior NCO who should be promoted ahead of her peers.
That report indicated that she was selected as the Adjutant General NCO of
the year, scored 314 on the Army Physical Fitness Test, and was selected
over 30 other NCOs as the trainer for an Army prestigious “Consideration
for Others” program.

5.  The applicant’s subsequent NCOER for the period December 2000 to July
2001, was equally flattering with a new rater and senior rater indicating
that she was among the best with unlimited potential who should be
appointed as a first sergeant now.  Her senior rater stated that she was a
future CSM.

6.  Her report for the period August 2001 to March 2002 shows that she had
a new rater, the branch sergeant major; a new senior rater, a lieutenant
colonel; but the same reviewer as on the previous two NCOERs.  In Part IV
of that report her rater indicated by marking “No” that she failed to meet
the Army values with respect to loyalty and to honor.  Her rater remarked,
“consistently sought to fulfill personal goals above the Branch’s mission
and welfare.”  The remainder of the remarks by her rater were
complimentary.  She stated that the applicant was a fully capable NCO.  The
applicant’s senior rater placed her in the second from the top block for
overall performance and the top block for overall potential, stating that
she was chosen among numerous candidates as first sergeant for the largest
company in the Military District of Washington, and that she had unlimited
potential.  The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater
evaluations.

7.  On 25 June 2002 the Deputy Director of Enlisted Personnel at PERSCOM
informed her that based on her request, he had conducted a Commander’s
Inquiry regarding the above-mentioned NCOER, and concluded that there were
administrative and substantive errors in the report.  He informed her that
he was recommending that the “No” entries in Part IV of that report be
changed to “Yes,” in that the entries were not justified because she was
not properly counseled regarding those areas.  On 1 August 2002 the
Commander’s Inquiry was forwarded to the Enlisted Records and Evaluation
Center in Indianapolis for filing with the NCOER.

8.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant appealed the NCOER requesting that the
“No” markings in Part IV be changed to “Yes,” and that the negative comment
in     Part IV be removed from the report.

9.  The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 Special Review Boards informed the NCO
Evaluations Branch at the Human Resources Command at Indianapolis that the
applicant’s appeal had been granted, and directed that the “No” markings be
changed to “Yes” in Part IV of the subject report, and that the negative
comment be deleted from that report.  The appeal correspondence was
directed to be placed in the applicant’s restricted fiche, and stated that
promotion consideration was not applicable.

10.  On 19 December 2003 the NCO Evaluations Branch informed the applicant
of the decision, stating that her NCOER would be amended as directed, but
also stated that the Board determined that the evidence did not justify
withdrawing the report.  The applicant’s corrected NCOER for the period
August 2001 to March 2002 shows that the “No” markings in Part IV of that
report were changed to “Yes,” and that the negative comment in Part IV was
deleted from the report.  It shows that it is a certified corrected copy,
signed as such by the Chief, Records Service Division.  The corrected NCOER
is maintained on the performance fiche of her OMPF.

11.  The appeal correspondence and the original NCOER are maintained on the
restricted fiche of her OMPF.

12.  The applicant was selected for promotion to sergeant major by the 2004
sergeant major selection board.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides for the composition of the OMPF and
states in pertinent part that the performance fiche is used for filing
performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  Documents placed on this
fiche are limited to those that provide evidence of a Soldier’s
demonstrated performance.  Documents will not be obliterated or moved from
the performance fiche unless directed by an authority authorized to correct
or move documents filed on the performance fiche.  On removal of an
evaluation report or any part of a report, a HQDA (Headquarters, Department
of the Army) memorandum for record will be placed in the next unused frame
of the fiche.  This document is filed to explain breaks in evaluation
periods or corrections t o evaluation reports.

14.  The restricted fiche is used for historical data that may normally be
improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release
of information on this fiche is controlled.  Documents on the restricted
fiche are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken,
historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and
evaluation periods; record investigation reports; record appellate actions;
and protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.

15.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that
file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the
fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the NCOER, even as corrected, would be
damaging to her career and hinder her chances of being selected for
promotion to sergeant major has not proven to be the case, as she has been
selected for promotion to sergeant major.  Consequently, her contention
that the report will prevent her from being selected for Command Sergeant
Major is speculative, if not unlikely.  Nonetheless, there is no basis to
remove this report based on her supposition, however remote, that it would
damage her career.

2.  The applicant’s NCOER for the period August 2001 to March 2003, as
corrected, is properly maintained on the performance fiche of her OMPF.

3.  The original NCOER for that period, and the appeal correspondence are
permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of her service,
conduct, appellate actions, etc., and are necessarily maintained to protect
both herself and the Army and are tightly controlled.  These documents are
correctly placed in the restricted portion of her OMPF.  In this respect,
the Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an
individual's service.  The placement of records/documents, such as the
NCOER on the restricted fiche, in a Soldier's OMPF, enables the Army to
maintain that historical record without unduly jeopardizing the
individual's career.  There is no injustice in maintaining the NCOER and
the related documents as they are now, in the restricted fiche of her OMPF.


4.  Therefore, the removal of the NCOER for the period August 2002 to March
2003 and related documents from the applicant's OMPF is not warranted.  Her
request is denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____YM _  ___RW__  ___JR __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ___Yolanda Maldonado____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000806                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050224                                |
|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.       |111.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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