RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 March 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040002695
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. Robert J. McGowan | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Allen Raub | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | |Member |
| |Mr. Robert Rogers | |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, in effect, that a US Army Enlisted Records and
Evaluation Center (USAREC), memorandum for record, dated 12 November 2002,
be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states that the subject memorandum is identified as an
"Evaluation Report Appeal," but it addresses an administrative error, not
an appeal. He adds that he has been passed over for promotion because of
this situation.
3. The applicant provides:
a. A copy of his NCO (Noncommissioned Officer) Evaluation Report
(NCOER) for the period June 2000 to May 2001.
b. A copy of the USAREC memorandum.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is an active duty Staff Sergeant (SSG/E-6). His date of
rank (DOR) as an SSG is 1 September 1998.
2. The applicant received an NCOER for the period June 2000 to May 2001.
It is a strong report, however his DOR is incorrectly shown as 1 June 1998.
3. The applicant, in 2002, apparently appealed his NCOER because of the
incorrect DOR. USAREC corrected the error by posting the subject memorandum
to his OMPF. The memorandum has a subject line of "Evaluation Report
Appeal."
4. Army Regulation (AR) 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation
Reporting System) prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the
military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of
service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in
the field to support the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting
System (NCOERS). It also provides guidance regarding redress programs
including Commander's inquiries and appeals. Chapter 6 deals with redress
policy and states appeals [emphasis added] based solely on administrative
error will be adjudicated by the NCO Evaluation Report Appeals Section,
USAEREC. After resolution of the appeal, the reviewing agency amends the
NCO's official records, if appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant apparently sought redress under AR 623-205 for his NCOER
for the period June 2000 to May 2001 because his DOR was incorrect. By
regulation, this constituted an appeal, and the appeal was forwarded to
USAREC for resolution. USAREC corrected the applicant's DOR by posting the
subject memorandum in his OMPF.
2. The subject memorandum is appropriately titled "Evaluation Report
Appeal" and it is properly posted in his OMPF, next to the NCOER it
references.
3. Neither the NCOER, nor the USAREC memorandum appear to have any impact
on the applicant's failure to be promoted to the rank of Sergeant First
Class.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__ar____ __reb___ __rr____ 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.
Allen Raub
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20040002695 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20050324 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |134.0200 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000304C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. SFC D___ did not state that the applicant never had the documents.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012829
The applicant states, in effect, that had it not been for the derogatory Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) in his record for the September 2003 through May 2004, he would have been promoted to MSG/E-8 by the FY05 Promotion Selection Board. c. DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report ), for the period September 2003 through May 2004. d. Memorandum, dated 27 September 2004, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), Indianapolis, Indiana, rejecting the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077596C070215
).There is no evidence that the applicant ever appealed the NCOERs for the periods 9607-9706 and 9701-9711. In Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities), the rater rated the applicant in Part IVb. The ESRB reviewed the applicant’s NCOER for the period and denied his appeal.
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 | CY2010 | 20100016599
The applicant received five previous NCOERs as a staff sergeant from the USARB Milwaukee wherein he was rated as a station commander, an on-production station commander, and as a limited-production station commander. The ASJA stated the file did not contain any evidence the applicant had been provided the training necessary to perform duties as the new station commander. The evidence shows that during the period of the contested NCOER he was not in his first assignment as a station commander.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005672
Member Mr. James R. Hastie Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 2004 01 through 2004 02 and the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states, in effect, that the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) had provided inaccurate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011751C070206
The commander does not have authority to direct that an NCOER evaluation be changed, and the commander may not use command influence to alter the honest evaluation of an NCO by a rating official. The applicant has alleged many violations of the regulations, the NCOER system, and the standards of conduct; however, she does not provide evidence in the form of written reports or credible information which would almost certainly have led to an IG investigation or commander's inquiry. In the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000507
The applicant requests correction of his official military personnel file (OMPF) by removing the relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) he received for the period from July 2004 through June 2005. On 1 June 2006, the applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the ESRB. He based his appeal on the argument that the comments in Part IVa of the NCOER violated the provisions of Army Regulation 623-205, paragraphs 3-17a, b, c (1), and c (2), in that no reference may be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014162
There is no evidence of record to show the applicant appealed the relief-for-cause NCOER under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-205. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant appealed the second contested NCOER under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-205. However, he provides no evidence to show that he never got to plead his case and it is noted that the Article 15 was imposed by his battalion commander and not his company commander.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018187
The applicant requests: a. correction of his DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period September 1994 through June 1999 to show he passed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); b. an explanation as to why he was not medically retired in 1994 if he was not promotable; and c. reevaluation of his promotion status. In each instance the applicant verified that his height, weight, and APFT entries were correct and that he was aware of the appeals process...