RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050000451


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 the removal of a noncommissioned officer
evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period from January 2002 through
August 2002, from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the NCOER should be removed from
her OMPF due to substantive inaccuracies on the report that were the result
of undue influence and reprisal from command pressures because she would
not join a club (Samurai Society).  She goes on to state that Part IV –
Army Values contains no comments due to the battalion commander’s
influence, that Part IV, under “Competence” is inaccurate, that Part IV –
Physical Fitness and Military Bearing was left blank because she did not
climb a mountain, that her rating under Part IV – Leadership is inaccurate
and in Part V, the senior rater’s comments were derived from the battalion
commander’s influence and she was thus penalized.

3.  The applicant provides an appeal packet containing documents tabbed “A”
through “L”, which are listed on a Table of Contents included with the
packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  She enlisted on 29 July 1992 for a period of 3 years and training as a
personnel administration specialist.  She successfully completed her
training and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous
reenlistments.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 June 2000,
while stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.

2.  On 1 December 2000, she was transferred to Camp Zama, Japan.  She was
initially assigned to an area support group and 4 months later was
transferred to a Supply and Service Battalion, for duty as a senior
personnel sergeant.  Her rating chain at that time was the battalion
adjutant, executive officer and battalion commander.  She received a change
of rater NCOER ending in December 2001 in which she received essentially a
maximum rating (all SUCCESS or better ratings).

3.  During her next rating period (contested NCOER), her rater was the S-1
NCO (E-7), the adjutant and the executive officer.  This report covered the
period from January 2002 through August 2002 and was a change of rater
report.

4.  In Part IV – Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions, she received all
“Yes” ratings and there were no bullet comments entered by the rater.  In
Part IVa thru f., she received “Success” ratings in all areas.  In Part V –
Overall Performance and Potential, she received a ”Fully Capable” rating
from her rater.

5.  The senior rater (SR) gave the applicant a level three “Successful”
rating for overall performance and a level two “Superior” rating for
potential.  The SR bullet comments indicate that with proper mentorship,
the applicant has potential for future promotion and service.

6.  The applicant transferred to the Military Personnel Office (MILPO) at
Camp Zama in September 2002 and remained there for the duration of her tour
in Japan.

7.  On 20 January 2004, she submitted an appeal of the contested NCOER to
the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), whereas she asserted that the
report should be deleted or removed if her requested changes could not be
accomplished.  In the processing of her appeal, members of the ESRB
attempted to contact the rating officials without success.  However,
contact was made with the battalion command sergeant major (CSM) at the
time.  The CSM indicated that he was confused as to why she was appealing
the report and that she made no mention of dissatisfaction with the report
at the time, nor did she request a commander’s inquiry.  He also indicated
that he was aware of the so-called “Cup and Flower” fund but was unaware of
any undue influence directed at the applicant’s rating officials to
pressure them into rendering an unfair or unjust report.

8.  The ESRB reviewed the third party statements submitted by the
applicant’s superiors.  However, the ESRB found that there was insufficient
evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claim of undue command influence.
The ESRB denied her request on 21 December 2004.

9.  A review of the applicant’s NCOER history in her OMPF shows that she
received another NCOER subsequent to her departure from Japan in which no
comments were made in Part IV under Army Values and the applicant refused
to sign the report.  The ratings in the contested report appear to be
consistent with her evaluation history.

10.  Army Regulation 623-205, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting
System sets forth the policies and procedures for the Enlisted Evaluation
Reporting System  It provides, in pertinent part, in paragraph 3-10e, that
in Part IVa of the NCOER, under Values, the rater will check either a “Yes”
or “No” in the values block.  Mandatory specific bullet comments are
required for all “No” entries.  Bullet comments are used to explain any
area where a rated NCO needs improvement and may be used to explain areas
where the NCO is particularly strong.

11.  It also provides, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report
accepted for inclusion in the official record of an NCO is presumed to
represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials
at the time of preparation.

12.  Paragraph 4-7 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that when
submitting an appeal, the burden of proof rests with the applicant and that
he or she must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly
that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or
injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and
compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative
error or factual inaccuracy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid
appraisal of her demonstrated performance and potential during the period
in question.  The report also appears to have been prepared in accordance
with the applicable regulation and by the appropriate rating officials.
Therefore, there is no basis for altering or removing the report from her
OMPF.

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant should have been aware of the
procedures for requesting a commander’s inquiry, given the nature of her
position at the time, and it appears that she made no effort to resolve or
complain about the ratings she received at the time that the issues were
current and could have been investigated and resolved.

3.  While the third party statements are complimentary of the applicant’s
performance, none of those statements serve to substantiate the applicant’s
allegation that her battalion commander, who was not in her rating chain,
exerted undue influence on the rating officials of the contested report.

4.  The applicant simply has failed to provide clear and convincing
evidence sufficient to warrant changing her rating or voiding the report.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JA___  ___BI__ _  ___MF__  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.





            ____James Anderholm__________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000451                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050922                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier                          |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier                          |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AC Soldier                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AC Soldier                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |193/VOID NCOER                          |
|1.111.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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