RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                            27 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:                    AR20050011751


      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. Ronald DeNoia                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |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 senior rater bullet comments and the
reviewer's memo concerning her noncommissioned officer evaluation report
(NCOER) for the period 0901 (September 2001) thru 0802 (August 2002) be
altered or withdrawn or that the entire NCOER be placed in the restricted
portion of her microfiche.  The applicant also requests that the memo from
the Enlisted Special Review Board be placed in restricted microfiche.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her evaluation was unjust to her
as a field recruiter and as a Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides a self authored letter, dated 5 August 2005;
supporting statements from her Battalion Commander, Executive Officer,
Command Sergeant Major, and First Sergeant; a DA Form 1059 (Service School
Academic Evaluation Report); ESRB Case Summary, three USAREC Forms 598-R-E
(Recruiting Incentive Awards Production Point Worksheet); a DA Form 31
(Request for Leave); a memorandum for record from the NCOER reviewer, dated
19 August 2002; and an NCOER for the period September 2001 through August
2002.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was assigned as an Army field recruiter from 5 June 1999
through 5 September 2002 with the US Army Recruiting Battalion (USARB) in
Jacksonville, Florida with duty at Savannah, Georgia.

2.  The NCOER submitted by the applicant is not correct in that the period
covered "thru dates" are inaccurate and not in accordance with regulations.
 Required information is in YYYY MM format.  The NCOER reflects dates of 20
09 thru 20 08.  In addition, the applicant submitted copy does not contain
signing dates. The official copy of this NCOER was retrieved from the
applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF).  This copy reflects
the dates the NCOER was signed and shows the period covered was amended to
read 01 09 (September 2001) thru 02 08 (August 2002).

3.  On 13 August 2002, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the
applicant for falsifying official documents in order to effect the
promotion of an Army recruit.  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of
$564.00 and an oral reprimand.

4.  The applicant stated, in effect, that she was misled by a senior NCO
which led her to falsify the document and forge a signature.  At various
points she states that her actions were the product of a conversation,
later she states the NCO told her to do it.  She goes on to state that she
could provide no proof of misconduct on the senior NCOs' part, that she
took the punishment alone and nothing happened to the senior NCO.

5.  The senior rater (SR) for the NCOER was the unit's first sergeant at
the time. In part Vc (Overall Performance), the SR placed his "X" in the
fourth of five blocks indicating "Fair" performance.  In Part Vd (Overall
Potential), the SR placed his "X" in the fourth of five blocks indicating
"Fair" potential.  In part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments), the SR made
three bullet comments.  The SR wrote that the applicant "Clearly shows lack
of leadership by compromising her integrity upon submission of false
document", "Possesses limited potential for position of increased
responsibility" and "Very immature for consideration of the next higher
echelon".


6.  The reviewing official for the NCOER was a captain, in the position of
company commander.  In Part IIe under the Authentication Section, the
reviewer placed his "X" indicating he nonconcurred with the rater and/or SR
evaluations.

7.  The reviewer's memorandum of record indicates that he did not concur
with the rater's evaluation of the applicant.  The reviewer indicated that
the applicant should have received a rating of "Needs Improvement" in Part
IVb (Competence-Values/NCO Responsibilities) instead of "success" due to
her falsification of enlistment documents and because her enlistee
production numbers were less than 40% of the minimum standard for
recruiters.

8.  The applicant submitted multiple letters of support from various
individuals in her chain of command. These letters all express support of
her past performance and potential and all recommend that the documents in
question be placed in her restricted fiche.

9.  On 12 May 2004, the applicant requested that the article 15 be moved
from the performance section of her microfiche to the restricted section.
This request was denied by the Department of the Army Suitability
Evaluation Board (DASEB) on 16 June 2004.

10.  On 27 August 2004, the applicant made a second request for the article
15 to be moved from the performance section of her microfiche to the
restricted section.  On 8 December 2004, the DASEB voted to move the
article 15 from the performance section to the restricted section.
11.  On 28 January 2005, the applicant appealed to the Enlisted Special
Review Board.  The board contacted the rater, who said he gave the
applicant a positive rating, despite the article 15, based on the "whole
person concept".  The senior rater was also contacted and indicated that
the applicant was counseled frequently before the incident that led to the
article 15.  The reviewer was contacted and said that the applicant's
performance was substandard compared to other recruiters in the battalion.
The reviewer also stated that the battalion commander and sergeant major
disagreed with the rater's evaluation and didn't think it was appropriate.
The ESRB denied the appeal based on a lack of convincing evidence that the
NCOER was inaccurate.

12.  In her four page self authored letter, the applicant stated:


   a.  that her appeal was rejected by the ESRB because the decision was
   focused only on the article 15.


   b.  that she was the victim of sexual harassment for a period of six
   months during the June 1999 time frame and repeatedly reported this to
   the chain of command, which "did nothing to help me".

   c.  that she received a Sapphire Achievement Award (SAA) for recruiting
in refuting the statement from the SR and Reviewer that she was a below
standard recruiter.  The Battalion Awards Analyst (BAA) stated that it is
possible to receive an SSA and still not meet standards.

      d.  that she never received counseling concerning her recruiting
weaknesses.

      e.  that her SR sent, on 14 March 2002, a Recruiter Trainer to work
with her.

      f.  that she called the Inspector General (IG) to report her senior
rater regarding " a problem with female soldiers", but did not make a
written report because she did not "want to go through any more ordeals".

13.  The NCOER contained four counseling dates and the applicant signed the
report on 3 September 2002 indicating that she had seen the report.

14.  Army Regulation 623-205 sets forth the policies and procedures for the
Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System.  Paragraph 4-2 states, 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.

15.  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/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.

16.  Paragraph 2-15 of Army Regulation 623-205 provides for a Commander’s
Inquiry in cases when it is brought to the attention of a commander that an
NCOER rendered by a subordinate or a member of a subordinate command may be
illegal, unjust or otherwise in violation of this regulation.  The primary
purpose of a commander’s inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command
involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated NCO and
correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record.  A
secondary purpose of a commander’s inquiry is to obtain command involvement
in clarifying errors or injustices after the NCOER is accepted at
Headquarters, Department of the Army.  The commander involved will inquire
into the matters alleged, and may determine through the inquiry if the
report has serious irregularities or errors.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant alludes to circumstances and instances which have put her
in the position of receiving this NCOER, however, fails to provide
credible, corroborating evidence to support her contentions.

3.  She claims to have been misled by a senior NCO, yet did not implicate
him/her in the article 15 proceedings.



4.  She alleges that the ESRB based its decision solely on the article 15,
yet provides no evidence to show this.  In direct conflict with this
allegation, a review of the ESRB Case Summary shows the board explored all
areas of consideration, to include interviews with the entire rating chain.

5.  She alleges sexual harassment when first assigned as a recruiter in
1999 and again from her SR in 2002, and admits to making a verbal report to
the chain of command and the IG.  Sexual harassment is a serious charge.
It is highly improbable that her entire chain of command and the Inspector
General's Office would choose to ignore these charges.  Written reports on
the part of the applicant would have made these charges much more credible
and provide documentary evidence on which to base her case.

6.  She received an SAA award for recruiting efforts, however, that in
itself does not show that she met standards.

7.  She provided letters of support from the battalion commander and the
sergeant major.  The ESRB case summary contradicted this support by
indicating that the reviewer said that the commander and sergeant major
disagreed with the rater's evaluation.  Additionally, the commander and
sergeant major held the positions necessary to initiate and conduct a
commander's inquiry if they felt the NCOER was unjust, but they did not
chose to do so, indicating it was not warranted.

8.  Although she provided several other letters of support, the authors
were not in direct, day to day supervisory positions or had daily contact
or observation of the applicant.  Additionally, they were not required to
evaluate the applicant's performance and therefore had no knowledge of the
rating chain's requirements or expectations.

9.  She contends that she never received counseling concerning her
recruiting weaknesses, yet admits that her SR provided Recruiter Training
to improve her skills.  This contention is also contradicted by the four
counseling dates noted on the NCOER.  The absence of these dates on an
NCOER constitutes a basis for appeal since it is in violation of the
regulations, however, the applicant has not appealed on this basis.  Her
signature on the NCOER is further acknowledgment of the counseling dates.

10.  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.
11.  The NCOER was accepted and presumed to represent the considered
opinion and objective judgment of rating officials.  In the absence of
clear and compelling evidence to establish that the report is in error or
unjust, there is no basis to move the report and the ESRB memo from the
performance to the restricted fiche.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MM__  ___AR __  ___LS___  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.





                                  _____Melvin Meyer__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011751                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051027                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |111.0200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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