RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001597


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 removal of the “Needs Improvement” rating and
associated negative comments in part IVb of her Noncommissioned Officer
Evaluation Report (NCOER).  She also requests that the senior rater’s
negative comment in part Ve be removed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during the rating period she had
three close relatives, in addition to her mother and a close military
friend, die in a matter of 20 months.  She maintains that while her mother
was dying, she was not authorized to take off from work with the exception
of one day and/or a pass. The applicant admitted she was sent to mental
health as a result of seeing her family care practitioner.  However, she
denies having any type of mental deficiencies.  The applicant concludes
that all Soldiers coming from the active component with 14 years of active
federal service are capable of multi-tasking and are logical thinkers.

3.  The applicant provides obituaries, contested NCOER, Enlisted Special
Review Board (ESRB) Case Summary, mental status documentation, supporting
statements, DA Form 4856 (Development Counseling Form), orders, graduation
certificate, and disability certificates.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's contested NCOER shows her date of rank as
           1 November 1993 and her primary military occupational specialty
as 75H (Personnel Sergeant).  The period covered is listed from October
2000 through September 2001.  This was an annual evaluation report and the
applicant was rated for the entire 12 months as the Unit Training
Noncommissioned Officer.  The report was signed by the applicant and the
rating officials on 6 June 2002.

2.  In part IVb “Competence” the rater assessed the applicant’s performance
as “Needs (Some) Improvement” with negative bullet comments of “needs
further training for her functional skills” and “tasks that are the same
needed to be explained each time they are assigned.”  In part V “Overall
Performance and Potential” the senior rater assessed the applicant as “3-
Successful” and “3-Superior” with lackluster comment of “can enhance
performance and potential by improving analytical and prioritization skills
and ability to work multiple tasks.”

3.  Orders dated 9 March 2000 shows the applicant was ordered to active
duty in the rank of staff sergeant with a reporting date of 17 May 2000.
4.  The applicant provided obituaries on six individuals confirming their
date of death as 1 August 2000, 19 December 2000, 4 May 2001, 2 August
2001, and two deaths on 12 July 2002.  The applicant also provided medical
records on her deceased mother.

5.  Counseling statement dated 30 January 2001, shows that the applicant
was counseled by her rater for withdrawal of her recommendation in support
of the applicant’s attendance at a military course.  The rater said, in
effect, that her decision was based on the applicant’s inability to
complete tasks in a timely manner and lack of understanding details.  The
rater said the applicant’s focus on the mission was not to standard at this
time.  The rater provided a list of tasks that needed to be accomplished by
2 February 2001.  The rater also stated that she would establish a task
roster and each Wednesday she and the applicant would discuss the progress
of the tasks.  The applicant disagreed with the counseling statement and
stated that she has done the best she could do.  She stated that the board
reports were done however; she made a mistake by not giving the major or
the section a copy.

6.  The disability certificates dated 15 May 2001, 13 July 2001 and
              2 August 2001, shows the date the applicant was seen by a
Livonia Family Physician in Livonia, Michigan.  The certificates indicated
that the applicant was under doctor’s care.

7.  The applicant provided two statements from fellow co-workers that
address an incident between the applicant and an officer which appeared to
have occurred during February/March 2001.  In addition, she provides two
statements from Senior Noncommissioned Officers dated 19 and 27 November
2001 that address their role as providing counsel and guidance to the
applicant on her pending administrative actions.

8.  On 18 May 2001, the applicant’s senior rater requested that she provide
medical documentation regarding her medical condition.  He stated that she
had failed to provide adequate documentation justifying her absence from
work.  The senior rater said that failure to provide this information
within two duty days of receipt of this letter would result in her duty
status being changed from government quarters to absence without leave
(AWOL).

9.  The applicant provided several memorandums concerning her mental status
evaluations and health.  The memorandums show that the applicant was
command referred to mental health on 23 May 2001.  The mental health
specialist found that there was no evidence of mental defect, emotional
illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant
disposition through military medical channels.  The applicant was
determined to be mentally responsible for her behavior, can distinguish
right from wrong, and possesses sufficient mental capacity to participate
intelligently in any proceedings which may involve her.  The mental health
specialist recommended the applicant receive counseling to help her learn
better coping skills, and address anxiety issues.

10.  Orders dated 11 June 2001 shows that the applicant was promoted to the
rank of Sergeant First Class effective 1 July 2001.

11.  Letters dated 12 July 2001, verify that the applicant sought
counseling from a pastor at the Detroit World Outreach and a social worker
at the Counseling Associates Incorporated for stress problems which
impacted her work performance.

12.  Documentation dated 25 and 31 October 2001 shows that the applicant
was authorized 6 weeks of convalescent leave for surgery she underwent on
         11 September 2001.  Her convalescent leave was later extended for
one week due to complications.  This information was provided to the
applicant’s chain of command upon request.

13.  The certificate from the Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort
Jackson, South Carolina, shows that the applicant graduated from the Senior
Personnel Service Sergeant Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course, Phase
II, on     23 August 2002.

14.  On 23 September 2003, the applicant appealed her NCOER through the
ESRB on the basis of substantive inaccuracy.  The applicant contended that
she was never properly counseled by the rater or senior rater in accordance
with regulatory guidance.  Additionally, she stated there were false
allegations lodged against her by the rater and her subsequent rater.  She
also argued that she was never given the opportunity to attend training and
denied the opportunity to request a Commander’s Inquiry

15.  The ESRB denied her appeal citing that the applicant failed to provide
any documentation that the rater failed to provide a fair and accurate
assessment of her performance during the rating period.  The board
acknowledged the rating scheme, provided by the applicant, proved that the
senior rater listed on the contested report was accurate.  The board stated
the applicant failed to provide any documentation to show his bullet
comments were not a true reflection of her performance.  Additionally, the
ESRB said that based upon the date the applicant requested to see the
commander, 5 July 2001, which was before the “Thru” date of the contested
report, she could not have requested a Commander’s Inquiry as indicated in
her letter to the board.  The ESRB concluded that there was not
sufficiently convincing evidence to prove that the contested NCOER was
inaccurate or unjust.

16.  Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting
System) establishes the policies and procedures for the NCOER system.  The
regulation states that rating officials must prepare complete accurate and
fully-considered evaluation reports.  With due regard to the NCO’s current
grade, experience, and military schooling, evaluations should cover failure
as well as achievements.  Rating officials have the responsibility to
balance their obligations to the rated NCO with their oblations to the
Army.  Rating officials must make honest, fair evaluations of the NCOs
under their supervisions.

17.  Paragraph 2-9 states that the rater’s primary role is that of
evaluation, focusing on performance and performance counseling.  The rater
will counsel the rated NCO on his or her duty performance and professional
development throughout the rating period.  The rater will assess the
performance of the rated NCO using all reasonable means, prepare a fair,
correct, report evaluating the NCO’s duty performance, values/NCO
responsibilities, and potential.

18.  Paragraphs 2-10 states that the senior rater uses his or her position
and experience to evaluate the rated NCO from a broad organizational
perspective.  His or her evaluation is the link between the day-to-day
observation of the rated NCO’s performance by the rater and the longer-term
evaluation of the rated NCO’s potential by DA selection boards.  The senior
rater role is primarily to evaluate potential, over-watch the performance
evaluation, and mentor subordinates.  The senior rater will use all
reasonable means to become familiar with the rated NCO’s performance
throughout the rating period, prepare a fair, correct report evaluating the
NCO’s duty performance, professionalism, and potential.

19.  Paragraph 6-6 states that an evaluation accepted for inclusion in the
official record of an NCO is presumed to be administratively correct, to
have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and
represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating
officials at the time of preparation.

20.  Additionally, paragraph 6-10 of that regulation states that the burden
of proof rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or
amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and
convincingly overcomes the presumption of regularity referred to above and
that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is
warranted.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Record of evidence shows the applicant was counseled by her rater in
January 2001 concerning not being allowed to attend a military course based
on the rater’s admission that the applicant was unable to complete tasks in
a timely manner, lack of understanding details, and was not mission
focused.  In the counseling statement the rater outlined taskings that had
to be accomplished by a certain date and stated that she would establish a
task roster which would be discussed every Wednesday.  The applicant signed
the counseling statement and indicated that she disagreed with the rater’s
assessment.

2.  Evidence further shows that the applicant was a seasoned Soldier with
over six years in time in grade at the time the contested report was
rendered.  Whether or not the applicant agreed with the rater’s counseling
assessment is irrelevant, the fact that the rater saw a problem with the
applicant’s duty performance to the point that required documentation and
micromanagement of her (applicant) daily activities should have alerted the
applicant of deficiencies in her performance.

3.  The counseling statement was rendered nine months prior to the “thru”
date of the NCOER and the “Needs (Some) Improvement” rating and comment
reflect the information cited in the counseling statement.  It appears that
the applicant’s duty performance did not improve sufficiently enough to
warrant a successful rating by the rater.  The applicant has failed to
provide any evidence to refute the rating and comment rendered by her
rater.  She offers justification for her actions and stated that during the
rating period she had three close relatives, a mother, and a military
friend die.

4.  The applicant also requests the senior rater’s comment of “can enhance
performance and potential by improving analytical and prioritization skills
and ability to work multiple tasks” be removed from her NCOER.  She cites
the fact that she has over 14 years of active federal service as proof of
her logical thinking and multi-tasking capabilities.  She provides no
evidence that the bullet comment is inaccurate or unfair.  Therefore, the
Board must assume the presumption of regularity and rely on the experience
and judgment of the senior rater who was in the best position to observe
the applicant's performance of duty.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___AR __  ___LD  __  ___PT __  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                 |AR20060001597                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|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]