RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060007135
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.
Acting Director
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Chairperson
Member
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 he be given a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for promotion to pay grade E-8.
2. The applicant states that although the Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, agreed that it was not his fault that his last Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) was not included in the file considered by the E-8 promotion board, it denied his request for a STAB. The applicant adds that he does not feel that his career should be adversely affected because of someone elses mistake.
3. The applicant provides his NCOER for the period covering January to December 2005; e-mail correspondence between the applicant and HRC, St. Louis; a DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 23 April 2004 in which the applicants commander requests a STAB; and a memorandum dated 1 May 2006 from the HRC, St. Louis, denying the applicants commanders request for a STAB.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 7 February 2002, the applicant was given his NCOER for the period covering January to December 2005. The evaluation was for his performance of duties in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program while assigned to a USAR unit as the assistant operations sergeant, pay grade E-7. The NCOER was extremely laudatory and the applicant was given the best ratings possible by both his rater and senior rater.
2. In the e-mail correspondence the applicant informed HRC St. Louis that his NCOER was sent to the promotion board on 13 February 2006 and the NCOER was sent to the records custodian for inclusion in his official military personnel file (OMPF) in the beginning of February.
3. On 14 February 2006, the assistant promotion board recorder responded to the applicant. The assistant recorder stated that his NCOER had not been received by the promotion board and the document cut-off for the promotion board was 8 February 2006. Therefore, the NCOER would not be included in the applicants promotion packet.
4. On 23 April 2004 in which the applicants commander requested a STAB to reconsider the applicant for promotion to pay grade E-8. In a memorandum dated 1 May 2006 from the HRC, St. Louis, that request was denied. It was explained that the NCOER was received by the Evaluation Support Branch for review and authentication on 13 February 2006, 6 days after the convening date of the promotion board.
5. The applicants records show that he has consistently received outstanding NCOERs throughout her career.
6. In the processing of this application an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC, St. Louis. The HRC stated that the applicants request for a STAB was denied because his NCOER was received after the convening date of the promotion board. The HRC adds that the governing regulation provides for promotion reconsideration when an NCOER is received in sufficient time to be included in the promotion packet but for some reason is omitted. The HRC opines that while it could be argued that the applicant was not directly responsible for the late submission of his NCOER, perhaps had he taken a more hands on approach to insure it was submitted to the correct office, the NCOER would have been included in his promotion packet.
7. The applicant was provide a copy of the advisory opinion and was given the opportunity to respond. He did not respond.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants NCOER was received after the promotion board convened. Therefore, it was properly not considered by the promotion board.
2. The applicants rating period ended in sufficient time for the NCOER to arrive at the promotion board prior to its cut off date if everything had gone perfectly. However, the failure of the NCOER to arrive in time for it to be included in the promotion packet is not surprising. The end of the rating period was 31 December 2005 and the cut off date for documents to arrive at the promotion board was 8 February 2006, which was a little over a month. During that time the applicant had to be rated by his rater, his senior rater had to rate him, and the NCOER had to be reviewed by the appropriate official. Only then could it be sent for inclusion in the promotion packet.
3. The applicant has not shown that there was information contained on the missing NCOER which would have resulted in his selection for promotion. While the NCOER is quite laudatory, so is his other NCOERs. This NCOER did not reflect the applicant being awarded a medal for valor or a combat tour completion.
4. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicants request to have him reconsidered for promotion to pay grade E-8 by a STAB.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____jlp__ ____wdp_ ___ims___ 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.
__________William D. Powers_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060007135
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/13
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013263
The evidence of record shows the governing Army regulation provides that 75 days are allowed for processing annual NCOERs after the Thru date. The evidence of record shows the applicant was due a mandatory annual report with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. The evidence of record shows that an NCOER received after the specified cut-off date that does not get posted to the board file will not be a basis for STAB consideration.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004384
The applicant requests reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision denying him a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for promotion consideration to master sergeant (MSG)/pay grade E-8 based on material error. The applicant states he contacted his rating chain concerning the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 7 January 2010, Subject: Request STAB Reconsideration,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012030
Requests received after 24 September 2010 will be processed in the order received but may not appear before the board; (8) paragraph 9b states, "In order to guarantee processing prior to board, all mandatory or optional NCOER's must be received, error free, in the Evaluation Reports Branch, HRC, not later than by close of business on 1 October 2010"; e. an undated ATRRS Request for Cancellation/Substitution Form showing his 1SG Course was cancelled because of his flag; f. an email from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015674
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of a noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period February 1989 through November 1989 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reconsideration for promotion to master sergeant by a standby advisory board (STAB). On 5 May 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal to the NCOER in question to HRC-St. Louis requesting the NCOER in question be removed from his record based on substantive inaccuracy. On 16 May 2008,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009492
The applicant requests reconsideration of an earlier request that his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period February 1989 through November 1989 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reconsideration for promotion to master sergeant by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB). The DA Form 1059 provided by the applicant and his contentions that the bullet comment "does not pursue opportunities for self improvement" on the contested NCOER conflicts...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020321
The applicant provides: * congressional correspondence * a memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 19 November 2009 * a copy of the OER with an ending date of 3 October 1991 * a copy of his Officer Record Brief with a preparation date of March 1993 * copies of course completion documents for the Warrant Officer Support Maintenance Technician Course * an Army Achievement Medal Certificate * a Junior Officer Maintenance Course diploma * a DA Form 1059...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016579
Additionally, the signatures in Part II (Authentication), in item c (Rated NCO) and item d (Name of Reviewer) of the contested NCOER, are forgeries. The senior rater will obtain the rated NCOs signature or enter the appropriate statement "NCO refuses to sign" or "NCO unavailable for signature." (1) If he is selected for promotion by the Standby Advisory Board and he is otherwise qualified, his record should be corrected by establishing his sergeant first class promotion effective date and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008250C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8) and all back pay due as a result; and removal of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). This promotion official indicates the policy in effect at the time of the Calendar Year (CY) 2003 MSG/E-8 promotion selection board, as articulated in paragraph 4d of the promotion board announcement message, stipulated that Soldiers in the rank of SFC/E-7 were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023919
In a self-authored memorandum to the Board, dated 13 October 2010, the applicant states his rater did not sign in to the battalion until late July 2005, which is almost 4 months after the beginning of the first rating period and does not coincide with his counseling periods. His rater and senior rater were the same as the relief for cause NCOER. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions that: a. his battalion commander directed his relief; b. his rater did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002988
The applicant requests: a. removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the rating period 1 March through 5 July 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) and b. promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 with a date of rank of October 2009. b. Paragraph 2-10 states the rated Soldier will participate in counseling and provide and discuss with the rating chain...