RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011933 


	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

Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann 

Chairperson

Mr. David K. Haasenritter

Member

Mr. Ronald D. Gant

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 a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period January 2002 through December 2002 [hereafter referred to as the contested report] from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

2.  The applicant states that a Command Inquiry found "a lack of objectivity by the rating officials" and failure to adhere to Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System).  The applicant continues that the contested report was amended by appeal through the US Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center and that the amended report was still unjust because it did not address achievements that were deliberately omitted by the rater.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the contested report, the results of the Commander's Inquiry, and the NCOER appeal packet in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The amended contested report is identified as a 12 month annual rating for the period January 2002 through December 2002.  This report shows that an "X" was placed in the box for each of the Army Values.

2.  The rater placed his "X" in the Needs Improvement box in Part IVb (Competence) and provided the following comment "focused on tasks of personal interest while performing less than optimally on tasks considered menial."

3.  The rater placed his "X" in the Needs Improvement box in Part VId (Leadership) and provided the following comment "lacked a strong desire to carry out his primary mission as laboratory NCOIC."

4.  The rater placed his "X" in the Marginal box in Part Va (Overall Performance and Potential).

5.  The Senior Rater (SR) placed his "X" in the number 4 (Fair) box indicating the applicant's overall performance and in the number 3 (Superior) indicating his overall potential.  The SR provided the following comments:

	"lacked motivation and initiative in laboratory duties resulting in very few significant accomplishments during rating period
	is very intelligent and has the potential to develop into an outstanding NCO with more self-directed motivation

	effective as training NCO which resulted in soldiers receiving a 100% first time go on recent mandatory annual training."

6.  The contested report contains the entry "Certified Corrected Copy" and has been placed on the applicant's OMPF.

7.  The applicant appealed to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) on 14 January 2006.

8.  The ESRB concluded that the applicant was entitled to partial relief.  Specifically, the ESRB found that the contested report should be amended to show the entries in Part IVa (2, 4, 5, & 6) as "Yes" and delete the bullet comment "lacked the initiative to properly learn and assume responsibility for his job in the Immunohistochemistry laboratory."

9.  The ESRB also determined that in Part IVd the comment "occasionally placed personal needs before mission accomplishment and soldier welfare" and the comment in Part IVf "used poor judgment by directing a junior enlisted soldier to perform an unauthorized non-duty mission during duty hour" should be deleted.

10.  The ESRB also found that although the contested report was amended through appeal, the changes did not warrant promotion reconsideration and directed that the appeal correspondence be filed on the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF.

11.  The applicant provided the Commander's response to his request for an inquiry into the contested report.

12.  The Commander stated that he conducted a review of the contested report and found a "lack of objectivity by the rating officials."  The Commander recommended the following changes:

	a.  "Competence.  Change to "Success"  The rater did not sufficiently document the technical performance of the Soldier.  Delete Bullet number 2.

	b. Leadership.  Change to "Success"  There was no documentation that detailed the roles and responsibilities of the Soldier at the beginning of the rating period.  There is evidence that the Soldier lacked the technical skills required and received little supervisory guidance to perform the task of a "laboratory NCOIC". Delete bullet # 1.

	c.  Responsibility and Accountability.  Change to "Success."  No evidence that this NCO "directed" a junior enlisted Soldier to perform unauthorized non-duty tasks during duty hours.  Delete Bullet Number 1."

13.  The Commander further recommended that the rater block be changed to "fully capable."  The Commander continued that the applicant should be given clearly defined roles and responsibilities at the beginning of the rating period with consistent incremental counseling.  The Commander concluded that the criteria for successful accomplishment of the applicant's technical and supervisory tasks should be documented.

14.  Army Regulation 623-205 prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the military personnel system.  Paragraph 3-2 of this regulation states that reports are submitted on all NCOs in the grade of SGT through CSM.  Paragraph 3-2d states that rating officials directly affect a rated NCO's performance and professional development.  Thus, these officials must ensure that the rated NCO thoroughly understands the organization, its mission, his or her role in support of the mission, and all of the standards by which performance will be judged.

15.  Paragraph 3-2 g of Army Regulation 623-205 states that rating officials have a responsibility to balance their obligations to the rated NCO with their obligations to the Army.  Rating officials must make honest, fair evaluations of the NCOs under their supervision.  On the one hand, they must give full credit to the rated NCO for his or her achievement and potential.  On the other hand, rating officials are obligated to the NCO and the Army to be honest in their evaluations.  Selection boards and career managers need balanced evaluations in order to make intelligent decisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that the contested report should be removed because after the ESRB amended the report it still did not show his accomplishments were carefully considered and determined to have merit.

2.  A Commander's Inquiry was conducted on the contested report and the contested report was reviewed by the ESRB.  Both the Commander and the ESRB found that the rater lacked objectivity in the assessment of the applicant and recommended changes to the contested report.  All of the changes were significant changes that altered the overall evaluation of the applicant's performance and potential.

3.  As a result of the ESRB findings, the contested report was amended to a more favorable rating and placed on the applicant's OMPF.  The amended report did not include changes that showed significant accomplishments achieved by the applicant during the rating period.

4.  It appears that although the contested report was amended as directed by the ESRB, the report is fatally flawed based on the fact that the rater did not fairly and objectively rate the applicant in accordance with Army Regulation 623-205.

5.  Based on the foregoing, it would be appropriate in this case to delete the contested report the applicant's OMPF, provide a non-prejudicial statement that explains that the absence of a NCOER for the period January 2002 through December 2002, and remove the ESRB appeal documentation from the applicant's OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

_RDG___  _JCR____  _DKH___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removal of the NCOER for the period January 2002 through December 2002 from his OMPF, provide a non-prejudicial statement that explains that the absence of a NCOER for the period January 2002 through December 2002, and removal of the ESRB appeal documentation from his OMPF.



__Jeffrey C. Redmann ____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.