RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012895


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Sherry J. Stone               |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request to
change the Part Vc (Overall Performance and Potential) score of 4 given by
his Senior Rater (SR) in his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report
(NCOER) covering the period December 2002 through October 2003.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the evaluation score of 4 the SR
gave him in Part Vc of the NCOER in question is not supported by the
overall evaluation he received in this report.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20050011706, on 22 November 2005.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found the SR was
acting in accordance with the governing regulation based on his judgment
and evaluation of the applicant's performance of duty when he gave the
applicant a score of 4 in Part Vc of the NCOER in question.  It also
concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the regulatory burden of
proof necessary to support a change to the overall performance rating he
received from the SR, and it voted to deny the applicant's request.

3.  The applicant submits a self-authored letter in support of this
reconsideration request.  In it, he claims his NCOER rating was the result
of his being illegally charged with improperly using a Government credit
card he was authorized to use while he was on temporary duty (TDY).  He
claims a proper investigation was never conducted and there was
insufficient evidence to support issuing him a General Officer Memorandum
of Reprimand (GOMOR) requested by the command.  He claims his rater
provided him a letter to help change his NCOER; however, the SR indicated
he did not support changing the report because it could have been much
worse.  He also outlines his achievements and accomplishments while serving
with the unit.

4.  Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting
System) sets the policies and procedures governing the Noncommissioned
Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS).  Chapter 6 contains guidance
on NCOER appeals.  Paragraph 6-6 stipulates that a report accepted for
filing in a NCOs record is presumed to be administratively correct, to have
been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the
considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time
of preparation.

5.  Paragraph 6-10 of the same regulation contains guidance on the burden
of proof necessary for a successful appeal of an NCOER that has already
been accepted for filing in the OMPF.  It states, in pertinent part, that
in order to justify amendment or deletion of a report, clear and convincing
evidence must be provided to show that the presumption of regularity should
not be applied to the report in question and/or action is warranted to
correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the SR rating of 4 he received in Part
Vc of the NCOER in question is not supported by the overall evaluation he
received in the report, and that it was based on his being improperly
charged with misusing a Government credit card, and the support statement
he provided as new evidence, were carefully considered.  However, the
factors raised in his self-authored statements restate arguments that were
considered during the Board's original review of this case.  As a result,
there is not sufficient mitigating evidence to support amendment of the
original Board decision.

2.  By regulation, in order to support a successful appeal, a member must
provide clear and convincing evidence to show that the presumption of
regularity should not be applied to the report in question and/or action is
warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  The self-
authored statement submitted by the applicant as new evidence does not
satisfy this regulatory burden of proof.  Therefore, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

3.  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

___KLW_  __TMR __  __SJS __  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050011706, dated 22 November 2005.





                                  _____Kenneth L. Wright____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012895                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20050011706 / 2005/11/22              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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