RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            06 APRIL 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060002891


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Brenda Koch                   |     |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 she be reinstated to the Sergeant First
Class (SFC) Promotion Standing List, that she be promoted to the pay grade
of E-7 effective 1 January 2004, with entitlement to all back pay and
allowances, that she be reinstated to the Drill Sergeant Program effective
12 December 2003, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances, and
restoration of her Special Qualification Identifier (SQI) and Drill
Sergeant Identification Badge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was unjustly removed from the
Drill Sergeant Program and was unjustly removed from the SFC Promotion
Standing List because of being removed from the Program.  She goes on to
state that an informal investigation was initiated against her to determine
if she had committed violations of regulations and the investigation
contained both procedural and substantive errors.  She further states that
an inspector general investigation confirmed that her command did not
properly follow the procedures for removing her from the Drill Sergeant
Program which makes the whole proceedings flawed. She continues by stating
that her relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report was
improperly processed and had to be redone three times and was late when it
was done.  She also states that she was not counseled regarding the
allegations against her and that she was not treated fairly because other
drill sergeants who had done far worse things than she did were not removed
from the program.  Additionally, she did not use the language she was
accused of using and she never had any racial or sexual discussions with
the Soldiers.  Accordingly, she should have been promoted to the pay grade
of E-7 on 1 January 2004 and she should have been restored to the Drill
Sergeant Program.

3.  The applicant provides a three-page explanation of her application and
a packet with 14 tabs that are listed on a Table of Contents.  She also
submits a packet regarding her removal from the Drill Sergeant Program
which contains eight tabs listed on a table of contents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  She enlisted on 29 January 1986 for a period of three years and
training as an administrative specialist.  She completed her training and
has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.
She was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 March 1999.

2.  On 31 August 2000, the applicant was notified that the Calendar Year
2000 Sergeant First Class Promotion Board had determined that she should be
barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) due
to the presence of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and
four noncommissioned officer evaluation reports indicating deficiencies in
performance, efficiency and discipline.  The applicant appealed the QMP
action and her appeal was approved on 9 April 2001.

3.  On 4 October 2002, the applicant graduated from the Drill Sergeant
Course at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  She was reassigned from Fort
Gillem, Georgia, to Fort Jackson on 10 December 2002 and was assigned to a
basic training unit as a drill sergeant.  Meanwhile, the applicant was
selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 by the CY 2003 SFC Promotion
Board.

4.  She received her first noncommissioned officer evaluation report
(NCOER) as a drill sergeant on 2 December 2003 for the period of December
2002 to August 2003.  She received a maximum report for that rating period.

5.  On 14 October 2003, an investigating officer was appointed to
investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the professional
conduct of the applicant.  The investigating officer was required to obtain
answers to a minimum of five questions that were specified at the time of
appointment.

6.  The investigating officer completed her investigation on 15 October
2003 and found that the applicant had been insubordinate in her conduct and
actions, that she used excessive profanity, that she discussed personal
issues and circumstances in front of her platoon, that her leadership and
training methods resulted in decreased morale and that she likely changed
“battle buddies” because of race and ethnicity.

7.  On 16 October 2003, the battalion commander initiated a memorandum to
the applicant in which he recommended that the applicant be suspended from
drill sergeant duties immediately.  He advised the applicant that she could
respond to the allegation against her and that she must do so no later than
24 October 2003. He also advised her that she was prohibited from any
contact with Soldiers in training or drill sergeants in her company unless
explicit prior approval was given by himself.

8.  On 24 October 2003, the applicant responded to the recommendation to
suspend her from drill sergeant duties.  She indicated that she took full
responsibility for her actions and that the investigation served as a wake-
up call for her.  She went on to state that she would like the opportunity
to learn from her mistakes and she apologized for the lapses in her
judgment and conduct.  She disputed several of the allegations and
requested that she be given the chance to show that she could be a
competent and effective drill sergeant.

9.  On 27 October 2003, the battalion commander initiated a recommendation
to remove the applicant from the Drill Sergeant Program.  He cited the
investigation findings, the applicant’s disobedience of a lawful order
given by him not to contact members of her company, making false official
statements and failure to obey orders and regulations.  He went on to state
that he relied heavily on the 16 sworn statements of Soldiers in her
platoon and the verbal testimony of an additional and different 16 randomly
selected soldiers whom he interviewed, who overwhelmingly substantiated the
allegations.

9.  On 1 December 2003, the applicant refused to sign the memorandum
acknowledging receipt of the memorandum recommending that she be removed
from the Drill Sergeant Program.

10.  On 12 December 2003, the recommendation to remove the applicant from
the Drill Sergeant Program was approved by the brigade commander and her
SQI was withdrawn and her Drill Sergeant Identification Badge was
withdrawn.

11.  On 13 January 2004, the applicant submitted an Inspector General (IG)
Action Request (DA Form 1559) in which she requested that the IG
investigate her complaints regarding her improper removal from the Drill
Sergeant Program.

12.  The IG submitted a request to the brigade commander requesting that a
commander’s inquiry into the applicant’s complaints be conducted and an
officer was appointed.  On 8 March 2004, the investigating officer found
that the company and battalion commanders did not process the requests for
suspension and removal in accordance with the applicable policy memorandum;
however, the applicant was aware of the procedures as they were occurring
and actually benefited financially as a result of the delay.  The
investigating officer recommended that the commanders be made aware of the
policy for processing Drill Sergeant Suspension and Removal Packets, that
the brigade establish a tracking system to ensure timely processing and
that a class be provided to units on the timely and proper processing of
such requests.

13.  On 16 March 2004, the IG responded to her request and opined that her
complaints that her company and battalion commanders had improperly
processed her suspension and removal from the Drill Sergeant Program were
substantiated.

14.  On 18 March 2004, a memorandum was dispatched from the Human Resources
Command – Alexandria (HRC-Alex) which informed the applicant that a
Department of the Army Enlisted Standby Advisory Board that adjourned on
20 February 2004 recommended that she should be removed from the promotion
list to SFC and the recommendation was approved on 10 March 2004.

15.  The applicant received a relief for cause NCOER on 31 March 2004 which
covered the period from September 2003 through December 2003.  It appears
that it took three re-writes of the report before an accurate report was
finally accepted as being administratively correct.  The applicant refused
to sign the report.

16.  The applicant filed an Equal Opportunity complaint on 26 April 2004
whereas she complained that she had been discriminated against based on her
gender, in that she was the victim of selective prosecution.  She further
stated that other drill sergeants of male gender had committed more serious
violations and had received much less punishment and had not been removed
from the Drill Sergeant Program.  The investigating officer conducted an
investigation in the circumstances in each case and found that the
applicant’s complaints were unsubstantiated.

17.  The applicant submitted an appeal of the removal action with the
support of her chain of command who indicated that it was not the intent of
the command to remove her from the promotion standing list.  The HRC-Alex
opined that the underlying basis of the removal had not been determined to
be erroneous and denied her appeal on 23 September 2005.

18.  On 15 November 2005, in response to a telephonic request for
assistance regarding allegations by the applicant, the IG responded to the
effect that her allegation that she had been improperly relieved by her
brigade commander was substantiated, that her allegation that she had been
improperly refused the use of the open door policy was unsubstantiated,
that her allegation that she had been improperly counseled by her rater was
substantiated, and that her allegations that her NCOER was improperly
processed by her battalion and the personnel office was substantiated.

19.  In February 2006, the applicant again submitted a request to be
reinstated to the Drill Sergeant Program.  The commanding general
disapproved her request for reconsideration.

20.  Fort Jackson Policy Memorandum # 1-10 – Drill Sergeant Suspension,
Reinstatement, Removal, and Appeal Procedures, establishes guidelines for
the submission of documentation to suspend, reinstate, and remove drill
sergeants from the Drill Sergeant Program.  The authority to suspend a
drill sergeant from duty, to reinstate a suspended drill sergeant, and to
remove a drill sergeant from the Drill Sergeant Program has been delegated
to the brigade level (06) commanders.  It further provides that a company
commander will initiate suspension and/or removal action within 48 hours of
learning of the alleged misconduct.  All approved requests will be hand
carried through the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate to the Adjutant
General Division within 48 hours of approval.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that her suspension and removal from the
Drill Sergeant Program and her NCOER were not properly processed in
accordance with established guidelines have already been substantiated by
previous investigations.  However, in each case, the administrative errors
that occurred were either to the applicant’s advantage or they were
subsequently corrected.

2.  The delays or failure to follow the Fort Jackson policy regarding the
suspension and removal of the applicant from the Drill Sergeant Program
actually served to benefit the applicant monetarily because the delay
allowed her to receive her Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) during the
delay period.  There is no evidence present that suggests that she was
denied any of her rights to due process.

3.  In regards to her relief for cause NCOER, it appears that it took three
times before a correct report was prepared and accepted for processing.
While that is not considered appropriate, it does not negate the reason or
content of the report when it was finally accepted.

4.  Accordingly, it appears that the chain of command appropriately took
the necessary steps, under the circumstances, to investigate the
allegations against the applicant and to suspend and eventually remove her
from the Drill Sergeant Program.

5.  Likewise, given the seriousness of her misconduct and her removal from
the Drill Sergeant Program, the applicant was properly considered by a duly
constituted Enlisted Special Review Board and was properly removed from the
E-7 Promotion List.

6.  While the applicant may not agree with the course of action taken by
her chain of command at the time, there is insufficient evidence to suggest
or show that the applicant’s rights were violated by her chain of command.
In fact, the available evidence suggests that the chain of command was very
cognizant of her rights and took every opportunity to investigate the
allegations thoroughly before taking action against her.

7.  The applicant’s contention that the investigation conducted was flawed
has been noted and appears to be without merit.  While the investigating
officer only interviewed 16 Soldiers in Training, it appears that given the
information that was contained in the sworn statements, that 16 interviews
was sufficient.  Additionally, the battalion commander randomly interviewed
16 additional soldiers before he accepted the results of the investigation.
 This action in itself suggests that the battalion commander did not take
the action lightly and took the steps necessary to protect both the
applicant’s and the Army’s interest in the matter.

8.  Notwithstanding that administrative processing errors occurred during
the process of suspending and removing her from the Drill Sergeant Program
and the processing of her NCOER, in the final analysis, she was properly
suspended and relieved from the Drill Sergeant Program as a result of her
own misconduct and her relief for cause NCOER properly reflect her
performance and potential during the period in question.  Accordingly,
there appears to be no basis to approve her requests.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PS __  ___CD __  ___BK __  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.








                                  ______PAUL SMITH_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002891                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060406                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |192/reinstatement                       |
|1.110.0300              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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