IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  6 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017460 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 be removed from her records.

2.  The applicant states that she believes that the NCOER was influenced by a third party, her battalion command sergeant major (CSM).  She states that all the edits on her NCOER drafts were made by the CSM and not her rater.

3.  The applicant adds that she believes there were inconsistencies with the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) consideration of her request.

4.  The applicant provides her ESRB record of proceedings dated 18 September 2008 with enclosures.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that while serving on active duty as a staff sergeant performing duties as a training NCO, she was given an NCOER for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.  The applicant was said to have all of the required Army values as indicated by the "Yes" block being marked in all the designated blocks in Part IV – Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions.  In Part IV (Rater) – Values/NCO Responsibilities, the applicant was rated as "Success" in all areas.  The applicant's rater ranked her potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as fully capable, the middle ranking of a three-field ranking system.  The applicant's senior rater stated that the applicant had unlimited potential and recommended that she be assigned to positions of greater responsibility, and he stated that she should be promoted with her peers. For the applicant's overall performance, the applicant's rater rated her in the second block in a five-block rating system, and her senior rater rated her in the first block.

2.  This NCOER was properly authenticated by the applicant's rater, a first sergeant; her senior rater, a captain; and her reviewer, a major.

3.  In her application to the ESRB, the applicant submitted 11 drafts of the contested NCOER which have edits annotated on the drafts.  These drafts are not authenticated.

4.  In her ESRB appeal, the applicant alleged that the battalion CSM improperly decided how she should be rated even though he had only served with the applicant for 3 months of the annual rating period.

5.  The ESRB concluded that by the markings and notes on the draft NCOERs, it would appear that the applicant's reviewer did not feel the bullet comments were strong enough to support an "Excellence" box check.  The ESRB also noted that the CSM, by regulation, was required to review the NCOERs that were prepared by the company executive officer and commander.  The ESRB added that the applicant did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the CSM was biased and influenced the rater's and senior rater's evaluations.

6.  The ESRB unanimously voted to deny the applicant's appeal.

7.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 2-17, states that "Every NCOER will be reviewed by the first sergeant, CSM, or SGM, and signed by an official who meets the reviewer requirements outlined in paragraph 2-8b."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her battalion CSM mandated how she was to be rated is not supported by the evidence of record.  While the contested NCOER was required to be reviewed by her CSM by regulation, there is no evidence to show the draft NCOERs are authentic or, assuming that they are authentic, who made the edits.  There is no indication that the CSM influenced the applicant's actual rating.

2.  It would appear more likely that the applicant's reviewer, a major, did not feel the bullet comments were strong enough to support an "Excellence" box check mark.  As such, the ESRB's conclusion appears well founded.
3.  The applicant's contention that there were inconsistencies with the ESRB's consideration of her request is not supported by the evidence of record.

4.  While the applicant may believe that she should have been given a stronger NCOER for her performance during the contested report's rating period, it is noted that the NCOER is a positive report.  Not every Soldier performs all of his or her duties and executes his or her responsibilities in a manner to warrant an "Excellence" rating all of the time.

5.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to show that her performance of duty or execution of responsibilities was so remarkable that she should have been rated as "Excellence" in any of the rated duties or responsibilities or that the contested NCOER should be removed from her records.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  __X____  ___X____  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.



      ___________X______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017460



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017460


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1