IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 August 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011949
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 a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) certificate be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states he was issued two MSM certificates. Both certificates are for the period 24 July 2003 to 10 January 2009 and show the authority for the award as Permanent Order A-309-5. The first certificate does not have the correct narrative and needs to be deleted from his OMPF. The second MSM certificate has the correct narrative. He has attempted to have the first MSM certificate removed from his records and has been told that since the two MSM certificates are not duplicates (identical), the first MSM certificate cannot be removed from his OMPF.
3. The applicant provides the two MSM certificates. The second MSM certificate shows the applicant serving as a platoon sergeant, S2 noncommissioned officer (NCO) in charge, and senior operations sergeant. The first MSM certificate shows the applicant serving as the S2 NCO in charge.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1991, served through reenlistments and extensions of his enlistment, and was promoted to pay grade E-8.
2. The applicant was given an NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period covering 1 November 2007 through 31 October 2008. In that NCOER his principal duty title was listed as operations NCO. This NCOER does not mention anything about the applicant performing duties as a platoon sergeant.
3. The applicant was given an NCOER for the period covering 1 November 2006 through 31 October 2007. In that NCOER his principal duty title was listed as operations NCO. This NCOER does not mention anything about the applicant performing duties as a platoon sergeant.
4. The applicant was given an NCOER for the period covering August 2005 through March 2006. In that NCOER his principal duty title was listed as platoon sergeant.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. While it is obvious that one MSM certificate is erroneous and should be removed, what is not obvious is which MSM certificate is erroneous.
2. The MSM certificate he contends is valid has his earlier platoon sergeant duty position mentioned, which the other MSM certificate does not.
3. Since the applicant's NCOER verifies that he served as a platoon sergeant during the time covered by the MSM, the applicant's word is accepted that the MSM certificate which shows that he served as a platoon sergeant is the proper certificate. It would be proper to now remove the erroneous MSM certificate.
BOARD VOTE:
___X____ ___X___ ___X____ 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
removing the MSM certificate for the award issued under the authority of Permanent Order A-309-5, which does not mention the applicant's duties as a platoon sergeant (the certificate marked "Needs to be removed from OMPF").
_______ _ 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) AR20090011949
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090011949
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012984
The applicant provides the following documents: * the contested DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER) * his NCOER appeal CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. In pertinent part, he contended, the NCOER contained: * unverified derogatory information (i.e., that the applicant's actions "immediately caused a hostile work environment" and "disrupted the good order and discipline of the unit") * references to issues with integrity (i.e., he declined to make a statement, which is not the same as retracting his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009064
The applicant requests correction of his Change of Rater DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 1 November 2009 through 25 July 2010 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) or, in the alternative, removal of the contested NCOER from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant provides copies of the following documents: * the contested NCOER * seven letters * ESRB Record of Proceedings, dated 20 September 2012 * ESRB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150013880
Counsel states: * the applicant has future potential in the Army and would continue to be an asset if allowed to continue in the service * the applicant disputes the underlying adverse actions that initiated or led to the QMP * the denial of continued service is based on two erroneous NCOERs (from 20080219-20090130) * the applicant received a company grade Article 15 which was directed to be filed in the restricted folder of his OMPF but the applicant has improved his performance since this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003926
In Part V(c) (Senior Rater Overall Performance) and in Part V(d) (Senior Rater Overall Potential), the senior rater gave a rating of "Successful" and placed an "X" in the "2" block for the applicant's overall performance and a rating of "Superior" and placed an "X" in the "3" block for the applicant's overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. The senior rater on the contested NCOER was the same platoon sergeant who counseled her on 14...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023559
He provided: a. the senior rater only stated his awareness that multiple evaluations were completed on him and provided no additional information surrounding the NCOER(s) in question; b. the senior rater was in the role of commander for a very short time during the processing of his report and primarily restated input he received from the first sergeant without knowing much of the facts; c. once he made the CSM aware of the issues between the 1SG and himself, and additional discrepancies in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091493C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, the ESRB partially approved the applicant’s appeal on 21 January 2000 and directed: a. that USAEREC will change Part IVc (Height) of the contested report from 64 inches to 66 inches; b. that promotion reconsideration is not warranted because of the change in height; c. that the rating officials on the contested report are correct; d. that the supporting documentation submitted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008771
The applicant requests removal of the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period from 1 July 2008 to 12 February 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant provides three letters in support of his request. The applicant's request to have the contested report removed from his OMPF was carefully considered, however, there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060262C070421
The Commander’s Inquiry procedures will not be used to document differences of opinion between rating officials (or between the commander and rating officials) about an NCO’s performance and potential. Army Regulation 635-205, paragraph 4-2 states that an NCOER accepted for inclusion in an NCO’s official military personnel file (OMPF) is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610415C070209
He also notes that the applicants relief for cause evaluation was not preceded by written performance counseling and sufficient time elapsed to allow...[him]...to demonstrate improved performance as required by his organizations written policy. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment. It is unreasonable to believe that the applicant, as counsel maintains, was totally unaware of the existence of the relief for cause NCOER until he received...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000503
This NCOER shows: * his rater rated his 7 Army values as "Yes," his NCO responsibilities as "Success" or "Excellence," and his overall potential for promotion as "Fully Capable" * his senior rater rated his overall performance as "Successful/2" and his overall potential as "Superior/2" 6. This NCOER shows: * his rater rated his 7 Army values as "Yes," his NCO responsibilities as "Success" or "Excellence," and his overall potential for promotion as "Fully Capable" * his senior rater rated...