IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100023919 


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 his noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) for the periods ending October 2005 and October 2006 be removed from his records and that the periods be considered nonrated time.

2.  The applicant states since his battalion commander directed his relief and not his rater or senior rater, Army regulations require a letter explaining why he was relieved to be attached as an enclosure to his NCOER.  He adds that his performance before and after the contested NCOER was outstanding and he is currently considered one of the best in both his company and his battalion.

3.  In a self-authored memorandum to the Board, dated 13 October 2010, the applicant states his rater did not sign in to the battalion until late July 2005, which is almost 4 months after the beginning of the first rating period and does not coincide with his counseling periods.  He also cites other administrative errors on the NCOERs, including his duty position, and a lack of formal counseling preceding a relief for cause NCOER.

4.  The applicant adds that after he left his recruiting station, the station did worse but the new station commander was not relieved.

5.  The applicant provides a memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, VA, dated 24 April 2010; the two contested NCOERs; an excerpt from the Recruiter Journal, dated December 

2004; the RA MPA Contracts list for RY 2003 thru RY 2004 and RY 2005; an NCOER for another recruiting station commander; and four letters of support.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he received an NCOER for the period May 2005 through October 2005.  This was a relief for cause NCOER.  The rater for the NCOER is the company first sergeant and the senior rater is the company commander.  The applicant's duty position is listed as a recruiting station commander.  In this NCOER his rater stated:

* made adequate process [sic] in the weight control program
* constantly failed to execute guidance and directives from higher headquarters
* could not effectively lead Soldiers
* the rated NCO has been notified of the reason for the relief

2.  The applicant's rater rated his overall potential for promotion and/or positions of greater responsibility as "Marginal," the lowest rating of a 3-level rating scheme.

3.  The applicant's senior rater stated:

* do not promote
* was unable to accomplish tasks unless constantly supervised

4.  His senior rater rated him "Fair," the next to lowest rating on a 5-level rating scheme for both overall potential and performance.

5.  On 9 November 2005, the applicant refused to sign the NCOER.

6.  He received an NCOER for the period 1 November 2005 through 31 October 2006.  His rater and senior rater were the same as the relief for cause NCOER.  The applicant's duty position is listed as a recruiter on this report

7.  This NCOER was quite laudatory, praising the applicant's knowledge, performance, and achievements.  This NCOER indicates the applicant needed improvement in physical fitness and military bearing, stating he did not meet weight standards, he was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program, and he was making progress in that program.

8.  The applicant's rater rated his overall potential for promotion and/or positions of greater responsibility as "Fully Capable," the middle rating of a 3-level rating scheme.

9.  His senior rater rated him "Successful (3)," the middle rating on a 5-level rating scheme for both overall potential and performance.

10.  On 24 April 2010, HRC responded to the applicant's 25 March 2010 appeal of the two contested NCOERs.  HRC stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), clear convincing evidence is required to be provided with each appeal in order to be submitted to the Army Enlisted Special Review Board for their adjudication.  HRC stated that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of an unjust report.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions that:

	a.  his battalion commander directed his relief;

	b.  his rater did not sign into the battalion until late July 2005, which is almost 4 months after the beginning of the first rating period and does not coincide with his counseling periods;

	c.  the NCOER contained improper information concerning his duty position; and

   d.  there was a lack of formal counseling preceding a relief for cause NCOER.

2.  If the applicant believed that such errors existed, it would be expected that as a senior NCO, he would have appealed his NCOER immediately while such information would have been able to be confirmed or denied.

3.  While the applicant would lead the reader to believe that the relief for cause NCOER was rendered because he did not meet the production goals established for him, that NCOER does not say anything about failing to recruit his quota of recruits.  To the contrary, that NCOER states he constantly failed to execute guidance and directives from higher headquarters, he could not effectively lead Soldiers, and he was unable to accomplish tasks unless constantly supervised.  Such wording would lead the reader to believe the applicant was relieved from his duties as a station commander because of a lack of leadership skills.

4.  This conclusion is reinforced by the applicant's other contested NCOER, which was rendered by the same rater and senior rater.  That NCOER is highly laudatory on the applicant's skills and abilities.  The applicant was not in a leadership position during that rating period.

5.  Based on a lack of evidence to show the contested NCOERs were in error or unjust, there is no basis to grant the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20100023919



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100023919



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1