IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  14 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001874 


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 removal of her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008 based on administrative error and substantive inaccuracy.

2.  The applicant states the "substandard" overall performance and potential rating resulted from a personal conflict she had with her senior rater and not from her job performance and potential.  She states she was performing entry control point duty when she failed to salute a vehicle carrying Major (MAJ) S____ L. P____ (her senior rater).  She was verbally counseled by the NCO driving the vehicle less than 5 minutes later.  Two days later when she was exiting the division main she did not notice the same officer's presence and again failed to render a salute.  This became a big issue and escalated over the next few days.  She feels the incident was blown out of proportion.  Approximately a week and a half later she received the NCOER with a "fully capable" rating.  This concerned her because she was previously rated "among the best" in the same position.

3.  She further states that when she signed the NCOER on 25 February 2008, her rater and senior rater had already signed the form.  When administrative corrections were required, her senior rater was taking rest and relaxation leave and she would be taking rest and relaxation leave by the time he returned.  On 6 March 2008, an officer other than her designated senior rater signed the revised form in violation of Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System).


4.  She states she feels the evaluation is a blemish on her record and should be removed.  She states that every time her record is reviewed by a senior leader she is told that the NCOER may be hindering her progression.  She wants it taken care of so there won't be any question of the NCOER being a factor.

5.  The applicant provides copies of:

* self-authored memorandum for Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), Indianapolis, IN, dated 5 June 2009, subject:  NCOER Appeal for March 2007 through February 2008 for [Applicant]
* Enlisted Record Brief
* NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008 (8 rated months), dated 5-6 March 2008
* NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008 (12 rated months), dated 22 February 2008
* NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008 (12 rated months), dated 23-25 February 2008
* unit rating scheme

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Army in the rank of staff sergeant.

2.  The applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) maintained in the U.S. Army Human Resources Command interactive Personnel Records Management System contains a copy of her NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008.

* Part I (Administrative Data), block i (Rated Months), shows "8"
* Part I, block j (Non-rated Codes), shows "S [school]"
* Part II (Authentication), block a (Name of Rater), shows "D____, J____ T.," (Rank) "CW4," and is digitally signed and dated "20080305 [5 March 2008]"
* Part II, block b (Name of Senior Rater), shows "B____, J____ L.," (Rank) "CPT," and is digitally signed and dated "20080305 [5 March 2008]"
* Part II, block c (Name of Reviewer), shows "B____, D____ E.," (Rank) "LTC," and is digitally signed and dated "20080306 [6 March 2008]"
* Part II, block d, shows the reviewer marked the block indicating "Concur with the Rater and Senior Rater Evaluations"
* Part II, block e (Rated NCO), is digitally signed and dated "20080305 [5 March 2008]" and states –

* "I understand my signature does not constitute agreement or disagreement with the evaluations of the rater and senior."
* "I further understand my signature verifies that the administrative data in Part I, the rating officials in Part II, the duty description to include the counseling dates in Part III, and the APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test] and height/weight entries in Part IVc are correct."
* "I have seen the completed report."
* "I am aware of the appeals process of Army Regulation 623-3."

* Part III (Duty Description), block f (Counseling Dates), shows "Initial – 20070807 [7 August 2007]" and "Later – 20071111 [11 November 2007]"
* Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), block a (Rater), shows "Fully Capable"
* Part V, block c (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), shows "Successful – 2"
* Part V, block d (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), shows "Superior – 1"

3.  The applicant provides a copy of an incomplete NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008.

* Part I, block I (Rated Months), shows "8"
* Part I, block j (Non-rated Codes), shows "S [school]"
* Part II, block a (Name of Rater), shows " D____, J____ T.," (Rank) "CW4," and is digitally signed and dated "20080305 [5 March 2008]"
* Part II, block b (Name of Senior Rater), shows " B____, J____ L.," (Rank) "CPT," and is digitally signed and dated "20080305 [5 March 2008]"
* Part II, block c (Name of Reviewer), shows " B____, D____ E.," (Rank) "LTC," and is digitally signed and dated "20080306 [6 March 2008]"
* Part II, block d, shows the reviewer marked the block indicating "Concur with the Rater and Senior Rater Evaluations"
* Part II, block e (Rated NCO), is not signed or dated
* Part III (Duty Description), block f (Counseling Dates), shows "Initial – 20070807 [7 August 2007]" and "Later – 20071111 [11 November 2007]"
* Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), block a (Rater), shows "Fully Capable"
* Part V, block c (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), shows "Successful – 2"
* Part V, block d (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), shows "Superior – 1"

4.  The applicant provides a copy of an incomplete NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008.

* Part I, block I (Rated Months), shows "12"
* Part I, block j (Non-rated Codes), shows "S [school]"
* Part II, block a (Name of Rater), shows " D____, J____ T.," (Rank) "CW4," and is digitally signed and dated "20080222 [22 February 2008]"
* Part II, block b (Name of Senior Rater), shows "P____, S____," (Rank) "MAJ," and is not signed or dated
* Part II, block c (Name of Reviewer), shows " B____, D____ E.," (Rank) "LTC," and is not signed or dated
* Part II, block d, shows the reviewer marked the block indicating "Concur with the Rater and Senior Rater Evaluations"
* Part II, block e (Rated NCO), is not signed or dated
* Part III (Duty Description), block f (Counseling Dates), contains no entries
* Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), block a (Rater), shows "Among the Best"
* Part V, block c (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), contains no entry
* Part V, block d (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), contains no entry

5.  The applicant provides a copy of an incomplete NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008.

* Part I, block I (Rated Months), shows "12"
* Part I, block j (Non-rated Codes), shows "S [school]"
* Part II, block a (Name of Rater), shows " D____, J____ T.," (Rank) "CW4," and is digitally signed and dated "20080223 [23 February 2008]"
* Part II, block b (Name of Senior Rater), shows "P____, S____," (Rank) "MAJ," and is digitally signed and dated "20080224 [24 February 2008]"
* Part II, block c (Name of Reviewer), shows " B____, D____ E.," (Rank) "LTC," and is digitally signed and dated "20080224 [24 February 2008]"
* Part II, block d, shows the reviewer marked the block indicating "Concur with the Rater and Senior Rater Evaluations"
* Part II, block e (Rated NCO), is digitally signed and dated "20080225 [25 February 2008]" and stipulates that the administrative data in Part I, the rating officials in Part II, and the duty description to include the counseling dates in Part III are correct
* Part III (Duty Description), block f (Counseling Dates), shows "Initial – 20070807 [7 August 2007]" and "Later – 20071111 [11 November 2007]"


* Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), block a (Rater), shows "Fully Capable"
* Part V, block c (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), shows "Successful – 2"
* Part V, block d (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), shows "Superior – 1"

6.  The applicant provides a copy of an email transmission from the 1st Artillery Division G-6 Sergeant Major to a group mailing list, dated 19 January 2008, attaching a unit rating scheme and requesting corrections/changes for posting.  The rating scheme provided with the email transmission shows her rater as CW4 D____ and her senior rater as MAJ P____ and shows it was prepared 2 months later on 10 March 2008.

7.  The applicant provides a copy of a self-authored memorandum for the Commander, USAEREC, dated 5 June 2009, in which she appeals the subject NCOER based on administrative error and substantive inaccuracy.  She states there are two discrepancies with the NCOER:  (1) the "substandard" rating in "Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) is not justified due to lack of counseling and (2) the person who signed as the senior rater was not the senior rater according to the posted rating scheme.  She states that when she signed the NCOER on 25 February 2008, her senior rater had already signed it but the narrative bullets were not in the proper verb tense.  At the time the administrative errors were noted her senior rater (MAJ S____ L. P____) was taking rest and relaxation leave and she would be taking rest and relaxation leave by the time he returned.  When the NCOER was corrected, CPT J____ L. B____ signed as her senior rater in clear violation of Army Regulation 623-3.

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes the policies and procedures for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System, including officer, NCO, and academic evaluation reports focused on the assessment of performance and potential.  Each evaluation report will be an individual stand-alone evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period.

9.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 1-8a(4)(c), states selection boards and personnel management systems will be used to evaluate a Soldier's entire career and his or her personnel file.  The officer evaluation report, NCOER, and academic evaluation report are single time-and-place evaluations, all of which are considered when making Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), evaluations.  HQDA evaluations will focus on a Soldier's potential; they include judgments about a Soldier's ability to perform at the current and higher grade or 


rank, whether or not a Soldier will be given greater responsibility at the present rank, or retained for further military service.  In making HQDA evaluations, selection boards will consider three factors:  the Soldier's leadership potential compared with those of his or her peers; the Army's ever-changing requirements for Soldiers with certain backgrounds, experiences, and expertise; and the Soldier's qualifications as a leader based on demonstrated skills, specialized training, military and civilian schooling, and/or other unique skills required by the Army.  

10.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 1-8f, states support and/or counseling forms and evaluation reports will reflect the rating officials published in the official rating scheme.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) explains what information is required for each form and how rating officials can accomplish the process from the initial performance counseling to the submission of a complete and accurate evaluation report to HQDA.

11.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 1-10, states no person may require changes to an evaluation report except to comply with this regulation and Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3.  Members of the rating chain, the servicing administrative office, or HQDA will point out obvious inconsistencies or administrative errors to the appropriate rating officials.  After necessary corrections are made, the original forms, with authenticated signatures, will be submitted to the appropriate agency.  HQDA review may result in necessary corrections to an evaluation report after coordination with the appropriate rating officials, whenever possible.

12.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 2-4, states the rating chain for a rated Soldier will be established at the beginning of the rating period.  This allows the rated Soldier and rating officials to properly execute their roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process.  Rating officials must meet grade and/or rank requirements as well as time in position in order to render evaluation reports.  Commanders, commandants, and organization leaders are responsible for ensuring valid rating schemes are established.

13.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 2-7b, states a senior rater will be an officer or NCO of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, or a Department of Defense civilian (or nonappropriated fund civilian) who is senior to the rater either in pay grade or date of rank and in the direct line of supervision of the rated NCO.  The senior rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rater and designated as the rated NCO's senior rater for a minimum period of 60 calendar days.

14.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 2-15d(1), states that in addition to evaluating the rated NCO, senior raters will perform a review of the NCOER before forwarding it to the reviewer.  A senior rater who is not qualified to evaluate a rated NCO due to lack of time in the position will still conduct an administrative review and sign the DA Form 2166-8 before forwarding it to the reviewer.  Following completion of the NCOER by the designated reviewer and the rated NCO, he or she will also ensure the final report is submitted to HQDA in a timely manner and a copy is provided to the rated NCO.

15.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-7, states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF 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 the rating officials at the time of preparation.

16.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-7, also states appeals based on administrative error only will be adjudicated by HQDA, Evaluation Appeals Branch.  Claims of administrative error pertain to the DA Form 2166-8, parts I, II, and III.  Such claims may include, but are not limited to, deviation from the established rating chain, insufficient period of observation by the rating officials, errors in the reporting period, and errors in the APFT and/or height and weight entries.  An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.

17.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-7, further states the rated Soldier's authentication in part II of a DA Form 2166-8 verifies the information in part I.  It also confirms that the rating officials named in part II are those established as the rating chain and authenticates the accuracy of the APFT and height and weight entries made by the rater.  Appeals based on alleged administrative errors in those portions of a report previously authenticated by the rated Soldier (parts I, II, and III, block a) will be accepted only under the most unusual and compelling circumstances.  The rated Soldier's signature also verifies that the rated Soldier has seen a completed evaluation report.  Correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report.  Removal of a report for administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude the correction of errors, and then only when retention of the report would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier.

18.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the 


Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for removal of her NCOER for the period 1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008 based on administrative error and substantive inaccuracy was carefully considered and determined to lack merit.

2.  The applicant contends that an officer other than her designated senior rater signed the revised NCOER on 6 March 2008 in violation of Army Regulation 
623-3 and provides multiple versions of incomplete NCOER's for the period under review showing either CPT J____ L. B____ or MAJ S____ P____ as her senior rater.  She provides a non-authenticated copy of a unit rating scheme prepared on 10 March 2008 showing her rater as CW4 D____ and her senior rater as MAJ P____.  However, she provides no evidence to show this rating scheme was, in fact, in effect during the rating period in question (1 March 2007 through 29 February 2008).  Furthermore, she authenticated part II of the NCOER in question verifying the information in part I and confirming that the rating officials named in part II were those established as the rating chain.

3.  The applicant contends that the "substandard" overall performance and potential rating resulted from a personal conflict she had with her senior rater and not from her job performance and potential.  However, she does not contest any specific ratings regarding her responsibilities or performance or cite any issues that are substantive in nature.  The applicant states only that she received the NCOER with an overall "fully capable" rating and this concerned her because she was previously rated "among the best" in the same position.

4.  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-3, an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF 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 the rating officials at the time of preparation.

5.  The applicant has provided no evidence of administrative error or substantive inaccuracy.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity must be presumed.  As a result, there is no basis with which to grant the 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 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)                                         AR20120001874



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001874



9


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1