IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005467 


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 the removal of adverse remarks and comments on his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 18 March 2010 through 17 March 2011 in:

* Part IV - Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions, section a (Army Values)

* Part IV - Values/NCO (noncommissioned officer) Responsibilities,

* section b (Competence)
* section d (Leadership)
* section f (Responsibility & Accountability)

* Part V - Overall Performance and Potential,

* sections a and b (Rater)
* sections c and d (Senior Rater (SR)) 
* section e (SR Bullet Comments)

2.  He also requests, if possible, removal/deletion of the entire report.

3.  The applicant states the marks and comments are inaccurate.  He submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to appeal the NCOER; however, his appeal was returned with no action taken.

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored memorandum to HRC.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior U.S. Navy enlisted service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 2009 for a period of 2 years and 17 weeks in pay grade E-5.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

2.  On 30 April 2009, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer not to consume alcoholic beverages while on pass.  He elected not to appeal the punishment.

3.  He served in Iraq from 1 September 2009 to 21 June 2010.

4.  He was issued an annual NCOER for his duties as a Team Leader in a light infantry company for the period 18 March 2010 through 17 March 2011.  His rater was a sergeant (SGT), squad leader; his SR was a sergeant first class, platoon sergeant; and his reviewer was a first lieutenant, platoon leader.  The NCOER shows in:

	a.  Part III(f) (Duty Description) (Counseling Dates):

* Initial - 20 March 2010
* Later - 16 June 2010
* Later - 18 September 2010
* Later - 14 December 2010

	b.  Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions), section a (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" blocks of Loyalty, Respect/Equal Opportunity (EO)/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Integrity, and Personal Courage.  The rater placed an "X" in the "No" blocks of Duty, Selfless-Service, and Honor.  The rater entered the following comments:

* Unable to complete his duties and responsibilities as an NCO by fulfilling a leadership role
* Puts his needs above those of his Soldiers
* Failed to take initiative in the absence of orders

	c.  Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities), section b (Competence), the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Much Improvement" block and entered the following comments:
* Puts Soldiers lives at risk by knowingly mounting an inoperable M240B on the lead vehicle
* Demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities were substandard to his peers
* Struggled with following up with tasks given to him by his first-line leader

	d.  Part IV, section d (Leadership), the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Much Improvement" block and entered the following comments:

* Presented marginal ability to lead Soldiers, but often lacked the communication skills and tact required of an effective and credible NCO
* Had poor rapport with his subordinates and was ineffective in supervision or delegation of responsibilities
* Failed to assume duties and responsibilities as an NCO in the absence of the NCO In Charge

	e.  Part IV, f (Responsibility & Accountability), the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Much Improvement" block and entered the following comments:

* Followed orders under supervision, but did not attempt to be an independent problem solver
* Was negligent in meeting his responsibilities which caused numerous obstacles to mission accomplishment
* Could not be relied upon in the absence of orders

	f.  Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), sections a and b (Rater), the rater placed an "X" in the "Marginal" block.  The rater commented that the applicant could best serve the Army at his current grade or next higher grade as a Team Leader, Training Room NCO, or Recruiter.

	g.  Part V, section c (SR – Overall Performance) and in Part V, section d (SR – Overall Potential), the SR gave a rating of "Poor" and placed an "X" in the "5" block for the applicant's overall performance and a rating of "Poor" and placed an "X" in the "5" block for the applicant's overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.

	h.  Part V, section e (SR Bullet Comments), the SR entered the following comments:

* Displayed no potential or desire to become a team leader
* 
Put forward much effort, but unable to progress
* Despite increasing assistance and training, he continued to have serious difficulty completing assigned tasks
* Not fit for that type of activity, recommend reclassification

5.  The NCOER was digitally signed by his rater, SR, and reviewer on 7 April 2011 and by the applicant on 8 April 2011.

6.  He was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-5, on 14 July 2011, by reason of completion of required active service.  He completed 2 years, 3 months, and
27 days of net active service this period with no time lost.  He was also credited with 9 months and 21 days of foreign service.

7.  He provides a memorandum to HRC appealing the NCOER.  In the memorandum he primarily requested removal of the entire NCOER or removal of the adverse marks and comments.  He stated:

	a.  He was contesting Part IV sections a, b, d, and f and Part V sections a through e of the NCOER ending on 17 March 2011.  He stood up, twice, to take leadership positions during the rating period.  When a team leader stepped down to take care of family issues, he volunteered to take his place.  The rater, his squad leader, told him that he would ask the SR to reinstate him [applicant] as team leader.  Shortly after that, with no explanation, the rater replaced him with another Soldier.  When asked about the change, the rater told him the SR didn't want him to be a team leader.

	b.  He always placed his Soldiers' needs above his own.  He made sure that his guys ate and rested first.  He took initiative in the absence of orders.  He came up with tasks for his guys and then informed the rater what he was going to have his guys do.  The rater always blessed it.

	c.  The M240B mentioned in the Part IV, section b was not completely inoperable.  It fired single shots, but not bursts.  The previous night, he planned and prepared for the usual number of vehicles for the upcoming mission.  He searched for an M240B or M249 for the gunner with the inoperable M240B.  A trip ticket he had showed the usual three vehicles.  He figured the problem was solved.

	d.  He was not a team leader for most of the evaluation period.  When he was a team or squad leader he had no problems getting his Soldiers to accomplish 

the tasks he gave them.  He performed best when nobody supervised him.  This 
is the case now and has been the case regardless of whether he was in the Navy or Army.  He attended the Warrior Leadership Course (WLC) during the evaluation period.  He did not receive leadership training outside of WLC.  Field training, where he could have proven himself as a team leader, did not start until after he transferred to the transition platoon.  Neither the rater nor SR gave him any substantive, continuous, or formal team leader training.  

	e.  The rater talked about him "not getting things done"; however, the rater issued the last disciplinary counseling statement on that issue on 24 May 2010.  That statement covered an event that took place on 22 April 2010.  He received three previous statements on 18 April 2010 that covered events on the 12th, 15th, and 17th of April 2010.  He contested most of these with valid points.  The report could potentially impact his future opportunities within the Army Reserve or in the future with the commercial/government workforce.

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the preparation and submission of NCOER's for corporals through command sergeants major.  

	a.  Paragraph 6-4 states alleged error, injustices, and illegalities in a rated Soldier's evaluation report may be brought to the commander's attention by the rated individual.  If the commander finds no fault with the evaluation, then the Commander's Inquiry is filed locally and a copy is given to the rated individual.

	b.  Paragraph 6-7 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policy for access to the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) and the Army Military Human Resource 

Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the AMHRR it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request was carefully considered; however, he has not shown the report contains any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.

2.  He has not provided convincing evidence that this NCOER was unjust, in whole or in part, to support removal from his record.  There is no substantive evidence of record and he has provided none to show exceptional justification that the contested report is incorrect, inaccurate, or bias.

3.  Further, there is no evidence of record and none has been provided to show that the marks chosen and the comments rendered by his rater and senior rater on the contested NCOER are inaccurate, unjust, or bias. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting 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)                                         AR20120005467



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005467



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1