IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	  18 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120015851 


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 amendment of the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 
1 April 2007 through 31 August 2007 by changing the senior rater's rating as follows:  

* Overall performance from "Successful/2" to "Successful/1"
* Overall potential from "Superior/2" to "Superior/1"

2.  The applicant states:

* The senior rater made a mistake and placed the "x" in the wrong blocks and he has written a memorandum admitting the mistake
* She has been trying to correct this rating for quite some time to no avail
* She was previously told the issue had been rectified, but this NCOER remains in her records

3.  The applicant provides:

* The contested NCOER
* A memorandum written to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)
* A second NCOER for the same rating period signed on different dates
* Email exchanged with members of her chain of command and others


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 19 March 2003.  She was advanced to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 December 2003 and she has served through multiple extensions or reenlistments.

2.  She entered the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program and she was assigned as an Army Reserve Career Counselor with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, AL.  

3.  She received a change of rater NCOER which covered 5 months of rated time, from 1 April 2007 through 31 August 2007, while serving as an Army Reserve Career Counselor.  Her Rater was Master Sergeant (MSG) GAL, the area leader; her Senior Rater was MSG RNL, the senior career counselor; and her Reviewer was a lieutenant colonel, the Chief, 89th Regional Readiness Training Officer.  The NCOER shows the following entries in:

* Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions), a "Yes" rating for all seven Army values
* Parts IVb (Competence) and IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) she received an "Excellence" rating
* Parts IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) she received a "Success" rating
* Part IVd (Leadership) she received a "Success" rating
* Part IVe (Training) she received an "Excellence" rating 
* Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability) she received a "Success" rating
* Part Va (Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) she received an "Among the Best" rating
* Part Vc (Overall Performance) she received a "Successful" rating with the number "2"
* Part Vd (Overall Potential) she received a "Superior" rating with the number "2" 

4.  The NCOER shows the rater and senior rater authenticated this form on 29 and 30 August 2007 respectively by placing their digital signatures in the appropriate places.  The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater and authenticated this form on 1 November 2007 by placing his digital signature in the appropriate place.  Furthermore, the applicant signed this form digitally on 
29 August 2007.  

5.  There is no available evidence showing that the applicant requested a commander's inquiry regarding the subject NCOER or appealed this NCOER to the Enlisted Special Review Board.  

6.  She was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 on 1 October 2007. 

7.  She provided multiple email and memoranda concerning this NCOER, most notably:

	a.  A Memorandum for Record, dated 7 December 2007, from MSG RNL, her former senior rater, wherein he stated that a mistake was made on the 31 August 2007 NCOER in Parts Vc and Vd.  Both blocks should have been marked as "1" instead of "2," this was an oversight on his behalf. 

	b.  A memorandum, dated 11 April 2012, from the applicant to HRC wherein she requested the contested NCOER be replaced with a similar NCOER, digitally signed by the same rating officials, and Parts Vc and Vd contain a "1" instead of "2."  This second NCOER contains the hand-written entry "Corrected Copy" at the top.  Additionally, it was signed by the Rater on 29 August 2007, the Senior Rater on 6 December 2007, the Reviewer on 7 December 2007, and the applicant on 12 December 2007.

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)), effective 10 September 2007 prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS.  Parts Vc and Vd are completed by the senior rater who evaluates overall performance and potential by placing one typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) "x" in the appropriate box for each area.  The following definitions will be used when completing parts Vc and Vd, Successful/Superior:  A "1" rating represents the cream of the crop and is a recommendation for immediate promotion.  A "2" rating represents a very good, solid performance and is a strong recommendation for promotion.  A "3" rating also represents a good performance and, should sufficient allocations be available, is a recommendation for promotion.

	a.  Paragraph 2-15d states in addition to evaluating the rated NCO, the senior rater will perform a review of the NCOER 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 Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) in a timely manner and a copy is provided to the rated NCO.  The senior rater will also review and initial the DA Form 2166–8–1 at the beginning of the rating period and sign the completed DA Form 2166–8 at the end of the rating when preparing his or her portion of the NCOER.

	b.  Paragraph 2-19 states the reviewer will ensure that the proper rater and senior rater complete the report and examine the evaluations rendered by the rater and senior rater to ensure they are clear, consistent, and just in accordance with known facts.  The reviewer will take special care to ensure the specific bullet comments support the appropriate "Excellence" or "Success" or "Needs Improvement" ratings in part IV, blocks b through f of DA Form 2166–8.  The reviewer will comment only when in disagreement with the rater and/or senior rater.  He/she would indicate concurrence or nonconcurrence with rater and/or senior rater by checking the appropriate box in part II and adding an enclosure, not to exceed one page.

	c.  Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and 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.

	d.  Paragraph 4-7 states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier’s Official Military Personnel File (currently known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error of an NCOER will normally be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received a change of rater NCOER covering the period 1 April 2007 through 31 August 2007.  Her Senior Rater evaluated her overall performance as "Successful/2" and her overall potential as "Superior/2."  However, the Senior Rater later claimed administrative oversight or typographical error in that he intended to block the applicant as "Successful/1" and "Superior/1."


2.  By regulation, appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error of an NCOER will normally be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence.  Here, there is nothing provided by the applicant that suggests she was harmed or negatively impacted by what the Senior Rater describes as an oversight.  In fact no action was taken by the applicant in the form of a commander's inquiry or an appeal to the Army Special Review Board contesting this oversight.  Aside from her dissatisfaction, there is neither an injustice nor an error in her NCOER. 

3.  There is no evidence the contested report contains any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  Furthermore, she has not shown that the rating officials’ evaluations represented anything other than their objective judgment and considered opinions at the time they prepared the contested NCOER, or that they exercised faulty judgment in evaluating her as they did.

4.  In view of the foregoing evidence, there is no reason to change this NCOER.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.



      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20120015851



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120015851



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1