IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120023024 


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, in effect, correction of the through date on a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) filed in her records to show 31 August 2008 instead of 22 August 2008.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  The NCOER, which was scanned into her records, is not the same NCOER that she was given when she left the unit.  The scanned NCOER has items that need to be corrected.  The NCOER she has in hand was the corrected copy and was supposed to be the NCOER filed in her records.  The NCOER located in her record has typographical errors as well as an invalid through date and is not a true reflection of her for the board members to see upon review for promotion.

	b.  She received a letter from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 8 November 2012, that advised her she had not exhausted all available administrative remedies to her.  She encloses a self-authored memorandum that indicates on 9 December 2011, her unit tried to send the corrected NCOER and it was rejected because the report had already been submitted.  She was unaware of this rejection at that time.

	c.  Once she learned the NCOER was rejected she began working with her current S-1 in July 2012 to resolve this matter.  Once the documentation went to the G-1 at Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Center and School they stated that because it had been over 3 years she would need to submit an application to this Board.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 2166-8 with a through date of 22 August 2008
* DA Form 2166-8 with a through date of 31 August 2008
* a letter from the ABCMR
* Evaluation Report Results Table

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 2000, in pay grade E-1.  She completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91E (Dental Specialist).  She served continuously on active duty through two reenlistments and she was promoted to pay grade E-5 on
1 November 2006.

2.  She received a "Change of Rater" NCOER for her duties as a Supply Sergeant (SGT) in a Brigade Support Medical Company.  The report was for the rating period 1 November 2007 through 22 August 2008.  Her rater was a staff sergeant, the platoon sergeant; her senior rater (SR) was a first lieutenant, the executive officer; and her reviewer was a captain, the company commander.  This NCOER shows in:

	a.  Part III(f) (Duty Description – Counseling Dates) in the "Initial" block the date 1 November 2007 and blank entries in the "Later" blocks.

	b.  Part IVa (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in each "Yes" block.  The rater entered the following comments:

* relentless attitude toward mission accomplishments; a self starter and solution seeker
* confident NCO who "excepts" a challenge and produces outstanding results
* exemplified initiative, leadership and devotion to duty

	c.  Part IVb (Values/NCO Responsibilities - Competence), the rater placed an "X" in the "Excellence" block and entered the following comments:

* achieved 140 percent retention rate; first company in battalion to accomplish the goal
* 
received commendable rating on the Multi-National Corps – Iraq
(MNC-I) Command Supply Discipline Program inspection while deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom V
* performed all responsibilities and duties by applying a wide variety of methods and materials to ensure 100 percent completion of any given mission

	d.  Part IVc (Physical Fitness & Military Bearing), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block.

	e.  Part IVd (Leadership), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered the following comments:

* led 25 Soldiers in the company's turn in program to reset and Army Preposition Stock equipment
* extraordinary leadership efforts and superb skills clearly outshines school trained 92Ys within the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team
* fostered an excellent relationship with the incoming supply SGT during relief in place by communicating consistently and ensuring system requirements were in place

	f.  Part IVe (Training), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered the following comments:

* conducted section and battalion level training to keep supply clerks proficient at ordering, issuing, and posting of unit supplies
* instructed company level classes on correct format for shortage annexes and sub hand receipts to ensure senior leaders were prepared for inventories and Command Inspection Program (CIP)

	g.  Part IVf (Responsibility & Accountability), the rater placed an "X" in the "Excellence" block and entered the following comments:

* redeployed maintaining 100 percent accountability of over 17 million dollars worth of equipment; merged two property books into one with no discrepancies
* only unit in the brigade to have zero report of surveys and statement of charges
* conducted periodic inspections to ensure personnel remained accountable for assigned equipment

	h.  Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), sections a and b (Rater), the rater placed an "X" in the "Among the Best" block and entered the three positions in which she could best serve the Army at her current grade or next higher grade as an Aid Station Shift Leader; Recruiter; or Instructor, AMEDD Center and School.

	i.  Part Vc (SR – Overall Performance) and in Part Vd (SR – Overall Potential), the SR gave a rating of "Successful" and placed an "X" in the "1" block for the applicant's overall performance and a rating of "Superior" and placed an "X" in the "1" block for the applicant's overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility and entered the following comments in Part Ve (SR Bullet Comments):

* performed “outstanding” while serving as the supply SGT; her ability to work outside her MOS proves she is a "True Multifunctional NCO"
* continue to groom this outstanding NCO to be a NCO; unlimited

3.  The NCOER was digitally signed by her rater, SR, reviewer, and her on 11 August 2008.  The reviewer marked the "Concur with rater and SR evaluations" block.  This report is filed on her records located in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).

4.  There is no indication the applicant appealed this NCOER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command within 3 years as stipulated in Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), chapter 4.

5.  She provides a copy of a "Change of Rater" NCOER for her duties as a supply SGT in a Brigade Support Medical Company.  The report shows the rating period from 1 November 2007 through 31 August 2008.  This report is identical to the report with the through date of 22 August 2008 with the exceptions in following sections:

	a.  Part III(f):

* Initial – 31 January 2008
* Later – 30 April 2008
* Later – 30 April 2008
* Later – blank

	b.  Part IVe, the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered the following comments:

* conducted section and battalion level training to keep supply clerks proficient at ordering, issuing, and posting of unit supplies
* instructed company level classes on correct format for shortage annexes and sub hand receipts to ensure senior leader were prepared for inventories and CIP
* ensured Soldiers were properly training for their wartime mission

	c.  Part Ve, the SR entered the following comments:

* performed outstanding while serving as the supply SGT; her ability to work outside her MOS proves she is a "True Multifunctional NCO"
* technically proficient, discharging duties with complete professionalism
* continue to groom this outstanding NCO to be a future senior NCO; unlimited potential

6.  She received an "Annual" NCOER for her duties as a Health Care SGT, for the period 23 August 2008 through 22 August 2009 wherein she received "Success" and "Excellence" assessments and was rated "Among the Best."  This report is filed on her records located in iPERMS.

7.  She also provides a copy of an Evaluation Reports Result Table that shows the following:

* NCOER from 1 November 2007 through 22 August 2008 was completed
* NCOER from 1 November 2007 through date of 31 August 2008 was rejected due to another NCOER already being submitted.
* NCOER from 23 August 2008 through 22 August 2009 was completed

8.  Army Regulation 623-3, effective 10 September 2007, prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS.  Parts Vc and Vd are completed by the SR 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.  Paragraph 2-15d states in addition to evaluating the rated NCO, the SR 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 SR 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 SR complete the report and examine the evaluations rendered by the rater and SR 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 SR.  He/she would indicate concurrence or nonconcurrence with rater and/or SR 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 November 2007 through 22 August 2008.  Her rater evaluated her performance as "Excellence" and "Success."  Her SR evaluated her overall performance as "Successful/1" and her overall potential as "Superior/1."  There is no evidence the rater or SR later claimed administrative oversight or typographical error in that they intended to add additional comments in the respective blocks Part IV, section e and Part V, section e, as shown the NCOER provided by the applicant with a through date of 31 August 2008.

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 the comments not listed on the NCEOR with a through date of 22 August 2008.  

3.  There is also no evidence of record and none was provided by the applicant that shows the end of her rating period should have been 31 August 2008.  Her subsequent NCOER began her rating period on 23 August 2008.  There is no evidence the contested report contains any administrative deficiencies in the through date or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  

4.  In fact no action was taken by the applicant for an appeal based on administrative errors through the Evaluation Appeal Branch at HRC.  Aside from her dissatisfaction, there is neither an injustice nor an error in her NCOER with a through date of 22 August 2008.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20120023024



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120023024



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1