BOARD DATE: 23 January 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130002725
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 a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 7 September 2010 to 6 September 2011 from his military records and replacement with the revised copy.
2. The applicant states he requested a commander's inquiry because he did not believe the original NCOER properly reflected his contributions and achievements during the rating period. The formal inquiry had similar findings and the senior rater responded by modifying portions of the evaluation and submitting a revised NCOER on 14 August 2012.
3. The applicant provides copies of:
* memorandum from the Assistant Division Commander, 100th Division (Operations Support), Fort Knox, KY, dated 13 October 2012
* DA Form 2166-8 for the period ending 6 September 2011 currently filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)
* DA Form 2166-8 for the period ending 6 September 2011 signed by the senior rater, reviewer, and applicant on 14 August 2012
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. A memorandum from the Assistant Division Commander, 100th Division (Operations Support), dated 13 October 2012, states he concluded a commander's inquiry concerning the applicant's NCOER for the rating period ending 6 September 2011. He found the original NCOER did not properly reflect the applicant's contributions and achievements during this period. The senior rater agreed with the findings and offered to change his portion of the report. The revised NCOER was completed on 14 August 2012.
2. A review of the applicant's AMHRR revealed that the original NCOER which was the subject of the commander's inquiry was filed in the performance folder. This report was signed by all parties except for the applicant.
3. A comparison of the original NCOER and the modified report shows only the senior rater's portion of the report has been slightly changed. Also, the senior rater, reviewer, and applicant signed and dated the NCOER on 14 August 2012.
4. On 25 July 2012, the applicant was reassigned from his U.S. Army Reserve troop program unit to the Retired Reserve.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) provides that all personnel information recorded under the authority of this regulation is the property of the U.S. Government.
a. Once recorded, it will not be removed except as provided by law or this regulation.
b. Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by one or more of the following:
* Army Board for Correction of Military Records
* Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board
* Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command
* AMHRR custodian when documents have been improperly filed
* Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command,
ATTN: HRC-PDO-PO, as an approved policy change to this regulation
* Chief, Appeals Branch, National Guard Personnel Center
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by removing the DA Form 2166-8 for the period ending 6 September 2011 currently filed in his AMHRR and replacing it with the revised NCOER, dated 14 August 2012.
2. The available evidence shows a commander's inquiry determined the original NCOER required modification because it did not reflect the applicant's contributions and achievements during the rating period. Normally, such inquiries are done prior to filing the NCOER in the AMHRR. For unknown reasons, the subject NCOER was filed in the AMHRR prior to completion of the commander's inquiry.
3. In view of the foregoing and as a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to grant the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
__X___ ____X____ ____X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the current DA Form 2166-8 for the period ending 6 September 2011 from his AMHRR and replacing it with the revised DA Form 2166-8 showing the senior rater's, reviewer's and applicant's signatures, dated 14 August 2012.
___________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) AR20130002725
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130002725
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003275
The applicant states: * the contested NCOER resulted from a conflict he had with his rater during a deployment * after the NCOER was submitted to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), it was rejected because of administrative error * he then requested a Commander's Inquiry to determine the appropriateness of his rater's comments and ratings * following the Commander's Inquiry and consultation between the rating officials, the NCOER was amended * the corrected NCOER was digitally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013003
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011271
The applicant provides: * ESRB appeal * the contested NCOER, digitally signed by the applicant on 27 May 2010 * the corrected NCOER, digitally signed by the applicant on 13 January 2011 * self-authored memorandum, dated 18 January 2012 * a memorandum from his battalion command sergeant major (CSM), subject: Evaluation Report Appeal, [Applicant], dated 15 February 2012 * a memorandum from his battalion commander, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal, [Applicant], dated 15 February 2012 * a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022148
g. A Commander's Inquiry memorandum, dated 12 June 2010, regarding allegations of reprisal or retaliation by CSM Lxxxx, the CSM of the 49th MP Brigade, wherein the Brigade Commander advised that the Commander's Inquiry was now complete as it revealed that CSM Lxxxx had a proper and appropriate reason to formally counsel the applicant in writing. Her record contains and she also provides a copy of a Non-concurrence Memorandum for NCOER, dated 9 July 2010, wherein the reviewer stated: a. c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004082
The applicant requests the removal from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the rating period from 1 December 2010 through 1 June 2011, hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER. d. Paragraph 6-11d states that for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type in an evaluation report, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials or other documents from official sources....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001594
The applicant requests removal of his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 15 April 2008 through 9 January 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). This includes the DA Form 2166-8. a. Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or NCO corps. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001492
She would be rated on her performance of as many of the duties as were applicable. Overall, the contested NCOER was not in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) so she is requesting it be removed from her OMPF. Although she provides evidence that indicates possible irregularities in the published rating scheme for her senior rater, there is no evidence and she has not provided conclusive evidence that shows she was not properly informed as to her rating chain...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020595
The applicant provides: * four memoranda from the Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, MO (HRC-STL) returning her evaluation reports and asking for additional statements * results from the ASRB * formal equal opportunity (EO) complaint summary memorandum * various memoranda signed by members of her chain of command, including statements from her rating chain reference errors in the report * sign-in roster showing she was present for duty on the day the report was forwarded to HRC * DA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010494
The applicant requests the removal of the evaluation in Part IVe (Training) and Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) of her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating period 1 May 2010 through 30 April 2011, known hereafter as the contested NCOER, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Before he was removed from his position, his rater had submitted another NCOER for the rating period with a "1/1" rating; after his removal, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014622
He states the individual rating him on the NCOER he wants replaced was never his rater on any NCOER rating schemes. It shows his rated position as Rear Detachment NCOIC and shows the date of his last NCOER was 18 June 2008 with the next NCOER to be through 18 June 2009. Although he submits rating schemes, none of which list as his rater the rater on the contested NCOER, his company commander who is the individual responsible for the rating scheme stated in an email that he designated that...