IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 January 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018499
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 correction of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) by removing his DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) (NCOER)) for the rated period ending 31 January 2010 that is dated in 2010 and replacing it with a corrected report for the same period, dated in 2012.
2. The applicant states the original NCOER was rejected by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) because it did not include bullet comments explaining the status of his enrollment in the weight control program. He contends that he was never in the weight control program. There is no record ever showing he was in the program. Because the original NCOER was allowed to be posted to his AMHRR, the subsequent corrected copy of the report was never allowed to be posted in his record.
3. The applicant provides copies of:
* DA Form 2166-8 signed by rating officials in 2010
* DA Form 2166-8 signed by rating officials in 2012
* Email communication dated in February and March 2012
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.
2. AMHRR contains a DA Form 2166-8 for the rated period 1 February 2009 to 31 January 2010 signed by the rating officials in 2010. It reports in Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) that he needed some improvement. It further stated his height and weight was 67/197 and indicated "NO" as not meeting the standards. It also stated his profile did not interfere with his performance of duties and he did not meet the height and weight standards.
3. Another DA Form 2166-8 for the same rated period was signed by the same rating officials but dated in 2012. It reports in Part IVc that he was successful. It contains the same height and weight but indicates "YES" as meeting the standards. The bullet comments about his profile and meeting height and weight standards is missing.
4. The email communication, as provided by the applicant, in summary states that the applicant had two NCOERs missing from his AMHRR for his service while in Korea. At the time of the email, one of these reports had already been corrected and properly filed in his AMHRR. However, the subject report was still a problem. It was originally rejected by HRC because it did not contain required language in Part IVc. The intent of this email was to get the rejected report filed, or to get it fixed and then filed. There was no documentary evidence showing that the applicant had been enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program. The rating chain agreed and concurred that the best course of action was to remove the bullet comments, change the "NO" to "YES" and to upgrade to a satisfactory rating.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the AMHRR and states the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. 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 certain agencies, to include this Board. The NCOER is to be filed in the performance section of the AMHRR.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The available evidence shows that the applicant was identified as not meeting the height and weight standards and was rated as needing improvement. Even though this report was originally rejected by HRC because required comments were missing, it was subsequently filed in his AMHRR.
2. After a significant period of time, the error has come to light and is now in need of fixing. The original rating officials have agreed that there is no supporting documentation to show he did not meet the height and weight standards and that those comments should not have been made. Accordingly, the report was redone and signed by the same rating officials.
3. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to remove the report currently filed in the applicant's AMHRR for the period 1 February 2009 to 31 January 2010 and replace it with the corrected report dated by the rating officials in 2012.
BOARD VOTE:
____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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:
a. removing from his AMHRR the DA Form 2166-8 for the period 1 February 2009 - 31 January 2010; and
b. replacing it with the corrected version for the same rating period, but signed in 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) AR20130018499
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130018499
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011269
The applicant provides copies of the following documents: * appeal memorandum, dated 22 January 2013 * DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form) * five NCOERs * three memoranda of support * All Army Activities (ALARACT) message 163/2003 * HRC Evaluation Report Look-Up CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. A review of the applicant's AMHRR failed to reveal any evidence that she submitted a timely appeal of the NCOER to HRC. The statement by SSG W--- (who was rated by the same rater as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012935
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014860
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 11 February through 7 July 2010 (5 rated months) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), referred to hereafter as the contested NCOER. The contested NCOER was signed by the applicant's rating officials on 16 and 17 September 2010.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021023
The applicant requests correction of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) by removing a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period 1 February through 10 April 2008. He requested correction of the following administrative errors: * Spelling of his last name in Part I, blocks a (Name) and l (Rated NCO's Email Address) was missing two letters * Date of reviewer's signature was after that of the rater and senior rater * Through date of report...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150009984
Instead of making corrections to the correct NCOER, the contested NCOER was submitted instead. This NCOER was not contested. There is no evidence the applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) within the 3-year period from the "THRU" date of the contested NCOER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002889
He states his request for replacement of the NCOER for the period 11 January through 10 August 2007 is based solely on administrative errors in that the unit did not have access to his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and height and weight records which resulted in a rating of "Needs Much Improvement." Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluating Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. In reference to the NCOER for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002988
The applicant requests: a. removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the rating period 1 March through 5 July 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) and b. promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 with a date of rank of October 2009. b. Paragraph 2-10 states the rated Soldier will participate in counseling and provide and discuss with the rating chain...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000463
Part II (Authentication) shows: * his rater was his platoon sergeant * his senior rater was his platoon leader * the NCOER was reviewed by his battery commander who concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations c. Part IIIa (Principal Duty Title) shows "Ammunition Team Chief"; d. Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) shows he was counseled quarterly throughout the rating period; e. Part IVa (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions Army Values) shows "No" was selected for item 6 (Integrity)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012436
(4) Part III(c) (Duty Description-Daily Duties and Scope) contains the entry "Serves as an [sic] Fire Support Sergeant in a light Infantry Battalion deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom " However, during that rated period he did not deploy in support of the listed operation and the duties and responsibilities listed on his NCOER do not match his actual duties and responsibilities. The applicant contends contested NCOER 1 should be removed from his AMHRR because during this...