IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017670 


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 his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the rating period 19 January 2010 through 15 November 2010 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his records.

2.  The applicant states:

* an incorrect rating chain was used for the contested NCOER
* he agreed to move from the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team to the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team within 2 weeks of his arrival at Fort Carson from advanced individual training
* it took from June 2010 to November 2010 for the two brigades and division to get his transfer straight
* he allowed the noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCOIC) to retain duties while he attempted to get his transfer orders
* the legal officer served as the officer-in-charge during the first 3 weeks of his arrival at the unit
* the rater of the contested NCOER arrived at the unit in August 2010 and when he was apprised of the situation, he agreed the NCOIC should remain in charge
* he left the unit without an NCOER and requested one approximately 5 months later to avoid gaps in his NCOER's

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 October 2006.

2.  The contested NCOER shows the applicant was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, during the period 19 January 2010 through 15 November 2010.

3.  The contested NCOER shows the individual listed as the senior rater and reviewer in Part II (Authentication) is the same individual.  The contested NCOER shows the senior rater and reviewer was assigned as the 2nd Brigade Combat Team Executive Officer.

4.  The contested NCOER was authenticated as follows:

* rater – 11 March 2011
* senior rater – 5 September 2011
* reviewer – 5 September 2011
* applicant – 7 September 2011

5.  The contested NCOER was accepted by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and filed in his records on 15 November 2010.

6.  The applicant does not provide a copy of the unit's rating scheme for the period covering the contested NCOER.

7.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 2-7b(2) states the senior rater will be designated as the rated NCO's senior rater for a minimum period of 60 calendar days.

	b.  Paragraph 2-8b states the reviewer will be an officer, command sergeant major, or sergeant major in the direct line of supervision and senior in pay grade or date of rank to the senior rater.  When the rater or senior rater is a general officer, officer of flag rank, or civilian with the senior executive service, Defense Intelligence Senior Level, or equivalent Department of Defense senior civil service rank and precedence, that official will also act as reviewer.

	c.  Paragraph 2-8b(1)(b) states no minimum period is required for reviewer qualification.

	d.  Paragraph 2-15 states evaluation report reviews provide oversight of the evaluation reporting process, compliance with the policy guidance of this regulation and procedural guidance in Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), and the accuracy or consistency of the completed report.  For NCOER's, the review is conducted by a designated individual in the rating chain.  An additional, yet undocumented, review of completed NCOER's should be done by the senior NCO in the organization to ensure oversight of NCOs' performance.  In some instances, the reviewer may need to document nonconcurrence with an evaluation report and/or inconsistencies between the rater's and senior rater's evaluations of a rated NCO.

	e.  Paragraph 3-36 addresses requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reports that are being processed at HQDA prior to completion.  It states, part:

		(1)  An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

		(2)  Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier's OMPF require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program.

	f.  The commander or commandant may determine through inquiry that the report has serious irregularities or errors when improperly designated, unqualified, or disqualified rating officials (that is, a rating official not in the published rating chain; a rating official without the minimum required time to render an evaluation report; or a rating official who, through an official investigation, has had a substantiated adverse finding against him or her that results in his or her relief or calls into question the rating official's objectivity).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  NCOER's 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.

2.  However, although HRC accepted and filed the contested NCOER, this report was erroneously accepted and filed since both the senior rater and reviewer are the same individual.

3.  The applicant should not be penalized for his rating officials' failure to follow ERS policy.  As a result, it is only fair that the contested NCOER be removed from his OMPF and replaced with a statement reflecting this period as nonrated.

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 NCOER for the period 19 January 2010 through 15 November 2010 from his OMPF and placing a statement of nonrated time in his OMPF in lieu of this report.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140017670



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017670



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1