IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  11 August 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019915 


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 noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period 24 September 2012 through 19 August 2013 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  He states his rater did not become the first sergeant (1SG) for Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team (2ABCT), 3rd Infantry Division (3ID), Fort Stewart, GA, until 28 July 2013.  He adds that his senior rater did not arrive in the company until September 2013.  He states he had a different rater and senior rater.

3.  He does not provide any additional evidence. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 1988.

2.  His contested NCOER for the period 24 September 2012 through 19 August 2013 shows his rank as sergeant first class (SFC) with a date of rank of 1 January 2003.  His primary military occupational specialty is listed as 19K (M1 Armor Crewman).  He received an 11-month change-of-rater report while he was assigned as the Assistant Operations Sergeant, HHC, 2ABCT, 3ID, Fort Stewart, GA.

3.  The contested NCOER shows he was rated by the HHC, 2ABCT, 3ID, 1SG (1SG LSC) and senior rated by the HHC, 2ABCT, 3ID Executive Officer (XO) a first lieutenant (1LT MTD).  The reviewer was listed as the company commander, a captain (CPT BJL).  The report was electronically signed by the rater, senior rater, and reviewer on 7 October 2013, 8 October 2013, and 25 September 2013, respectively.  The "Soldier refused to sign NCOER" was listed in Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments).

4.  The contested NCOER shows the applicant received negative comments and/or ratings by his rater in:

	a.  Part IV.3 (Respect/Equal Opportunity/Equal Employment Opportunity), a "No" rating with a supporting negative comment of "lacks professionalism when addressing or mentoring subordinates and superiors."

	b.  Part IVd (Leadership), "Needs Improvement (Some)" with a negative supporting comment of "commented on several occasions the lack of concern for Soldiers of various ranks when mentoring or correcting them."

5.  The senior rater assessed the applicant's overall performance (Part Vc) and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility (Part Vd) as "4 – Fair" with supporting bullet comments.

6.  Information obtained on the applicant's rater on the contested NCOER (1SG JJS) shows he received a change of rater NCOER for the period 26 January 2013 through 31 May 2013 while serving as the 1SG, Company B, 64th Armor Battalion, 2ABCT, 3ID, Fort Stewart, GA.  It also shows he received an annual NCOER for the period 1 June 2013 through 31 May 2014 while serving as the 1SG, HHC, 2ABCT, 3ID, Fort Stewart, GA.  Based on his NCOER, he had 80 days to supervise the applicant during the rating period 1 June 2013 through 19 August 2013.

7.  Information obtained on the applicant's senior rater on the contested NCOER (the XO) shows he received an annual officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 27 June 2013 through 26 June 2014 while assigned as the Company XO, HHC, 2ABCT, Fort Stewart, GA.  Prior to this evaluation, he was rated as a platoon leader, Company C.  Based on his OER, he had 54 days to supervise the applicant during the rating period 27 June 2012 through 19 August 2013.

8.  The applicant's previous NCOER for the period 24 September 2011 through 23 September 2012 (prior to contested NCOER) shows he was rated in the same unit and in the same position.  However, his rater was listed as the Operations Sergeant, a master sergeant (MSG) (MSG JJS).  Additionally, a review of MSG JJS's OMPF shows he was rated as the Operations Sergeant, HHC, 2ABCT, through 8 February 2014.

9.  On 31 March 2014, he was retired in the rank of SFC and credited with completing 26 years and 6 days of net active service during this period.

10.  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 2-5 states the rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rated Soldier responsible for directing and assessing the rated Soldier's performance.  The rater will normally be senior to the rated Soldier in grade or date of rank and will be the supervisor for a minimum period of 90 calendar days.

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

	c.  Paragraph 3-40 states a change-of-rater NCOER is mandatory when the rated NCO ceases to serve under the immediate supervision of the rater and minimum rating qualifications have been met.  A change-of-rater evaluation report will be prepared for a rater's subordinates when there is a loss of a rater as a rating chain member.  The "THRU" date on these evaluation reports will be the date of the incident when the rater undergoes a permanent change of station, dies, is declared missing, is relieved, or becomes incapacitated.

11.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides procedural guidance for completing and submitting to Headquarters, Department of the Army, evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.  The pamphlet states that when the senior rater does not meet minimum time requirements for evaluation of the rated NCO, he or she will enter the following statement in Part Ve:  "Senior rater does not meet minimum qualifications."  Parts Vc and d will not be completed, but the senior rater will sign the NCOER.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant maintains, in effect, that his rater and senior rater were not qualified to rate him.


2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's rater previously received a change-of-rater NCOER for the period 26 January 2013 through 31 May 2013 while assigned as the 1SG of Company B.  He was not rated as the 1SG of HHC, 2ABCT, until 1 June 2013.

3.  The evidence further shows the applicant's senior rater did not assume the position of XO, HHC, 2ABCT, until 27 June 2013.  Prior to this assignment, he was rated as a Platoon Leader, Company C.

4.  Further, the evidence shows the applicant's contested NCOER covered the period 24 September 2012 through 19 August 2013.  If the rater was not assigned to the unit until 1 June 2013, he had less than 90 days in which to supervise the applicant and, therefore, he did not meet the minimum requirement of 90 days to rate him.  Likewise, the evidence shows the senior rater was assigned as the XO on 27 June 2013 and, therefore, had less than 60 days to fulfill his duties as senior rater.

5.  It is unknown why the applicant's previous rater did not render a change-of-rater evaluation for the applicant since he was still assigned to the unit in the same position.  Nevertheless, the fact that the senior rater assessed the applicant's performance with less than 60 days of rating time is not a fatal flaw since his comments and ratings can be removed.  However, by allowing the 1SG to render a change-of-rater NCOER for the applicant clearly created an injustice and a procedural error that invalidates the report in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3.  Therefore the contested report should be removed from the applicant's OMPF.

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:

	a.  removing the contested NCOER for the period 24 September 2012 through 19 August 2013 and

	b.  preparing and inserting a memorandum in the performance folder of the applicant's OMPF annotating the period as unrated time.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140019915



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019915



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1