IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  7 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001906 


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 the removal of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) evaluation report (NCOER) ending on 13 July 2010 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that the documents submitted (DA Form 5501 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Female))) regarding her body fat content were not falsified and the actions against her were unjust.  She goes on to state that there was no written policy prohibiting Soldiers from sister units from supporting one another and it was a common practice throughout the command.  She also states that she received no counseling from her rater and senior rater indicating that the documents were falsified until 3 months after reporting to her new assignment and she did not receive her final report until 4 months after reporting to her new assignment.  Additionally, she has never received any unfavorable actions in her entire career and it should not be a determining factor to separate her from the Army.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page letter addressed to the Qualitative Management  Program (QMP) board, her notification that she was being considered for separation from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program under the QMP, three different versions of the contested NCOER, copies of two DA Forms 5501, a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), a statement from the training NCO, two versions of a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), permanent change of station orders, and ten character references.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving in the AGR Program while she was assigned to the 327th Military Police Battalion in Illinois in 2006.  She received her 20-Year letter on 21 June 2007 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 16 July 2010. 

2.  On 10 November 2010, an annual NCOER (the contested report) was completed by the reviewer (battalion commander) evaluating the applicant as the Headquarters and Headquarters Company Motor Sergeant for the period of 
14 July 2009 to 13 July 2010.  The applicant did not sign the report.  

3.  In Part IV – Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions, the applicant received a "NO" rating under "Integrity."  The bullet comments indicate that the applicant submitted a false height/weight (HT/WT) form to the unit for documentation of a record test.  

4.  In Part IV – Values/NCO Responsibilities, the applicant received a "Needs (Much) Improvement" rating under "Physical Fitness and Military Bearing."  The bullet comments indicate that she submitted falsified HT/WT documentation indicating passing HT/WT. 

5.  In Part V under Overall Performance and Potential, the applicant received a "Fully Capable" rating from her rater (company commander) and a "3" Successful and "2" Superior rating from her senior rater (battalion executive officer).  The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations.

6.  The applicant was reassigned to an AGR position in Los Alamitos, California with a report date of 2 August 2010.

7.  The applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the Department of the Army Suitability and Evaluation Board (DASEB) contending that the NCOER contained errors and was unjust.  After reviewing the available evidence and considering the applicant’s arguments, the DASEB found that the contested NCOER contained no errors and that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence to show that she had not violated the battalion’s policy regarding HT/WT determinations.  The DASEB denied the applicant’s request on 26 January 2012.

8.  A review of the applicant’s official records shows that the applicant received four other NCOERs from the same unit prior to the contested report and received maximum ratings (success or higher) on all of those reports.

9.  A review of the character statements provided by the applicant serve only to applaud the applicant’s character and integrity and provide no evidence regarding the falsified document regarding the applicant’s HT/WT.

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.  It states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly-designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.  The regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant will produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that the regulatory presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-39 and 6-7 of this regulation will not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

11.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-4, provides that failure to comply with any or all support form requirements will not constitute the sole grounds for appeal of an evaluation report.  Additionally, the senior rater will ensure that support forms are returned to the rated individual when the report is forwarded to HQDA.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for removal of the NCOER covering the period July 2009 through July 2010 from her OMPF has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence of a clear and compelling nature that would support overriding the presumption of regularity attached to reports accepted for filing by HQDA, especially since she has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the ratings on the contested report are inaccurate. 

2.  Additionally, she failed to provide sufficient evidence to show the contested NCOER does not represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

3.  While the applicant has provided input pertaining to her character and integrity, she has not sufficiently addressed the shortcomings indicated in the contested report by her rating officials for a shortcoming that was discovered subsequent to her departure from the unit and prior to completion of the contested NCOER.

4.  After reviewing all of the available evidence of record and documents submitted by the applicant, there appears to be no basis to remove the contested NCOER from her OMPF.   

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)                                         AR20150001906



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001906



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1