RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013063


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John P. Infante               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his noncommissioned officer evaluation
report (NCOER) for the period March 2002 through March (sic) 2003 be
corrected.

2.  The applicant states Part II of the contested NCOER was not signed by
himself or by his rater.  In part V, the bullet comments do not support the
block rating of "3."  On his next NCOER, they tried to give him a "2" and a
"3" but he did not sign it and they changed it to "2s."

3.  The applicant states his chain of command made sure the Soldiers
working upstairs with them made the [promotion] list.  Staff Sergeant (SSG)
L___ gave him a memorandum [wherein SSG L___'s requested that his own NCOER
be corrected).  They changed SSG L___'s NCOER.

4.  The applicant provides his NCOER for the period March 2002 through
February 2003; a "corrected" NCOER for the period March 2002 through
February 2003; a 10 February 2004 memorandum from SSG L___ to the U. S.
Army Enlisted Records and Evaluations Center (EREC) with two supporting
memorandums, both dated 17 December 2003; a 5 January 2005 memorandum from
the applicant to the president of the Sergeant First Class selection board;
a 5 January 2005 memorandum from the applicant's rater to EREC; a 5 January
2005 memorandum from the applicant's senior rater (SR) to EREC; a 10
January 2005 note from the applicant's reviewer to "Whom It May Concern";
an undated note from the applicant's SR to "Whom It May Concern"; and a 10
January memorandum from the applicant to EREC.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army on   6 April 1995.  He was promoted to SSG, E-6 on 1 May 2004 in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 67R (AH-64 Attack Helicopter
Repairer).

2.  The contested NCOER is a 9 rated-month annual report for the period
March 2002 through February 2003.  The applicant's primary MOS is shown as
67R3HY1YY.  His duty MOS is shown as 67R3H.  The NCOER was signed by the
applicant and all his rating officials (rater, SR, and reviewer) in Part II
on        3 March 2003.

3.  In Part IVf of the contested NCOER, the applicant's rater rated the
applicant's Responsibility and Accountability as "success".  Comments in
Part IVf were:

      "maintained 100% accountability of assigned CAT BAH-64A trainer and
training equipment valued over $28 million"

      “trained over 60 students with zero accident for 9 months" and

      "accepted responsibility for own actions"

4.  In Part Vc of the contested NCOER, the applicant's SR rated the
applicant's overall performance as "3 successful."  In Part Vd, his SR
rated his overall potential as "3 superior."

5.  In the "corrected" NCOER, the applicant's primary MOS is shown as
15R3HY1.  His duty MOS is shown as 15R3H.  This NCOER was signed by the
applicant and all his rating officials (rater, SR, and reviewer) in Part II
on 3 March 2003.

6.  In Part IVf of the "corrected NCOER, the applicant's rater rated the
applicant's Responsibility and Accountability as "excellence."  Comments in
Part IVf were the same except for minor changes:

      "amendable (sic) for the accountability and maintenance of the
assigned CAT BAH-64A trainers and training equipment valued $28 million
without any training degradation"

      “trained over 60 students with zero accident for 9 months" and

      "accepted responsibility for own action"

7.  In Part Vc of the "corrected" NCOER, the applicant's SR rated the
applicant’s overall performance as "2 successful."  In Part Vd, his SR
rated his overall potential as "1 superior."

8.  The "corrected" NCOER is not a certified true copy.

9.  Effective 1 September 2004, MOS 67R converted to 15R.

10.  The applicant provided three memorandums from/on behalf of SSG L___
requesting that Part IVf of SSG L___'s NCOER be corrected to "excellence."
Memorandums from SSG L___'s rater and SR stated in part, "During the
editing process, part IV, F was changed to reflect an excellence with
supporting bullets.  However, when the final document was signed it did not
reflect the changes and it was over looked by all parties."  SSG L___ had
no concerns regarding the signatures on the NCOER.
11.  EREC informed the Board analyst that, in SSG L___'s case, SSG L___ had
provided a certified true copy of the "corrected" NCOER along with
supporting statements from his rating officials.  EREC corrected SSG L___'s
NCOER.

12.  The applicant provided two memorandums, both dated 5 January 2005,
from his rater and SR.  Both rating officials stated in part, "During the
editing process, part IV, F was changed to reflect an excellence with
supporting bullets.  However, when the final document was signed it did not
reflect the changes and it was over looked by all parties."

13.  The applicant provided an undated note from his rater, wherein the
rater stated, "I never wrote (the applicant's) NCOER.  Our committee chief
was the one who always wrote the NCOERs for every one.  My name was added
to (the applicant's ) NCOER as the rater which I never wrote nor signed."

14.  The applicant provided a 10 January 2005 note from his reviewer,
wherein the reviewer stated in part, "When a rater and senior rater does
(sic) not agree the reviewer must non-concur by marking part 2,E non-concur
box.  This did not happen on this NCOER.  It was inadvertently
overlook[ed]."

15.  The applicant appealed his NCOER around July 2005.  By memorandum
dated 19 July 2005, the Enlisted Special Review Boards (ESRB) returned the
appeal to EREC without action.  The ESRB stated the applicant provided
insufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature for the ESRB to
consider at that time.  More specifically, the rating officials (rater, SR,
and reviewer) were contacted on 15 July 2005 and all denied knowledge of
the applicant's appeal.  Additionally, they all denied signing the support
documents submitted by the applicant.

16.  Per the request of the Board, the ESRB reviewed the applicant's NCOER
appeal.  The case summary noted the SR was contacted on 15 July 2005.  The
SR informed the ESRB the original NCOER was correct based on the
applicant's duty performance at the time.  The SR stated he explained why
the applicant received "3"/"3" marks from him (the SR).  The SR denied the
signature on the "corrected" NCOER was his.  The reviewer was contacted on
15 July 2005.  The reviewer denied knowledge of the "corrected" NCOER and
stated the signature on the "corrected" NCOER was not his.  The reviewer
stated the applicant was given the original NCOER to sign and the applicant
signed it.  The rater did not respond to the ESRB's numerous requests for
clarification of the applicant's evaluation.

17.  A copy of the ESRB review was provided to the applicant for comment or
rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.
18.  Army Regulation 623-205 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting
System), paragraph 6-10 states the burden of proof in an NCOER appeal rests
with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an
NCOER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that
clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and
that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is
warranted.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and
compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative
error or factual inaccuracy.

19.  Army Regulation 623-205, in pertinent parts, states certified true
copies (certified by the personnel services battalion/personnel officer) of
appropriate documents must prove administrative appeals.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been
considered.

2.  The applicant's case does not appear to be exactly the same as SSG
L___'s. EREC confirmed that SSG L___ had provided a certified true copy of
his "corrected" NCOER and SSG L___ had no concerns regarding the signatures
on the NCOER.  The applicant's "corrected" NCOER was not a certified true
copy and he did express concerns regarding the signatures on his contested
NCOER.

3.  In addition, in the processing of his appeal of the contested NCOER,
the ESRB contacted the applicant's rating officials.  All denied knowledge
of the applicant's appeal and they all denied signing the support documents
submitted by the applicant.

4.  Given the above facts, there is insufficient evidence on which to grant
the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jpi___  __wfc___  __gjp___  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.




                                  __John P. Infante_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050013063                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060119                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |111.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]