2.  The applicant requests that the non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER) for the period April 1996 - March 1997 be removed from his records and replaced by two separate reports, a complete-the-record NCO-ER for the period April - December 1996 and a change of rater NCO-ER for the period January - March 1997.  He also requests that he be reconsidered for promotion to Master Sergeant (MSG) once these two reports have been place in his records.

3.  The applicant is a Sergeant First Class (SFC) with a date of rank of                1 September 1991.

4.  The applicant received a complete-the-record NCO-ER for the period April - December 1996 but the servicing Personnel Service Company (PSC) failed to properly process it and forward it to the U.S. Army Enlisted Records Center (USAEREC) for filing.  This caused the report to not be on file for the 1997 MSG promotion board to review.  Neither the applicant nor his unit was aware that the NCO-ER had not been forwarded to USAEREC.

5.  When the applicant received a change of rater report for the period January - March 1997, the PSC illegally changed it to a 12-month report for the period April 1996 - March 1997 to cover the gap caused by the missing complete-the-record report.

6.  The applicant first realized that the complete-the-record and original change of rater NCO-ERs were missing from his files when the PSC forwarded his copy of the illegally changed change of rater NCO-ER to him in August 1997.

7.  Army Regulation 623-205 establishes the policies and procedures for the NCO-ER system.  Paragraph 4-2 states that an NCO-ER accepted for inclusion in an NCO’s OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Paragraph 4-7 of that regulation also states that the burden of proof in an NCO-ER appeal rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an NCO-ER 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.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of enlisted personnel on active duty.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s nonselection by a promotion board and that, had such error been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.

9.  Reconsideration normally will be granted when the following condition exists:  A regular NCO-ER that was submitted early enough for processing and filing before the convening date of the board was not reviewed.  Seventy-five days is allowed for processing after the ending month of the report.

10.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Enlisted Special Review Board.  That Board looked at the applicant’s case as an initial NCO-ER appeal and opined that the application and the evidence provided merited approval.  It noted that all evidence to include a conversation with the battalion command sergeant major (CSM) supported the applicant’s contention that the PSC or someone tampered with the NCO-ER without authority.  The battalion CSM substantiated that the reports the applicant included with signatures were accurate copies of the original reports.  No one is authorized to change a report without concurrence of the rating official rendering the evaluation.  That Board also determined that correcting the applicant’s records to reflect the correct NCO-ERs would warrant reconsideration for promotion by the CY97 and CY98 MSG promotion selection boards.

CONCLUSIONS  

1.  The applicant was properly eligible for and properly received a complete-the-record NCO-ER for the period April - December 1996 and a change of rater NCO-ER for the period January - March 1997.  His servicing PSC failed to properly process the first report, causing it to be missing from his records when the CY97 MSG promotion selection board first considered him for promotion.  His servicing PSC illegally changed the second report.

2.  The advisory opinion supports the applicant’s request to replace the illegally changed NCO-ER with the two properly prepared NCO-ERs and his request for reconsideration for promotion to MSG.

3.  In view of the foregoing, it would be just to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  deleting the NCO-ER for the period April 1996 - March 1997;

     b.  adding the complete-the-record NCO-ER for the period April - December 1996; and

     c.  adding the change of rater NCO-ER for the period January - March 1997.

2.  That the records of the individual concerned be made available to the next scheduled Standby Advisory Board for promotion consideration to MSG under the 1997 and, if necessary, the 1998 criteria after the above corrections are made.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

				                                                              
	CHAIRPERSON