MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11660

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period covering 9606-9705 be removed from his record or placed in the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That, in effect, the negative check mark and comments on the NCOER Part IV, a.5., "maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty", are unjust.  The comment, "poor personal judgement off duty involving incidents of domestic disputes reflected adversely on the command and impaired soldier duty effectiveness", is incorrect.  The applicant had disputes with his wife over a pending divorce.  The applicant contends that although there were accusations of spouse abuse, they were unproven in a civil court of law.  He states that he attended "Anger Management" classes as directed and scheduled by his rater/supervisor and was successful in the training.  He also contends that his rater/supervisor controlled his schedule of unit mission assistance and class attendance and that he effectively performed all duties assigned to him and therefore disputes the NCOER statement that his duty effectiveness was impaired.  The applicant submits supporting statements from a Master Sergeant (MSG) senior administrative NCO, a Sergeant First Class (SFC) from his unit that had first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's domestic affairs and duty performance during the period in question, and from the applicant's Captain commander for the period following the NCOER in question.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That during the rating period in question, June 1996 to May 1997, he was a Sergeant First Class assigned to Readiness Group Salt Lake City which provides assistance to Army Reserve and National Guard units in Utah, Idaho, and Montana.  His specific duty assignment was Chief, Signal Branch Assistance Team, which requires frequent travel to units in the various states to provide assistance on matters relating to signal communication.

Concerning his off duty domestic circumstances, the record indicates that the applicant had disputes with his wife which eventually resulted in a divorce following the rating period in question.  During the time of the disputes, military police were called in, the applicant lived apart from his wife, he was escorted by a member of the command in the presence of his wife, and he was required to take anger management classes.  The applicant was not subject to any Uniform Code of Military Justice actions because of the disputes.

The applicant appealed his NCOER to the DA Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) on 8 August 1997.  On 20 October 1997, the ESRB found no error in the NCOER "No" block check on, "maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty", or the remarks, "poor personal judgement off duty involving incidents of domestic disputes reflected adversely on the command and impaired soldier duty effectiveness".  The remarks were made by the applicant's rater/supervisor, a MSG serving as the command's Sergeant Major and concurred with by the senior rater and reviewer.

Information on this rating remark provided by the rating chain indicated that the applicant was living in government quarters on Hill Air Force Base approximately 30 miles north of the applicant's duty location at Steven A. Douglas Reserve Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.  Being housed at Hill Air Force Base was a privilege granted to the applicant's command.  Consequently, domestic disturbance in Hill Air Force Base housing which required Military Police involvement was an embarrassment and reflected adversely on the command.  This was further compounded by the fact that the applicant made a telephone call to his wife, which was recorded, in which the applicant's statements were considered by his command and Hill Air Force Base Military Police as threatening to his wife.  The fact that the allegations of spouse abuse were later dismissed by a divorce court of law does not negate the adverse reflection on the command and the Army concerning the housing privilege granted on an Air Force base.  The command further considered the applicant's emotional state and angry attitude during this period to have impaired the effectiveness of his duty performance of representing the command and the Army in providing assistance to supported Reserve and Guard units.  It was not a question of the applicant's availability to provide assistance but his impaired reputation as a senior NCO and representative of the command and Army negatively impacted by his personal conduct and domestic disputes which became a matter of public and Military Police record and his initial inability to control his anger.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  That although the letter of support from the applicant's current Captain commander is very complementary of the applicant, it cannot be considered as the Captain was not part of the applicant's rating chain at the time of the NCOER in question.  There is no indication that the Captain was present during the rating period or had any direct knowledge of the applicant's performance at that time.

2.  Both the MSG and the SFC who provide letters of support for this application had direct personal knowledge of the circumstances of the domestic disputes and the applicants' duty performance.  While they support the applicant's contentions, they do not address the impact of the applicant's actions and conduct on the reputation of the command, the Army, and the senior NCO corps, in representing the foregoing on an Air Force base and to supported Reserve and Guard units.

3.  The NCOER statement that the applicant's, "poor personal judgement off duty involving disputes reflected adversely on the command", is correct in light of the fact that the applicant's domestic dispute and lack of anger control became a Military Police matter, that they occurred on a Air Force base where housing was granted to the Army as a privilege, and that they do not demonstrate the high moral or civil standards expected of a senior NCO.

4.  The NCOER statement that the applicant's actions, "impaired soldier duty effectiveness", is correct in that the applicant's angry attitude and emotional state as affected by his domestic disputes detracted from his credability as a senior NCO and representative of the command and the Army to Reserve and Guard units as observed by his rating chain.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_RVO ___  _MKP___  _JHK___  DENY APPLICATION

					Paul A. Petty                     	

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11660	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1998 December 2	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1111.02.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.