RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            08 APRIL 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003093516

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	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 four NCOERs (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports) be corrected to reflect her correct duty title, duty Military Occupational Specialty Code (MOSC), and description of her daily duties and scope [of duties].

2.  The applicant states her unit is considered a brigade level unit commanded by a colonel.  Members of her chain of command, who are both her rater and senior rater, support her request, realizing the mistake on the reports.  DA Pamphlet 611-21 refers to her title as career counselor.  Her request to have certain NCOERs changed was recently disapproved despite recommendations made by members of her chain of command.   After conferring with the command sergeant major and reviewing the files, she determined that the reports should reflect the correct duty MOSC and title.  She states that Soldiers in her specialty are no longer called retention NCOs, but career counselors.  She lists the NCOERs that should be corrected.

3.  The applicant provides memorandums from a command sergeant major and a colonel supporting her request, copies of the NCOERs in question, copies of her enlisted record briefs, and copies of her DA Forms 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).   

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is an active duty sergeant first class who is a career counselor with the Medical Department Activity at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.   

2.  An appeal to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) received on            23 December 2002, shows that she requested that five reports be corrected [as indicated above] and that substantive inaccuracies, e.g., height, verb tense on some words, etc., be corrected on two of those reports.  The ESRB corrected the substantive inaccuracies, but denied her request to correct her principal duty title, MOSC, and daily duties and scope, on the reports.  The ESRB stated that her signature on the reports means that she had seen the reports, verified that the administrative data was correct, the rating officials were proper, and the duty description was accurate.  The ESRB also stated that the governing regulation requires that the rater verify the information with the rated NCO.  The ESRB stated that prior to the revision of MOSC 00R to 79S30/40, documented in DA Pamphlet 611-21, effective 31 March 1999, retention NCO and career counselor were interchangeable.  The ESRB stated that it could not validate the title as being correct without acknowledging the incorrect duty MOSC.

3.  Both the above mentioned command sergeant major and colonel state that her duty title on the four NCOERs for which she requests corrections should be career counselor.  They also provide a description of daily duties and scope that should be substituted for the description on those four reports.

4.  The report for the period 9801-9810 shows that her principal duty title was as a battalion career counselor, duty MOSC 79S40, with the 181st Transportation Battalion in Germany.  Her daily duties and scope are as indicated on the report. Her ESRB reflects that duty title.  Her DA Form 2-1 shows her duty MOSC as 79S30 and her principal duty as career counselor (separate bn – brigade size).     
5.  The report for the period 9811-9908 shows that her principal duty title was as a retention NCO, duty MOSC 79S40, with the Medical Department Activity at Fort Sill.  Her daily duties and scope are as indicated.  Her ESRB reflect her duty position as career counselor.  Her DA Form 2-1 reflects her MOSC as 79S40 and her principal duty as career counselor (brigade level).

6.  The report for the period 9909-0008 reflects the same information as the previous report.  Her ESRB and her DA Form 2-1 are the same.

7.  The report for the period 0009-0108 shows that her principal duty title was as a career counselor, duty MOSC 79S40, with the Medical Department Activity at Fort Sill.  Her daily duties and scope are as indicated.  Her ESRB and DA Form 2-1 are the same.

8.  All the reports were signed by the rating officials and the applicant verifying that the administrative information on those reports was accurate.  The rating officials on all these reports are not her current rating officials [the command sergeant major and colonel who support her request].    

9.  Army Regulation 623-205 prescribes responsibilities and provides instructions for the completion of the NCOER.  It states in pertinent part that the senior rater will obtain the rated NCOs signature in part II of the NCO-ER. The rated NCO's signature indicates that he or she has seen the completed report (except parts II d and e), has verified that the administrative data (part I) is correct, the rating officials are proper (part II), and the duty description is accurate (part III) and includes the counseling dates. 

10.  The regulation provides for an NCO Counseling Checklist/Record (DA Form 2166-8-1).  That form provides examples, definitions, and step-by-step assistance to the rater for preparing and communicating performance standards and directions to the rated NCO.  Specifically, the rater shows the rated NCO the rating chain and a complete duty description.  The rater updates the duty description periodically, if necessary. 

11.  The rated NCO's signature verifies that the duty description (part III) on the NCOER is accurate and includes the counseling dates. 

12.  Part III provides for the duty description of the rated NCO.  It is the responsibility of the rating officials to ensure the duty description information is factually correct. The duty description is entered by the rater and verified with the rated NCO.  It is an outline of the normal requirements of the specific duty position, should show type of work required rather than frequently changing tasks, and is essential to performance counseling and evaluation. It is used during the first counseling session to tell the rated NCO what the duties are and what needs to be emphasized.  It may be updated during the rating period, and is used at the end of the rating period to record what was important about the duties. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant and her previous rating officials verified the information contained in part III of the contested reports, attesting to their accuracy.  She had no problem with the reports when they were prepared and completed.  She had ample opportunity prior to completion of those reports to correct any inaccuracies.  Notwithstanding the information she has provided, it is presumed that she and her rating officials determined what her duties were at that time.  Appropriately, she was rated on how well she performed those duties, not the duties that she now wants to substitute.  There is no good reason to correct these reports as she requests because she is now dissatisfied with her duty title and description of her duties on the reports.      

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   
 
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RJW__  __GJW__  ___WDP_  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.

		__Raymond J. Wagner_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003093516	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040408	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.