MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  10 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088490

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

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Ms. Shirley Powell		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:  Reconsideration of his request for correction of his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period February 1999 through October 1999 except he now is requesting removal of this NCOER and the related reviewer nonconcurrence letter from his records.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his immediate commander drafted a memorandum to the battalion commander which was not true.  The first sergeant provided a statement indicating that he (the applicant) never received any letters of concern or counseling on areas that he needed to improve.  He sent it to the previous Board but there was no indication in the memorandum that it had been considered.  The U. S. Army Recruiting Command Inspector General's office (USAREC IG) expressed their concerns about this matter to the battalion commander.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference         are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 17 October 2002 (AR2002072548) 

As new supporting evidence the applicant provides the first sergeant's email message regarding the lack of counseling; 3 NCOERs he received prior (for the periods November 1996 through October 1997 and November 1997 through April 1998 for which his principal duty title was Assistant Inspector General and for the period May 1998 through January 1999 for which his principal duty title was Station Commander) to the contested NCOER (for which his principal duty title was Limited Production Station Commander); and 3 NCOERs subsequent (for the periods November 1999 through October 2000 and November 2000 through July 2001 for which his principal duty title was Senior Guidance Counselor and for the period August 2001 through July 2002 for which his principal duty title was Master Trainer) to the contested NCOER.

The applicant's NCOER for the period May 1998 through January 1999 (for which he had the same reviewer as on the contested NCOER and for which     his rater was the senior rater on the contested NCOER) shows he was rated similarly by the raters as on the contested NCOER (2 "excellence" and                3 "success" ratings in Part IV; a rater potential rating of "among the best," and  senior rater performance and potential ratings of "1").  The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater ratings.

On 27 October 1999, the applicant's company commander responded to a comment by the battalion commander by stating that his (the company commander's) research of his current counseling folder revealed he provided the applicant with a 90-day Letter of Concern after the Recruiting Station Manager (RSM) April 1999 (Station Performance) and one for the June 1999 RSM for an excessive amount of last minute delayed entry program losses.  In addition, the company commander told the battalion commander there were routine monthly counseling letters but no letter of reprimand during the report period.

By email dated 23 April 2002, the applicant's first sergeant (the rater on the contested OER) stated that while he was first sergeant of the Gulf Coast Recruiting Company, he did the applicant's performance counseling once in a while.  He stated the applicant never received any letters of concern or "needs improvement" performance counseling.

Army Regulation 623-205 (Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, stated in paragraph 6-4 that each report would be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period.  It would not refer to prior or subsequent reports and would not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period.

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's NCOERs received prior to and subsequent to the contested NCOER.  The Board notes that, except for the NCOER immediately prior to the contested NCOER, the applicant performed principal duties different from that for which he was rated on the contested NCOER and so comparability would not be appropriate.

3.  The Board notes that the same reviewer who nonconcurred with rater and senior rater ratings on the contested NCOER concurred with similar ratings on the NCOER immediately prior to the contested NCOER.  However, each report was an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period.  It appears to the Board that the reviewer had different views of the applicant's performance during the two different rating periods.  

4.  The Board considered the email from the applicant's first sergeant which indicated he (the first sergeant) did the applicant's performance counseling once in a while and that the applicant never received a letter of concern or "needs improvement" performance counseling.  The Board notes that the applicant mentioned he had involved the USAREC IG's office in his NCOER concerns; however, he does not provide the results of an IG investigation for the Board to consider.  

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary that an IG investigation may have revealed, the Board must presume that the applicant's company commander did not lie to the battalion commander.  The Board therefore presumes that the company commander did not keep the first sergeant informed of the commander's independent counseling of the applicant.

6.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  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

__sc___  ___jm__  __sp____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088490	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.