IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 October 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012952 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board's denial of his request to be reconsidered for promotion to master sergeant (MSG) by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) based on the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) amendment of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER). 2. The applicant states that he has submitted documentation in which he points out his areas of concern. 3. The applicant provides an NCOER for the period covering June 2003 to December 2003; an excerpt from DA Pam 600-25; and a memorandum from the Human Resources Command (HRC) dated 23 October 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070005858 on 11 December 2007. 2. The NCOER provided by the applicant has already been considered by the Board and is not, therefore, new evidence. 3. However, the excerpt from DA Pam 600-25 which states that, for the applicant’s military occupational specialty (MOS) special assignments as operations sergeant at the MSG level are available, is new evidence as is the memorandum from the HRC which states that “A variety of challenging and demanding assignments in both the operating and generating forces in the current grade with exceptional performance was viewed as strengthening a Soldier’s file.” These new documents require the Board to reconsider the applicant’s request. 4. In the Board’s first consideration of the applicant’s request, it was noted that, for the amended NCOER, the applicant received "Success" evaluations from his rater in all areas covered in Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities). His rater placed him in block 2 "Fully Capable" of Part Va. (Rater-Overall Potential). In Part Vc (Senior Rater. Overall Performance) the senior rater placed him in block 2 (Successful) and in Part Vd (Senior Rater-Overall Potential) the senior rater placed him in block 2 (Superior). 5. In the Board’s first consideration it was also noted that on 9 April 2007, the President, Special Review Boards, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, notified the applicant that the ESRB had adjudicated his appeal on the contested NCOER for the period June 2003 through December 2003, and granted partial approval. This official stated the SRDC would correct Part IIIa of the contested report to show his Principal Duty Title as "Patient Administration NCO" and Part IIIe by adding "Operations NCO" to his appointed duties. This official further stated that promotion reconsideration was not warranted based on these changes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant believes that the correction of the mistake in the entries of his duty titles in one NCOER would result in a STAB selecting him for promotion. 2. The Board denied the applicant’s request because there was no evidence or indication that the correction of the applicant’s duty titles would result in his selection for promotion. This conclusion was based on the comment made by the President, Special Review Boards, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, when the ESRB amended the applicant’s NCOER. 3. The excerpt from DA Pam 600-25 which states that, for the applicant’s military occupational specialty (MOS) special assignments as operations sergeant at the MSG level are available, does not alter the conclusions reached by this Board in its first consideration of this case. This excerpt merely states that operations assignments are available to MSGs in the applicant’s MOS. 4. However, careful consideration is given to the memorandum from the HRC which states that “A variety of challenging and demanding assignments in both the operating and generating forces in the current grade with exceptional performance was viewed as strengthening a Soldier’s file.” In this regard, only one NCOER was amended in the applicant’s military records. Therefore, the error did not alter the applicant’s records by failing to show a variety of assignments, which means several assignments. Also, while the applicant’s amended NCOER shows the applicant performing well, it does not show exceptional performance. 5. In summary, the amendment of one NCOER to show proper duty titles in a report that does not indicate exceptional performance is not significant enough to believe that the applicant would have been selected for promotion by a STAB. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X_____ ___X____ ___X___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070005858 dated 11 December 2007. _______ _X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012952 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012952 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1