IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006182 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006182 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006182 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, in effect, removal of the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 22 May 2008 through 21 May 2009 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states the 2008-2009 NCOER she received during her deployment in Iraq reflects negative Army values, mistreatment, injustices, and inaccurate bullet comments. The NCOER does not accurately reflect the duties she performed, her character, or her values. Shortly after returning from deployment, she began receiving psychiatric care. She was not in a good state of mind for a while; she was bitter, angry, depressed, and unable to focus long enough to write a rebuttal to the NCOER. Time passed without completing an appeal and then she received notification of denial of continued service under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and realized it was time to finalize her NCOER appeal. She has made accomplishments over the years and wishes to remain in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. 3. The applicant provides a copy of her NCOER appeal with supporting documents. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) AGR Program in the rank of master sergeant (MSG). 2. Her records show she deployed to Iraq with her unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 15 November 2008 to 11 October 2009. 3. She provided her DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form) showing her principal duty title as Operations and Training NCO in Charge (NCOIC). Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) shows she was initially counseled on 5 November 2008 and does not document later counseling dates. This form also shows she passed a record APFT on 11 October 2008 and recorded her height as 68 inches and weight as 110 pounds. Part IIIc (Duty Description) states: Perform duties as the NCOIC for operations and training under the 419th CSSB [Combat Sustainment Support Battalion]. Review and submit monthly Unit Status Reports (USRs) both in home station and wartime theater positions. Review and process all training schedules for the 419th CSSB HHC [Headquarters and Headquarters Company] and all downtraced units, including nine (9) wartime assigned line companies during deployment. Oversee and track all training requirements for downtraced units and ensure all required training is performed to standard and on time. Monitor all DCLP [Deliberate Combat Logistics Patrols] operations and coordinate with Battlespace owners. 4. She provided a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) from the battalion S-3, dated 23 December 2008, showing the purpose as event-oriented counseling for engaging in a verbal altercation with a first lieutenant during preparation for a welcome briefing for company commanders and first sergeants (1SGs). 5. She provided a DA Form 4856 from the battalion S-3, dated 28 December 2008, showing the purpose as performance counseling to emphasize noted deficiencies in her conduct and performance. 6. She provided a DA Form 4856 from the battalion S-3, dated 27 January 2009, showing the purpose as her initial quarterly performance counseling for a review of the requirements and expectations for her deployment evaluation and detailing her duties. 7. She provided a DA Form 4856 from the battalion S-3, dated 26 February 2009, showing the purpose as performance counseling pertaining to her change in duty hours (shift change) effective 1 March 2009. The scope of her duties is listed as Iraqi Transportation Network (ITN) mission coordination, range and ammunition forecasting/scheduling, and USR requirements with assignment of further responsibilities and duties at a later time. 8. She further provided a written statement, dated 27 February 2009, wherein she stated she disagreed with the shift change that the staff/leadership agreed upon. The shift change was unfair and unjustifiable. She believed the change and other actions in the office were harassment and requested immediate cessation of the harassment. 9. She provided a DA Form 4856 from the battalion CSM, dated 14 March 2009, showing the purpose as performance/professional counseling to document her attitude/ability to assist in planning the 419th CSSB NCO Induction Ceremony, as well as the argumentative manner in which she addressed him. 10. She provided her DA Form 705 showing she passed a record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 5 April 2009 with a total score of 293. Her height is recorded as 67 inches and her weight is recorded as 146 pounds. 11. Her NCOER covering the period 22 May 2008 through 21 May 2009 as the Operations NCOIC shows the report was digitally signed by her rater on 5 August 2009, by her senior rater on 6 August 2009, and by her reviewer on 5 August 2009. The NCOER does not contain the applicant's signature. a. Part IIIc (Duty Description) states: Supervises and coordinates daily operations in the battalion's S-3 staff section; prepare briefing slides and weekly Command and Staff briefs through consolidation of all relevant staff sections; maintain accountability of S-3 assigned equipment, to include the operation and maintenance of the Tactical Operations Center's (TOC) automation and communication devices; coordinate and oversee the battalion's redeployment responsibilities for all subordinate companies, incoming and outgoing; ensure reconciliation and submission of monthly Unit Capabilities reports to Brigade; supervises three (3) personnel in daytime operations, which includes the TOC guard. b. Part IIId (Areas of Special Emphasis) contains the entry "Unit Status Report." c. Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) contains the following entries: * Initial – 20081102 (2 November 2008) * Later – 20081223 (23 December 2008) * Later – 20090109 (9 January 2009) * Later – 20090226 (26 February 2009) d. Part IVa3 (Respect/Equal Opportunity (EO)/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)) is marked "NO" with the supporting bullet comment: "demonstrated disrespectful speech and attitude to senior personnel on multiple occasions." e. Part IVb (Competence) shows she was rated "Needs Improvement (Some) with the following bullet comments: * "demonstrates need for improvement to maintaining timely situational awareness on all operational and training issues via e-mail and verbal means" * "displays deficiency in meeting in complying with the timely and accurate completion of critical senior NCO requirements as specified by Battalion CSM [Command Sergeant Major]" * "demonstrates functional competence in managing and supporting the Iraqi Transportation Network (ITN) security detail mission" f. Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) shows she was rated "Needs Some Improvement (Some)" with the following bullet comments: * "achieved an above average APFT score of 290" * "prone to lose professional demeanor in stressful situations" * "requires dramatic improvement in proper military bearing and proper protocol with superior officers" g. Part IVd (Leadership) shows she was rated "Success" with the following bullet comments: * "provided adequate support to subordinate companies in range qualification requirements, to include procurement of ammunition and supplies" * "demonstrated ability to effectively lead the three (3) subordinate Soldiers" h. Part IVe (Training) shows she was rated "Success" with the following bullet comments: * "displayed functional knowledge of key training requirements" * "organized and briefed the unit capabilities to brigade staff" i. Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability) shows she was rated "Success" with the following bullet comment: "demonstrated sincere commitment to the Brigade's safety program, and ensured safety played a key role in all aspects of on-duty and off-duty functions." j. Part Va (Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility) shows she was rated "Marginal" by her rater. k. Part Vb (Rater – List Three Positions in Which the Rated NCO Could Best Serve the Army at His/Her Current or Next Higher Grade) shows her rater listed the following positions: * Training NCO * Safety NCO * Operations NCO l. Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance) shows she was rated "Successful-3" by her senior rater. m. Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility) shows she was rated "Fair-4" by her senior rater. n. Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) shows her senior rater entered the following bullet comments: * "has reached maximum potential for promotion" * "with sufficient guidance accomplishes tasks to standard" * "not recommended for additional schooling at this time" * "soldier refused to sign NCOER" 12. She provided a DA Form 4856 from the battalion S-3, dated 17 June 2009, showing the purpose as her quarterly performance counseling for a review of the requirements and expectations for her deployment evaluation and detailing her duties. 13. She provided copies of email correspondence, dated 18 June 2009, wherein LTC H____, the reviewer, informed MAJ J____, the applicant's rater, that she had signed the NCOER. The reviewer asked the rater to counsel the applicant and have her sign the NCOER before departing on leave that evening. In a subsequent message, the applicant then informed CSM S____ that she had inquired as to the status of her NCOER on several occasions for two primary reasons: it was past due and her rest and recuperation leave was approaching. Each time she was unable to get a definitive answer. This was the first time she had seen a signed copy of her NCOER for the rating period ending 21 May 2009. She stated the NCOER was a negative rating and did not reflect the full scope of her duties and accomplishments from May 2008 to May 2009. Receipt of the NCOER for signature on the date she was scheduled to depart for recuperative leave did not allow time for her to respond. She advised him that an inquiry/ rebuttal would therefore be delayed. CSM S____ responded and advised the applicant that her signature only acknowledged the accuracy of the administrative data, the accuracy of rating scheme, and her awareness of the appeal process. CSM S____ directed her to sign the NCOER prior to departing for recuperative leave and to file the appeal upon her return. 14. Her records contain an Army Achievement Medal Certificate showing she was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious service while serving as the battalion S-3 NCOIC of support operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom 08-10 in 419th CSSB Permanent Orders Number 09-263-001, dated 18 September 2009. 15. She provided seven memoranda in support of her NCOER appeal. a. A memorandum for the applicant from 1SG D____ K. M____, dated 15 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement for Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states he served as the 1SG, HHC, 419th CSSB, and observed the applicant's duty performance during the deployment. In that capacity, he reviewed her NCOER in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) and noted the following shortcomings and requested removal of the NCOER from the applicant's records: (1) The applicant received a "Needs Improvement" rating in Part IVb (Competence) and the second bullet comment states: "displays deficiency in meeting in complying with the timely and accurate completion of critical senior NCO requirements as specified by Battalion CSM." As the most senior NCO in the company, he was present for the majority of the tasks the applicant planned and controlled. She demonstrated she could accomplish and complete assigned NCO tasks with little or no instruction. She planned and executed a flawless NCO Induction Ceremony for over 50 NCOs. (2) The applicant received a "NO" rating in Part IVa3 (Respect/EO/EEO). She also received a "Needs Improvement" rating in Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) where the second and third bullet comments reflect the Part IVa3 entry. He witnessed several incidents involving her rater and fellow officers demonstrating conduct unbecoming of superior officers. The applicant maintained her bearing while she was being belittled by the aforementioned officers and continued her assigned task. (3) The senior rater used comments such as "has reached maximum potential for promotion and service." She also did not recommend the applicant for additional schooling. It is apparent that the applicant's rater and senior rater don't understand the importance of disallowing personal feelings to cloud their judgment when evaluating Soldiers. b. A memorandum for Whom It May Concern from SGM K____ I. T____, Sr., dated 26 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement of Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states he served as the operations SGM for the 10th Sustainment Brigade and had the opportunity to work with the applicant on multiple occasions. She routinely sent reports to the brigade on time. Regarding the NCOER bullet comment "requires dramatic improvement in proper military bearing and proper protocol with superior officers," she was always the consummate professional in her actions with Soldiers, peers and officers alike. c. A memorandum for Whom It May Concern from Captain T____ C. C____, dated 28 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement of Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states he served as the chief of operations for the 10th Sustainment Brigade and coordinated with the 419th CSSB. All of his interactions with the applicant were respectful and professional. Battalion reports and required information were submitted late during the first few weeks, but no worse than the growing pains of the other battalions. d. A memorandum for Whom It May Concern from MSG K____ L. H____, dated 28 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement of Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states he served as the NCOIC of operations for the 10th Sustainment Brigade and coordinated with the 419th CSSB. All of his interactions with the applicant were respectful and professional. Battalion reports and required information were submitted late during the first few weeks, but no worse than the growing pains of the other battalions. e. A memorandum for the applicant from Sergeant First Class (SFC)  G____ M____, dated 28 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement for Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states she observed the applicant's duty performance on a daily basis during the deployment. She witnessed the conflict between the applicant and her rater first hand. She never witnessed any disrespectful behavior or unprofessional demeanor by the applicant. f. A memorandum for record from MSG O____ L. T____, dated 29 September 2009, subject: Supporting Statement for Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states he observed the applicant's duty performance on a daily basis during the deployment. He witnessed several incidents of discourteous treatment of the applicant by her rater. He reviewed the applicant's NCOER and cannot believe the marginal rating she received. He requests revision of the applicant's NCOER to address her accomplishments. g. A memorandum for record from Sergeant T____ J. P____, dated 25 April 2010, subject: Supporting Statement of Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), states the applicant was her first-line supervisor during the deployment. She states the applicant and her rater were great as individuals, but did not work well as a team. She believes the applicant's NCOER doesn't reflect her leadership during their deployment. She feels the applicant's NCOER is overly harsh, reflecting on all of her negative points and failing to highlight her positive achievements. 16. She provided a memorandum from the Commander, Headquarters, 314th CSSB, dated 5 January 2015, subject: Supporting Statement of Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant), who was her senior rater during the period in question. She now states the NCOER for the period 22 May 2008 through 21 May 2009 should not be considered in the applicant's overall performance and potential for promotion. She had the opportunity to observe and rate the applicant before and after the negative evaluation and the applicant proved to be a competent NCO with the ability to overcome adversity, as evidenced by the positive ratings in previous and subsequent evaluations. 17. She provided a self-authored memorandum for the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 16 January 2015, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal (Applicant), 22 May 2008-21 May 2009, with exhibits A through I wherein she states her appeal is based on both administrative and substantive errors throughout the entire report. The report reflects inaccuracies, injustice, and unquantifiable bullets of her performance while deployed to Iraq from 2008 to 2009. The substantive errors are many, along with a series of unwarranted counseling statements to appear as though she were incompetent and not performing her job. She felt constantly harassed. She believes the raters rendered the evaluation as a result of coercion and undue stress from the battalion leadership. a. She states the administrative error consists of the entry in Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) showing she passed a record APFT on 25 June 2008 and showing her height as 67 inches and weight as 140 pounds. The unit took a record APFT on 5 April 2009 prior to the unit's redeployment. The NCOER should reflect the date and height/weight information recorded on the DA Form 705 (exhibit A). b. She states the substantive errors consist of: (1) Part IIIc (Daily Duties and Scope) did not capture any duties performed during the home station and pre-mobilization station phases. Those duties included coordinating and tracking all mobilization training for 78 Soldiers, validating monthly Reserve Component Automation System and unit status reports (USRs), validating 100 percent of security clearances, and movement of troops from home station to Iraq. The rater did not capture the duties performed as outlined in the DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) (exhibit B) after the transfer of authority in December 2008. The duty description also did not address coordinating and executing the battalion's first NCO Induction Ceremony; supervising daily flight operations of over 200 flights monthly; coordinating the weekly ITN mission and escorts; writing, producing, and distributing fragmentary orders; tracking weekly fragmentary orders and brigade suspenses; and tracking battle convoys. (2) Part IIId (Areas of Special Emphasis) did not quantify the monthly USR, unit capabilities slides, and other reports. (3) Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) shows her initial counseling was conducted in November 2008 after mobilization validation and a performance counseling on 30 December 2008 (exhibit B) while her rating period began 21 May 2008. The counseling dates of 23 December 2008, 9 January 2009, and 26 February 2009 are event counseling instances and not part of quarterly job performance counseling. These entries should reflect the dates shown on her counseling statement. (4) Part IVa3 (Respect/EO/EEO) is marked "NO" with the bullet comment "demonstrated disrespectful…occasions." She has respected all her peers, seniors, and subordinates alike. Her rater stated he marked "NO" because of incidents involving junior officers during pre-mobilization, upon transfer of authority, and throughout the deployment. She believes the junior officers did not want to acknowledge her rank, position, responsibilities, and priorities. They were not receptive to information she provided. A series of events and counseling statements are noted (exhibit C). Despite the officers' attempts to hinder her requirements, she believes she remained respectful and courteous. There was no NCO support during the pre-mobilization or deployment phases to mitigate issues with junior officers and her rater. This entry should be changed to "YES" and the bullet comment should be removed. (5) Part IVb (Competence): She does not believe the negative rating is justified and the bullet comments should be removed. (a) The bullet comment "demonstrated need for improvement…email and verbal means" is inaccurate. Her rater referred to late serious incident report submission and updates. On several occasions, the subordinate units and commanders failed to notify the battalion commander and S-3 in a timely manner. They made on-the-spot corrections, adjusted, and followed the battalion commander's and brigade guidance for serious incident report submission. The second event involved one of the same junior officers (exhibit D). (b) The bullet comment "displays deficiency in meeting…specified by Battalion CSM" is inaccurate. The CSM directed her to organize, coordinate, and execute his battalion NCO Induction Ceremony, along with recertifying all medics and completing the rating scheme. Rating Soldiers is discussed later. She would spend countless hours after duty to meet the CSM's suspenses and complete his tasks with little or no assistance or guidance from him despite all the S-3 duties, maintaining the TOC daily, and constant battles with her rater, junior officers and the command team. The CSM is unsure why he counseled her. All tasks were completed successfully, but she was not given credit (exhibit E). (c) The bullet comment "demonstrates functional…security detail mission" is inaccurate. There were multiple recurring scheduled and unscheduled missions ranging from convoys to three different ITN Point of Presence missions successfully managed and executed by her alone. Her rater made a little notation about the ITN missions in the counseling statement, dated 17 June 2009, which was after the rating period. She did not receive justifiable credit she earned, which should be noted in this block (exhibit F). (6) Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) contains the bullet comment "achieved an…of 290." Her APFT score was one of the two highest scores in the unit and should not be labeled "average." The bullet comment should indicate the "highest" score achieved (exhibit A). This block also contains the bullet comments "prone to lose professionalism…situations" and "requires dramatic improvement…superior officers." She and her rater had differences and voiced their opinions throughout the deployment. She managed to maintain her professionalism despite the negative counseling statements, operational tempo, stress, shift change, and constantly being undermined, harassed, lied to, and degraded by her rater and three junior officers (exhibit G). The rater was physically and verbally hostile toward her and in his telephone conversations with his spouse. Soldiers in the TOC witnessed such acts and abuse. These acts were reported to the battalion commander, but no action was taken. The rater removed himself as the S-3 officer in charge on 17 July 2009. These bullet comments should be removed. (7) Part IVd (Leadership): These bullet comments are not quantifiable and say little concerning the leadership and duties she performed. She supervised five Soldiers and a constant rotation of TOC guards. She was not allowed to rate the male Soldiers, two of whom failed to perform the tasks she required. She rated one female Soldier. She took the unit through mobilization and led the NCO Induction Ceremony with over 45 inductees. This block should reflect quantifiable information using the duties listed in Part IIIc and in the quarterly counseling statement. (8) Part IVe (Training): She coordinated and tracked the majority of the training. She coordinated 25 recertifications and certifications for medics, mandatory training, Battle Command Sustainment Support System, and weapons qualification for more than 1,400 Soldiers. These tasks should be reflected in this block. (9) Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability) contains the bullet comment "demonstrated sincere…duty functions." Her rater stated brigade guidance required this bullet comment in all NCOERs. This is false because her rater did not enter this bullet in the SFC's NCOER, nor was it mandatory for the staff sergeant's (SSG's) NCOER. (10) Part Va (Rater – Overall Performance and Potential) and Part Vb (Rater – List Three Positions in Which the Rated NCO Could Best Serve the Army at His/Her Current or Next Higher Grade): She performed her duties to the fullest and those of the battalion CSM, yet her rater did not give her the credit she earned. She does not believe the two negative ratings are justifiable. Part Vb should reflect positions in the next higher grade. The training and operations NCO positions are her current jobs. (11) Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), and Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments): Her senior rater never discussed or wrote anything negative about her performance throughout the rating period. Her senior rater would not elaborate when asked about the negative bullets. The bullets and ratings should be changed to reflect her true performance, potential, promotion, and schooling. Her senior rater provided a memorandum in support of her NCOER appeal. c. Other unfair acts were performed by her rater and the leadership. (1) On 26 February 2009, her rater moved her to the night shift without proper explanation or notification. (2) Her leadership favored male Soldiers. She was supposed to rate the SFC as established when they hit the ground, but her rater removed her from the rating scheme. The SFC's rating period read: "20080715 to 20090625 [15 July 2008 to 25 June 2009]." The 419th CSSB did not arrive in Iraq until December 2008 and transferred authority on 18 December 2008. In the midst of this, the CSM issued her a counseling statement regarding the matter. The SFC's NCOER reflected his performance and excellent rating (exhibit H). (3) In May 2009, she initiated an annual NCOER for the SSG. The rater changed the report from annual to change of rater. The change-of-rater report was completed through December 2008. The change-of-rater report was initiated because the battle captain did not want her to counsel or rate the SSG. Her rater stated she would not be in the SSG's rating chain as of December 2008. Although the rater did not allow her to rate the male Soldiers, he confirmed she could rate one female Soldier (exhibit H). (4) Her NCOER was sent to her 1 day prior to her departure for rest and recuperation leave. She was threatened to sign the NCOER or lose the recuperative leave. She noted the administrative errors, but the command denied making any changes. She informed the CSM concerning the lateness and the errors, but he insisted she sign the report. The command entered her report into the IPERMS without her signature. Her rater called the passenger terminal and directed the staff not to let her depart. No other Soldiers were mistreated in this manner. She did not receive any support from the CSM for his tasks, the hostile workplace, or her NCOER. Instead, he referred her to the 1SG who has been supportive throughout the deployment. (5) She was not given a fair rating or credit for the duties she performed during the rating period. The report was written to degrade her performance, potential, and promotion with intent to harm her military career. She believes the report was based on the rater's personal feelings and both raters were forced to submit negative ratings. The next rating for the 2009-2010 period accurately reflected some of the duties she performed in Iraq. Those duties, along with the other duties, should be reflected in the ratings and bullets in the contested NCOER. (6) She requested to relocate to another unit within the command when she returned from deployment because the rater was still trying to undermine her and her performance, and attempted to writer another negative NCOER for the 2009-2010 rating period. The new battalion commander and CSM chastised her rater for attempting to render another bad report. (7) From 2008 to the present, she experienced the death of her mother, unfair treatment and an unfavorable NCOER during the deployment, and depression. She also received mental and behavioral health treatments, divorced, and underwent a permanent change of station. 18. Her DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), dated 2 September 2016, shows she is credited with 27 years of qualifying service for retirement, including over 21 years of active Federal service. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 4-5 states requests for inquiry will occur no later than 60 days after the signature date of the rated Soldier. A Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry will not be used to document differences of opinion among members of the rating chain about a rated Soldier's performance and potential. The evaluation system establishes rating chains and normally relies on the opinions of the rating officials. Rating officials will evaluate a rated Soldier and their opinions constitute the organization's view of that Soldier. However, the commander may determine through inquiry that the report has serious irregularities or errors. Examples include: (1) improperly designated, unqualified, or disqualified rating officials (i.e., a rating official not in the published rating chain; a rating official without the minimum required time to render an evaluation report; or a rating official who, through an official investigation, has had a substantiated adverse finding against him or her that results in his or her relief or calls into question the rating official's objectivity; (2) inaccurate or untrue statements; and (3) lack of objectivity or fairness by rating officials. b. Paragraph 4-7 states an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered. An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to: (1) be administratively correct, (2) have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and (3) represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. c. Paragraph 4-8 states that because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous evaluation report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. The likelihood of successfully appealing an evaluation report diminishes, as a rule, with the passage of time. Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. The Army Special Review Board will not accept appeals that are over 3 years old or appeals from Soldiers who are no longer serving on active duty or as part of the U.S. Army Reserve or Army National Guard. Failure to submit an appeal within 3 years will require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the time that has elapsed since the period of the evaluation report and a decision will be made in view of the regulation in effect at the time the evaluation report was rendered. d. Paragraph 4-11 states the burden of proof rests with the appellant. (1) Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: (a) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration; and (b) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. (2) Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions. (3) For a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. e. Paragraph 4-13 states pleas for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future value to the Army are rarely successful. Limited support is provided by statements from people who observed the appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances); letters of commendation or appreciation for specific but unrelated instances of outstanding performance; or citations for awards, inclusive of the same period. The appellant will state succinctly what is being appealed and the basis for the appeal. For example, the appellant will state: (1) whether the entire evaluation report is contested or only a specific part or comment and (2) the basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an erroneous perception of their performance. Note that a personality conflict between the appellant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal; it must be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust evaluation. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures for completing Army evaluation reports for officers and noncommissioned officers. a. Paragraph 1-8 stated both the rater and rated NCO should continually assess whether the duty description and performance objectives are adequate throughout the rating period. If not, they would be revised and the NCOER Support Form should be updated by the rated individual. b. Table 3-3 (Duty Description Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Instructions) stated the daily duties and scope must include a series of phrases, starting with action words and separated by semicolons and ending in a period. This portion should address the most important routine duties and responsibilities. Ideally, this should include the number of people supervised, equipment, facilities, and dollars involved and any other routine duties and responsibilities critical to mission accomplishment. c. Table 3-3 stated the areas of special emphasis must include a list of tasks/duties separated by semicolons and ending with a period. This portion was most likely to change during the rating period. It should include the most important items that applied at any time during the rating period. d. Table 3-3 stated to enter the actual dates of the counseling obtained from the DA Form 2166-8-1. When counseling dates were omitted, the senior rater would enter a statement in Part Ve, explaining why counseling was not accomplished. The absence of counseling would not be used as the sole basis for an appeal. However, the lack of counseling might be used to help support other claims made in an appeal. e. Paragraph 3-7 provided that Army Values/NCO Responsibilities would be completed by the rater, including the APFT performance entry and the height and weight entry in Part IVc. The APFT entry would reflect the NCO's status on the date of the most recent record APFT administered by the unit within the 12-month period prior to the last rated day of supervision. f. Table 3-4 (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions – Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report Instructions) stated the rater would enter one of the following APFT entries: "PASS" or "FAIL" and the date (YYYYMMDD) of the APFT results. "Received APFT badge" may be entered as a bullet comment to justify a rating of "Excellence." The APFT badge is awarded for scores of 270 and above with at least 90 points in each of the three events. Numerical scores would be used to justify "Needs Improvement" ratings that are based solely on the APFT. It was optional to enter the APFT score for "Success" ratings. g. Paragraph 3-8 provided that the rater would list up to three (at least two) different future duty positions (job title) in which the rated NCO could best serve the Army at the current or next grade. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 19, contains policies and procedures for voluntary and involuntary separation of Regular Army NCOs and USAR NCOs serving in an AGR status under the QMP. The purpose of the QMP is to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers while denying continued service to nonproductive members, and to encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. a. NCOs whose performance, conduct, and/or potential for advancement do not meet Army standards, as determined by the approved recommendations of Headquarters, Department of the Army, centralized selection boards responsible for QMP screening, will be denied continued service. A Soldier denied continued service under the QMP may appeal the determination and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance and/or presence of material error in the Soldier's record when reviewed by the selection board. A Soldier may submit only one appeal; requests for reconsideration of denied appeals are not authorized. Soldiers who choose not to appeal the QMP selection for denial of continued service, or whose appeal is denied, will be involuntarily discharged. QMP selection criteria include, but are not limited to: * moral or ethical conduct incompatible with the values of the NCO corps and the Army ethic * lack of potential to perform NCO duties in current grade * decline in efficiency and performance over a continuing period, as reflected by noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) or failure of Noncommissioned Officer Education System courses * recent or continuing disciplinary problems, as evidenced by conviction by court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative reprimand * other discriminators such as imposition of a field commander's bar to re-enlistment, inability to meet physical fitness standards, and failure to comply with requirements of the Army body composition program b. Soldiers with 20 or more years of active Federal service at the time of notification of QMP selection who choose not to appeal or whose appeal is denied may apply for voluntary retirement. Retirement must not occur earlier than 90 days or later than 180 days from the date the Soldier elects the retirement option or the appeal is denied. Soldiers who decline to apply for retirement are subject to discharge. c. AGR Soldiers with 20 years or more of qualifying service for Nonregular retired pay may elect voluntary release from active duty (REFRAD) with concurrent transfer to the Retired Reserve. Such REFRAD will occur 90 days after the Soldier receives pre-separation counseling. d. AGR Soldiers with at least 17 years and 9 months but less than 20 years of qualifying service for Nonregular retired pay at the time of notification of QMP selection who choose not to appeal or whose appeal is denied and whose expiration term of service occurs prior to the 20-year point, may extend their enlistments for the minimum period required to qualify for Nonregular retirement. e. AGR Soldiers with less than 17 years and 9 months of qualifying service for Nonregular retired pay may request voluntary discharge. Soldiers in this category may not request REFRAD. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests removal of the NCOER covering the period 22 May 2008 through 21 May 2009 from her OMPF. In her NCOER appeal, she identifies her perceived errors/inaccuracies in every rated area. 2. Regulatory guidance stated the daily duties and scope should address the most important routine duties and responsibilities. This block is not intended to list every individual task assigned during the rating period. Both the rater and rated NCO should continually assess whether the duty description and performance objectives are adequate throughout the rating period and revise as necessary. 3. She provided no evidence showing the duties and responsibilities recorded did not accurately reflect those routine duties and responsibilities critical to mission accomplishment. 4. Regulatory guidance stated the areas of special emphasis should include the most important items that applied at any time during the rating period. 5. The counseling statement and the supporting memoranda provided by the applicant clearly show planning and execution of the NCO Induction Ceremony was a significant responsibility apart from her routine duties. Part IIId (Areas of Special Emphasis) of her NCOER does not list the NCO Induction Ceremony. 6. Regulatory guidance stated to enter the actual dates of the counseling obtained from the DA Form 2166-8-1. 7. Her completed NCOER Counseling and Support Form is not available for review. However, the incomplete DA Form 2166-8-1 she provided shows she was initially counseled on 5 November 2008 and does not document later counseling dates. Part IIIf (Counseling Dates) of her NCOER shows her initial counseling date as "20081102" (2 November 2008). This entry appears to be a minor administrative error. 8. Regulatory guidance stated to enter the most recent record APFT administered by the unit within the 12-month period prior to the last rated day of supervision. 9. The DA Form 705 she provided shows she passed a record APFT on 5 April 2009 and recorded her height as 67 inches and her weight as 146 pounds. Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) of her NCOER shows she passed the APFT on 25 June 2008 and recorded her height as 67 inches and her weight as 140 pounds. The APFT entry shown on her NCOER is not the most recent record APFT administered by the unit within the 12-month period prior to the last rated day of supervision. 10. She contends the NCOER reflects negative Army values, mistreatment, injustices, inaccurate bullet comments, and does not accurately reflect the duties she performed, her character, or her values. 11. The evidence shows she was counseled on multiple occasions regarding her conduct and performance during the rated period. She provided no evidence showing the ratings rendered do not represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 12. Regulatory guidance provides that once a document is properly filed in the OMPF, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. To justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the rated Soldier must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. 13. She provided no evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that her NCOER contains a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice warranting its removal from her OMPF. 14. She believes the unfavorable NCOER is the reason for her denial of continued service under the QMP. 15. Regulatory guidance provides that a Soldier who is denied continued service under the QMP may appeal the determination and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance and/or presence of material error in the Soldier's record when reviewed by the selection board. 16. Her DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), dated 2 September 2016, shows she is credited with over 21 years of active Federal service. She is fully eligible for Regular retirement. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006182 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006182 18 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2