IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016693 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: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016693 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: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016693 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 removal of his noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the period 2 October 2012 through 5 August 2013 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states: a. He took responsibility for his actions and was held financially responsible for the item. Since then, he has done a superb job over the years. He was subjected to a Qualitative Management Program Board and was retained after matters of mitigation were submitted. b. He is requesting removal of the NCOER to enable him to move forward with his career and not be held back for a mistake he learned from. Since his mistake, he received outstanding evaluations and has performed extremely well in positions of higher responsibility. If the NCOER is not removed, this mistake will keep an outstanding NCO from progressing in his career. 3. The applicant provides: * NCOER covering the period 6 August 2013 through 5 August 2014 * NCOER covering the period 6 August 2014 through 5 August 2015 * NCOER covering the period 6 August 2015 through 5 August 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 November 2004 and is currently serving in the rank of staff sergeant stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. 2. In August 2013, his rater rendered a relief-for-cause NCOER covering the period 2 October 2012 through 5 August 2013 for his duties as the recovery vehicle supervisor. a. Part II (Authentication) shows the rater and senior rater authenticated the form on 16 August 2013. The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater and likewise authenticated the document on 16 August 2013. The applicant digitally signed the NCOER on 1 November 2013. b. In Part IVa (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all Army Values aside from "Duty," where he placed an "X" in the "No" block and entered the following bullet comments: * failed to maintain accountability of a sensitive item * dedicated and committed to mission accomplishment * treated Soldiers with dignity and respect c. In Part IVb (Competence), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered appropriate bullet comments. d. In Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered appropriate bullet comments. e. In Part IVd (Leadership), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" block and entered appropriate bullet comments. f. In Part IVe (Training), the rater placed an "X" in the "Excellence" block and entered appropriate bullet comments. g. In Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability), the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Improvement (Much)" block and entered the following bullet comments: * failed to maintain accountability of section equipment; resulted in the loss of a sensitive item and being relieved as the Service and Recovery NCOIC [NCO in charge] * identified and directed the turn-in of over $200,000 of 220 lines of excess parts and equipment while deployed to OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] 12-13 * emphasized and enforced safety during daily shop operations and training; resulted in zero accidents throughout the deployment h. In Part Va (Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Capable" block. He also entered three positions in which the applicant could best serve the Army at his current or next higher grade. i. In Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block. j. In Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Superior/3" block. k. In Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments), the senior rater entered the following bullet comments: * the rated NCO has been notified of the reason for the relief * promote with peers * send to SLC [Senior Leaders Course] * possesses the potential to function in positions of responsibility * rated NCO took full responsibility for his actions 3. This NCOER is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. 4. There is no evidence of record showing he submitted an appeal of his NCOER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command within 3 years of his evaluation report "THRU" date. 5. He provided copies of three subsequent NCOERs covering the periods 6 August 2013 through 5 August 2014, 6 August 2014 through 5 August 2015, and 6 August 2015 through 5 August 2016. In all of these NCOERs was he rated "Yes" for all Army Values, and in all other categories the ratings given by his raters were "Excellence," "Success," "Far Exceeded Standard," or "Exceeded Standard," and in all instances the ratings given by his senior raters were "Successful/1," "Superior/1," and "Most Qualified." REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), table 2-1 (Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System Access Guidelines), states an NCOER will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF. 2. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. The 10 August 2007 version of this publication was in effect at the time. a. Paragraph 2-15 stated senior raters or reviewing officials use their positions and experiences to evaluate the rated Soldier's performance and/or potential within a broad organizational perspective, military program of instruction, or civilian academic standards. The senior rater's evaluation is the link between the day-to-day observation of the rated Soldier and the longer-term evaluation of the rated Soldier's potential by Headquarters, Department of the Army, selection boards. Normally, senior raters or reviewing officials control the accurate preparation and timely submission of evaluation reports. Senior raters evaluate performance in perspective by considering the rated Soldier's experience; the relative risk associated with the performance; the difficulty of the organization's mission; the prudence and results of action taken; the adequacy of resources; the overall efficiency of the organization; and when applicable, adherence to established military course or academic standards established by the civilian educational, medical, or industrial institution. The senior rater will review and initial the first DA Form 2166-8-1 and review the final DA Form 2166-8-1 in use in the evaluation. b. Paragraph 3-39 stated an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. c. Paragraph 6-7 stated 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. d. Paragraph 6-11 stated the burden of proof in the appeal process rests with the appellant. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 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. e. Paragraph 6-13 advised that appeals based on substantive inaccuracy must include the basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an erroneous perception of the performance. 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. 3. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the procedures for completing Army evaluation reports for officers and NCOs. a. Table 3-4 (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions NCOER Instructions) defines the ratings of "Excellence," "Success," and "Needs Improvement." The following definitions will be used in parts IVb-f: * Excellence – * exceeds standards demonstrated by specific examples and measurable results * special and unusual * achieved by only a few * clearly better than most others * Success – * meets all standards * majority of ratings are in this category * fully competitive for schooling and promotion * the goal of counseling is to bring all NCOs to this level * Needs Improvement – missed meeting some standards b. Table 3-5 (Overall Performance NCOER Instructions) defines the ratings of "Among the Best," "Fully Capable," and "Marginal." NCOs receiving one or more "Needs Improvement" ratings in Parts IVb-f cannot receive a rating of "Among the Best." The following definitions will be used in Part Va: * Among the Best – NCOs who demonstrated a very good, solid performance and a strong recommendation for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility * Fully Capable – NCOs who demonstrated a good performance and strong recommendation for promotion should sufficient allocations be available * Marginal – NCOs who demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time c. Table 3-5 states the senior rater provides an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier in his or her portion of the evaluation form. The senior rater uses the information provided on the DA Form 2166-8-1, as well as any information he or she receives through direct or indirect contact with the rated individual. The following definitions will be used when completing Parts Vc and Vd: * Successful/Superior – * a "1" represents the cream of the crop and recommendation for immediate promotion * a "2" represents a very good performance and strong recommendation for promotion * a "3" represents a good performance and promotion recommendation based on allocations * Fair – a "4" rating represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time * Poor – * a "5" rating represents NCOs who are weak or deficient and, in the opinion of the senior rater, need significant improvement or training in one or more areas * do not promote and consider for Department of the Army-imposed bar to reenlistment under the QMP DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for removal of his NCOER covering the period 2 October 2012 through 5 August 2013 from his OMPF was carefully considered. 2. He received a rating of "No" from his rater in Part IVa (Army Values) for "Duty" and "Needs Improvement (Much)" from his rater in Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability) for failing to maintain accountability of section equipment resulting in the loss of a sensitive item and being relieved as the Service and Recovery NCOIC. 3. He received a rating of "Fair/4" from his senior rater in Part Vc (Overall Performance) and "Superior/3" in Part Vd (Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), which was consistent with his rater's evaluation of his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as "Fully Capable." 4. The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater and authenticated the NCOER by signing it on 16 August 2013. 5. He did not provide clear and compelling evidence showing the ratings in the contested NCOER were in error or were not the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time the reports were rendered. The NCOER is properly filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. 6. The three subsequent NCOERs he provides that demonstrate his rated improvement in duty, responsibility, and accountability are noted. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016693 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016693 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2