IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021180 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 the change-of-rater DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the rating period September 2005 through February 2006 [hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER] from her records. If the contested report is removed, she further requests review of two awards. These awards were downgraded based on the information in the contested report. 2. The applicant states that the contested report covers a period of time that she was struggling with a diagnosed mental health issues while juggling the stress of deployment and huge amount of responsibility. a. She was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder prior to deployment, but medically cleared to deploy. Before the deployment she was participating in monthly (sometimes bi-weeklt) therapy sessions. The treatment plan was working and she was on track to continue to maintain a manageable amount of stress, even the stress related to being in a deployed environment. When she arrived in Iraq, she quickly focused on the mission at hand and continued to take her prescribed medication. She did not seek treatment for several reasons including the perceived stigma associated with individuals who suffered from mental health issues. b. She states that the deployment itself was not the key stressor that led to serious issues; it was more due to a lack of understanding and insensitivity from those who surrounded her. As long as she was competent and performing her job above the standards, her leadership continued to pile on additional responsibilities. Her technical competence as an imagery noncommissioned officer (NCO) was unparalleled in her unit. As she found satisfaction in her job she placed an overemphasis on how it defined her. Every negative comment or criticism became a personal assault on her mental well-being. c. She was part of a team that arrived in Iraq ahead of her unit. As they prepared for their mission it became evident that her rater had failed to address or plan for several areas of the mission. Her rater was responsible for the planning, but he was not part of the team that arrived in Iraq early. d. As one of the most competent members of her unit, she was held accountable by her senior rater for the lack of planning even though she had been previously instructed to stay out of all planning. This chain of events put an undue amount of stress on her and coupled with the climate of intolerance for mental health issues, she was extremely reluctant to take time away from the mission to continue her treatment. e. The assigned duties and areas of emphasis on the contested report indicate she had a great deal of responsibility; more than normal for an NCO. When she communicated to her chain of command that she could not handle the amount of responsibility, they chastised her and indicated that she needed to work on her time management. f. She also describes conflicts she encountered with shift supervisors who undermined or contradicted her decisions. When she brought this to the attention of her company commander he felt she was paranoid and overreacting. She brought up many issues to her chain of command and instead of reducing her work load and ensuring she received the proper medical care they only added to her stress by undermining her authority as an NCO. She remained in her position until she had two major panic attacks. During the first incident she communicated that she was suicidal. Instead of taking the comment seriously, her senior rater took it as a refusal to do her job as an NCO. g. She states that, in the NCOER appeal process, it is difficult to adequately provide proof of an injustice when the information that identifies the injustice was based on a behavior that was directly related to a documented, but personal, medical condition. She believes that her chain of command was ill-equipped to provide the support she needed and approached her increased stress and agitation with the philosophy of "suck it up and drive on." The tools available to officers and NCOs now far outweigh what existed five or six years ago, She would like to put this horrible time in her life behind her and not have to be reminded of her "failures" as an NCO. 3. The applicant provides: * a copy of the contested NCOER * her NCOER appeal, dated 28 January 2011, with enclosures * a copy of a memorandum of support from the reviewer (and company commander) of the contested report CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1999 and she holds military occupational specialty 35G (Imagery Analyst). She served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside and/or overseas assignments and was promoted to staff sergeant/E-6 on 1 June 2004. 2. At the time of the contested NCOER, she was assigned to B Company, 302d Military Intelligence Battalion, Multi National Corps-Iraq, as a Tactical Exploitation National Capabilities (TENCAP) data sergeant. Her rater was the platoon sergeant, Sergeant First Class (SFC) M____ P____; her senior rater was the (Tactical Exploitation System (TES) officer in charge, Chief Warrant Officer 3 (CW3) L____ C. H_____; and her reviewer was the company commander. 3. During the month of March 2006, the applicant received the contested change-of-rater NCOER for her duties as a TENCAP data sergeant which covered 6 months of rated time from September 2005 through February 2006. The contested report shows she was counseled on 1 September 2005 and 7 December 2005. It also shows the following entries: * in Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) the rater checked the "Needs Improvement (Some)" block and entered the comment: * did not have the mental toughness to meet the requirements for the position occupied; occasionally had trouble controlling emotions * in Part IVd (Leadership) the rater checked the "Needs Improvement (Some)" block and entered the following comments: * was not grounded in the skills of leadership and was unable to lead the squad to a level of readiness * did not set the right example for Soldiers to emulate from senior non commissioned officers * in Part Va (Overall Performance and Potential – Rater) the rater checked the "Marginal" block and entered three positions in which the applicant could best serve the Army at her current or next higher grade – * Training NCO * Imagery Analyst * Imagery Sergeant * in Part Vc (Overall Performance and Potential – Senior Rater – Overall Performance) and in Part V(d) (Overall Performance and Potential – Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility) the senior rater checked the "Fair – 4" blocks * in Part Ve (Overall Performance and Potential – Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the senior rater entered the following comments – * do not promote at this time * not ready for additional military schooling * does not possess the leadership qualities to perform at the next higher grade * performed technical aspect of job to standard 5. The contested NCOER was signed by the applicant's rating officials and the applicant on15 March 2006. 6. She appealed the contested report on two occasions. * on 25 April 2007, her appeal was returned due to insufficient evidence * on 10 February 2011, her appeal was returned because it was not received within three years of the through date 7. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. The burden of proof rests with the applicant. 8. In support of her request she submits a memorandum from Major (MAJ) A____ R. B____, the reviewer of the contested report. MAJ B____ states he served as the applicant's company commander prior to, during, and subsequent to the rating period. He took into account the applicant's existing medical condition (depression) at the time. He concurred (and still concurs) with the rater's and senior rater's assessments. Her technical competence was never in question, and she subsequently demonstrated tremendous improvements in all aspects of leadership and military bearing. She exercised personal and professional initiative to immediately recover from this one "rough spot" and again became an exemplary NCO. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a change-of-rater NCOER that covered 6 months of rated time from September 2005 through February 2006. The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid appraisal of the applicant's demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. 2. There is no evidence the contested report contains any administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown the rating officials' evaluations represented anything other than their objective judgment and considered opinions at the time they prepared the contested NCOER or that they exercised faulty judgment in evaluating her as they did. 3. The applicant did not provide evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. There is insufficient evidence to grant her the requested relief. 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 their 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 their case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011455 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110021180 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1