IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007755 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 amendment or removal of the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 16 May 2011 through 15 May 2012 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states his chain of command presented him with an NCOER which is not accurate and full of untruths. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Forms 2166-8 * letters of support * email correspondence * Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having prior active enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 April 1994. He was promoted to sergeant first class effective 1 July 2004. 2. He provided three NCOERs covering the period July 2004 to October 2007 showing he was rated "Fully Capable" by his raters for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility with favorable ratings by his senior raters. During the period July 2005 through June 2006, he was rated "Needs Improvement (Some)" for "Physical Fitness and Military Bearing." He also provided an NCOER covering the period 11 September 2010 through 15 May 2011 showing he was rated "Fully Capable" by his rater for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility with favorable ratings from his senior rater. 3. The contested NCOER covers the period 16 May 2011 through 15 May 2012. In Part IVa (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" boxes for "Duty," "Selfless-Service," "Honor," and "Integrity" and entered the following bullet comments: * demonstrated serious lack of judgment, continuously missed battle assembly * avoided complying with orders, required constant supervision * placed personal welfare before the mission 4. In Part IVd, he was rated as "Needs Improvement (Some)" for "Competence" by his rater with the following bullet comments: * did not meet minimum standards of competency; missed required Digital Training Management System training * did not pursue self-improvement training or classes to become proficient in duties as an Operations NCO * required supervision to complete the mission; did not accomplish basic Soldiering tasks on his own 5. He was rated as "Needs Improvement (Some)" for "Leadership" by his rater with the following bullet comments: * consistently missed battle assemblies for personal reasons; did not place the mission first * relied on others to accomplish the mission, does not "Be, Know, Do" * never demonstrated initiative or leadership, had to be directed repeatedly to complete individual tasks 6. He was rated as "Needs Improvement (Some)" for "Responsibility and Accountability" by his rater with the following bullet comments: * failed to lead unit Physical Training in February after being directed to do so * did not participate in section operations or tasks; had to be reminded and monitored to ensure he completed individual requirements * accepted responsibility only when asked or told and monitored to ensure directions were followed 7. In Part Va (Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), he was rated "Marginal" by his rater. 8. In Part Vc (Overall Performance), he was rated "Poor-5" by his senior rater. In Part Vd (Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), he was rated "Fair-4" by his senior rater with the following bullet comments in Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments): * do not recommend for promotion; limited potential for continued service * did not take initiative to continue military education; do not recommend for further advanced schooling * has difficulty understanding, acknowledging, and accepting guidance and direction * requires constant supervision; is not reliable and is difficult for others to work with * Soldier unavailable for signature; did not attend a battle assembly from May to August and did not maintain CAC [Common Access Card] and AKO [Army Knowledge Online] access to review and sign NCOER 9. He provided three letters of support, dated 10 October 2013 to 14 November 2013. a. One letter was provided by a supervisory military personnel and administrative specialist who attests the applicant asked him to review the NCOER in question and provide a statement on his behalf. He states that as a Reserve Personnel Action Center Supervisor and a senior NCO with more than 28 years of service, he has reviewed, written, and submitted a multitude of evaluation reports. The applicant's report for the period 16 May 2011 through 15 May 2012 appears to include unproven derogatory information. He has known the applicant for more than 22 years and served with him for more than 10 years. As he recalls, the applicant received solid, quality NCOERs during that time period. He was always a dedicated NCO who took great pride in his military bearing and appearance both on and off duty. He has never observed the applicant placing his personal affairs before Army missions. b. A sergeant first class contends he met the applicant when he was trying to transfer to another unit. He is somewhat familiar with the circumstances. His first impression of the NCOER led him to believe the writer was not too experienced with NCOERs. It may have been hurried or rushed. Many parts of the NCOER, to include format, were done incorrectly. The checkmarks did not reflect the statements in a couple of sections. Some of the statements were contradictory to the applicant's leadership and performance. There were a few statements made as bullets that could have been changed or revised. A couple of statements also seemed somewhat out of context. He has experience with NCOERs. His experience with the applicant has shown that he does possess a quality of professionalism as in most senior NCOs and does possess military bearing. c. A first sergeant states he served with the applicant from 1998 to 2004. If he can recall, the applicant has never received a negative NCOER since he became a sergeant in 1993. He read the NCOER in question and there are mistakes and untruthful facts. The applicant has always maintained the highest standard of military bearing and he always puts his military mission before his personal affairs. His work schedule changed in recent years and it required him to go overseas. His commander should support him. He was not assigned a job which fit his training. His impression of the applicant's NCOER based on his experiences indicates there is obviously a personality conflict. 10. The applicant provided an NCOER appeal, dated 11 December 2013, wherein he stated: a. Just before the contested NCOER rating period, his civilian work schedule changed. He was required to go out of town on business for extended periods of time. Quite often his civilian work schedule conflicted with the dates of his unit battle assemblies. He always informed his chain of command in advance regarding his civilian work schedule. b. Since November 2011, his chain of command would not let him perform rescheduled training for any of his missing battle assemblies. Without unit and chain of command support, he was unable to continue drilling with this unit. He asked the chain of command for a transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), but his requests were ignored. c. In his 26 years of combined active and Reserve service, this is the very first time the chain of command did not support his civilian employment. Without his civilian employment, he and his family would not have survived today's economy. d. In July 2012, his chain of command presented him with an NCOER which is not accurate and full of untruths. His rater claimed he counseled him on four different occasions, but has yet to provide him with copies of the paperwork. He has not been provided the paperwork because it doesn't exist. His rater claimed that he did not uphold Army values, stating he "demonstrated serious lack of judgment; continuously missed battle assembly." He questions how requesting a transfer to the IRR and pursuing his civilian employment while notifying the chain of command in advance could be construed as a lack of judgment. His rater also wrote that he "avoided complying with orders; required constant supervision." He questions how he could avoid orders or require constant supervision if he was not even present at battle assembly. His raters claim that he "placed personal welfare before the missions. He was never given a mission. His rater also checks the "Needs Improvement" blocks for "Competence," "Leadership," and "Responsibility and Accountability," along with many fabricated and ridiculous negative bullet commends. His rater even made negative comments when he checked the "Success" block for "Physical Fitness and Military Bearing." He passed his physical fitness test and met height/weight requirements, yet his rater states he did not demonstrate the physical toughness of an NCO. His senior rater's comments are also fabricated and contrived. In all his years as an NCO, this is the first negative evaluation he has received. e. He has always lived up to the Army values and performed his duty with honor and pride. He has always put his Army mission before personal cause. He has always demonstrated the highest military bearing, even in civilian clothes, and his integrity as a senior NCO is unquestionable. f. To be clear and to the point, he was not ever counseled on the deficiencies stated in the NCOER. He was not aware his chain of command was not happy with his performance. No one in his chain of command ever mentioned anything regarding his performance. He believes it is apparent there are personal feelings of discontent in this NCOER – not objective evaluating. g. He attended battle assemblies that did not conflict with his civilian employment. He requested a transfer to the IRR that was ignored. He qualified with his assigned weapon, passed the physical fitness test, and met the Army height/weight requirements. There is no valid reason for him to receive a deficient NCOER. h. The NCOER was forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army, without his knowledge or signature. The NCOER contains many unsubstantiated claims and untruths. He has made several efforts to rebut the NCOER and have it corrected. This appeal is a matter of his personal honor. 11. On 1 February 2014, he was released from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) and assigned to the Retired Reserve. 12. He provided a letter from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 19 November 2014, which states his evaluation report appeal was returned without action because the Army Special Review Board does not adjudicate evaluation appeals for Soldiers who have been separated from military service. 13. He was placed on the Retired List effective 1 December 2014. 14. A review of the applicant's performance folder of his OMPF in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System revealed a copy of the contested NCOER. 15. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF. Appendix B (Documents Authorized for Filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System), states NCOERs will be filed in the performance and service folders of the OMPF. 16. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a 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. The regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and (2) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. The regulation also states a personality conflict between the applicant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that there are personal feelings of discontent in this NCOER and not objective evaluating was noted. However, the regulation states a personality conflict with a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal. 2. He also contends his chain of command presented him with an NCOER which is not accurate and full of untruths. However, there is no evidence that the information contained in the NCOER covering the period 16 May 2011 through 15 May 2012 does not represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 3. The governing regulation states NCOERs will be filed in the performance folder of the OMPF. The NCOER in question is properly filed in his military records in accordance with the governing regulation. 4. Based on the foregoing evidence, there is an insufficient basis for granting 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 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007755 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007755 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1