IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012011 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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: 5 June 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012011 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 her DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states: a. The NCOER in question is overlapping with another NCOER and needs to be removed from her OMPF as it was rejected by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). b. HRC rejected her NCOER, remarking that the “THRU” date overlaps with the “FROM” date of the next NCOER that has already been processed. She was referred to DA Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) for guidance on the “FROM” date and “PERIOD OF REPORT” and advised to verify the period of a report at https://www.isdrad16.army.mil/iwrs/. Finally, she was informed to contact the HRC appeals section at hrc.tagd.evalappeals@conus.army.mil if a report that already processed required corrective action. c. She sent an email to the address in the remark, but it was returned as undeliverable. Her unit’s personnel office (S-1) does not have the ability to see her NCOERs in order to refute them. She is requesting the correction for a warrant officer board. 3. The applicant provides her NCOER covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. After 4 years of service in the Regular Army, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to a unit in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 2 June 2002. She is currently a staff sergeant in the USAR. 3. In October 2005, her rater, Sergeant First Class L____ P____, rendered an annual NCOER covering the period October 2004 through September 2005 for her duties as human resources sergeant. 4. This NCOER is filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. 5. In December 2006, her rater, Staff Sergeant M____ H____, rendered an annual NCOER covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006 for her duties as human resources specialist. She concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations by signing the form on 23 December 2006. By signing the form she acknowledged she understood her signature verified that the administrative data in Part I (Administrative Data), the rating officials in Part II (Authentication), the duty description to include the counseling dates in Part III (Duty Description), and the Army Physical Fitness Test and height/weight entries in Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) were correct, she saw the completed report, and was aware of the appeals process. 6. This NCOER is filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. 7. She claims HRC rejected her NCOER covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006 with the following remark: “(Overlap). Thru Date overlaps the From Date of the next NCOER that has already been processed (see Pamphlet 623 in reference to From Date or Period of Report). Verify the period of report at https://www.isdrad16.army.mil/iwrs/. If report already processed requires corrective action, please contact Appeals at hrc.tagd.evalappeals@conus.army.mil.” This remark is not in the applicant’s available records for review. 8. There is no evidence of record she contacted the HRC evaluation appeals section or submitted an appeal of this NCOER to HRC within 3 years of her evaluation report "THRU" date. 9. In May 2008, her rater, Staff Sergeant M____ H____, rendered a change of rater NCOER covering the period 24 December 2006 through 12 October 2007 for her duties as human resources sergeant. She was not available for signature when her rater, senior rater, and reviewer signed the form on 3 May 2008. 10. This NCOER is filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. 11. A remark in the HRC Soldier Management System, dated 25 October 2016, states the applicant was selected in September 2016 by the U.S. Army Recruiting Command Warrant Officer Candidate School Reserve Board. 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 version of this publication in effect at the time contained the following guidance: a. Paragraph 3-35 states for NCOERs, an annual evaluation report is mandatory for a rated Soldier on completion of 1 calendar year of duty following the THRU date of the last NCOER in the Soldier’s OMPF. b. Paragraph 3-39a states an evaluation report accepted by HQDA 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 3-39b states requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier’s OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored. d. Paragraph 3-39c states an exception to paragraph 3-39b is granted only when information that was unknown or unverified when the report was prepared is brought to light or verified and this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation had it been known or verified when the report was prepared. e. Paragraph 6-7 states appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error of an NCOER will normally be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence. An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered. It should be noted the rated Soldier’s authentication in Part II of a DA Form 2166-8 verifies the information in Part I. Appeals based on alleged administrative errors in those portions of a report previously authenticated by the rated Soldier will be accepted only under the most unusual and compelling circumstances. The rated Soldier’s signature also verifies the rated Soldier has seen a completed evaluation report. Correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report. Removal of a report for administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude correction of errors, and then only when retention of the report would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier. f. Paragraph 6-11 states 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. g. Paragraph 6-13 advises 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. Correcting minor administrative errors or deleting one official’s rating does not invalidate the report. 3. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 prescribes the procedures for completing Army evaluation reports for officers and noncommissioned officers. a. It states Part I of the NCOER is for administrative data, which includes identifying the rated NCO, the period of the report, and the reason for submitting the report. b. Table 3-1 (Administrative Data NCOER Instructions) states the “Period Covered” is the period extending from the day after the “THRU” date of the last report to the date of the event causing the report to be written. The rating period is that period within the “PERIOD COVERED” during which the rated NCO serves in the same position under the same rater who is writing the report. The “PERIOD COVERED” and the rating period always end on the same date (the “THRU” date of the report). The beginning date of the rating period may not be the same as that of the “Period Covered” (the “FROM” date). 4. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant claims her NCOER covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006 was rejected by HRC because the “THRU” date overlaps with the “FROM” date on her next NCOER and therefore needs to be removed from her OMPF. 2. The source of the claimed NCOER rejection comment is unknown and is not in her available records for review. There is no evidence of record her NCOER was rejected. 3. The fact that this NCOER, as well as those preceding and subsequent to the one in question, are all filed in her OMPF shows they were accepted by HRC as correct and complete. An evaluation report accepted by HQDA 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. 4. Additionally, there is no evidence that her NCOER covering the period 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2006 actually contains an erroneous “THRU” date. Being an annual evaluation, it appropriately covers a 1-year period and does not overlap with the “THRU” date of the preceding NCOER. 5. The NCOER that appears to contain an error is the evaluation immediately subsequent to the NCOER she desires to have removed. This subsequent NCOER covers the period 24 December 2006 through 12 October 2007 and the “FROM” date of this NCOER overlaps with the “THRU” date of the preceding NCOER of 31 December 2006, which was written, reviewed, signed, and presumably processed prior to this one. 6. Nonetheless, even this error of a 7-day overlap on her subsequent NCOER is not of a substantive nature. Regulatory guidance states correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report. Removal of a report for administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude correction of errors, and then only when retention of the report would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier. 7. There is no evidence of an error in the contested NCOER and there is no evidence the apparent administrative error in the subsequent NCOER from over 10 years ago has or will result in an injustice to the applicant. A remark in the HRC Soldier Management System, dated 25 October 2016, states the applicant was selected in September 2016 by the U.S. Army Recruiting Command Warrant Officer Candidate School Reserve Board. A pending warrant officer board was her stated reason for requesting the removal of the NCOER. 8. All of her NCOERs are appropriately filed in the performance folder of her OMPF. 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012011 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012011 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2