BOARD DATE: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170005907 BOARD VOTE: ____x____ ____x____ ___x_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170005907 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. removing the DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014 from his official military personnel file, b. placing an appropriate statement in his records to explain the absence of rating information during the period in question, and c. showing he was not selected for denial of continued service under the Qualitative Management Program. _____________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. BOARD DATE: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170005907 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 an appeal of his denial of continued service under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). 2. The applicant states: a. His appeal is based on the fact that the U.S. Army Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), on 16 April 2016, adjusted his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014. b. The NCOER was an inaccurate reflection of his character and adherence to the Army values. Specifically, numerous irregularities and biased opinions were expressed with no documented proof, other than a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) from the Drill Sergeant School for his failure to achieve Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standards. Inaccurate or contradictory comments were expressed throughout the NCOER. 3. The applicant provides a copies of his: * DA Forms 2166-8 (NCOER) covering the periods 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014 and 16 March 2014 through 15 January 2015 * NCOER Commander's Inquiry Report, dated 8 May 2015 * ESRB Record of Proceedings Docket Number AR20150013642, dated 16 March 2016 * memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 3 January 2017, subject: Results of the QMP Appeal Board for (Applicant) * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 10 April 2017 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is currently serving in an active duty status in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). He was promoted the rank of staff sergeant (SSG) on 1 August 2013. He is pending separation under the QMP and has been barred from reenlistment by a Department of the Army-imposed bar to reenlistment. 2. The applicant received a change-of-rater NCOER covering the period 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER). This NCOER covers 6 months of rated time and is his first NCOER as a SSG. 3. The applicant's contested NCOER showed the following: * "No" ratings for the Army values of "Duty" and "Selfless-Service" * "Needs Some Improvement" rating for "Physical Fitness and Military Bearing" * "Needs Much Improvement" rating for "Leadership" * "3" and "4" ratings from his senior rater for his "Overall Performance" and "Overall Potential for Promotion," respectively 4. There is no evidence a first sergeant or sergeant major reviewed the contested NCOER for correctness. 5. The applicant was selected for involuntary separation by a QMP Board based on the contested NCOER. 6. The applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the ESRB, which considered the applicant's appeal on 16 March 2016. The ESRP ROP shows he requested removal of the contested NCOER from his OMPF. The ESRB granted partial relief and indicated his NCOER should be corrected as follows: a. Part Id (Date of Rank), add "20130801"; b. Part IVa (Army Values), delete the "NO" ratings for values "Duty" and "Selfless-Service" and enter "YES" ratings; c. Part IVc (Physical Fitness & Military Bearing), delete the bullet comment "Physically quit, or failed 270 on the APFT during Drill Sergeant School" and add an "X" showing a rating of "Success"; and d. add "Corrected Copy" to the bottom portion of the evaluation. 7. The applicant appealed the QMP decision after the ESRB provided partial relief for some of his NCOER concerns. A QMP Appeal Board convened in June 2016; this board denied his request for appeal of the involuntary separation. He was told he must separate from the Army no later than 1 August 2017 and he could apply to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) if he felt the decision was unjust. 8. The applicant's corrected NCOER, which was viewed by the QMP Appeal Board, shows in: a. Part IIa (Name of Rater), SSG P____ T____, Rear Detachment Sergeant; b. Part IIb (Name of Senior Rater), SSG J____ R____, Platoon Sergeant; c. Part IVd (Leadership), Needs "much" improvement: * failed to conduct opportunity training with Soldiers to improve their Army knowledge * has difficulty delegating tasks to subordinates, completed basic tasks that should have been executed by subordinates * had difficulty training Soldiers, failed to properly prepare for classes and lacked self confidence d. Part IVe (Training), "Success": * in processed newly assigned Soldiers, ensured all theater specific individual readiness training (TSIRT) tasks were completed prior to deployment * never lost focus of basic Soldier skills while pressured by daily task of rear detachment * a competent leader who shared his knowledge and experience from previous combat deployments to enhance his Soldiers' survivability on the battlefield e. Part Va (Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), "Fully Capable"; f. Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), an "X" is entered in "3" for "Successful"; g. Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), an "X" is entered in "4" for "Fair"; and h. Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments). * absolutely do not promote this NCO; needs more time in current grade to continue to develop as a leader * limited potential; do not assign to increased levels of responsibility * needs improvement; continue to develop for satisfactory performance 9. The applicant provided: a. Commander's Inquiry Report, dated 8 May 2015, which shows the applicant's commander looked into alleged errors, injustices, or legalities pertaining to the contested NCOER. The inquiry focused on the objectivity, correctness, and consistency of bullet comments by the rating chain. The commander concluded: (1) The evaluation, at a minimum, required administrative correction, which included grammar, sentence structure, and corrections to the administrative section. (2) Determined the overall incompetence of the rating chain prevented the applicant from receiving an objective NCOER. (3) The overall failure of the entire rating chain to produce a clear and concise evaluation calls into question the evaluation as a whole, to include the senior rater comments. (4) The commander recommended the contested NCOER be administratively corrected, appealed by the applicant, and that the inquiry memorandum be filed with the evaluation report in the applicant's OMPF for clarification purposes. b. The NCOER covering the period 16 March 2014 through 15 January 2015, which was received after the contested NCOER, shows the rater indicated in: (1) Part IVb (Competence), "Success"; (2) Part IVc (Physical Fitness), "Success"; (3) Part IVd (Leadership), "Success"; (4) Part IVe (Training), "Excellence"; (5) Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability), "Success"; (6) Part Va (Rater – Overall potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), "Fully Capable"; (7) Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), an "X" is entered in "2" for "Successful"; (8) Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), an "X" is entered in "2" "Superior"; and (9) Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments): * promote with peers * send to senior leaders' course (SLC) with peers * performed at expected levels for his rank; continue to groom Soldier for positions of greater responsibility * competent and capable noncommissioned officer c. His ERB which shows: (1) He served 12 months during Operation Enduring Freedom and 25 months during Operation Iraqi Freedom. (2) He maintains a secondary MOS of 19D (Calvary Scout), and he completed the Basic Leader Course and Advanced Leader Course. (3) He was awarded or authorized the: * Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award) * Army Achievement Medal (6th Award) * Army Good Conduct Medal (4th Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Afghanistan Campaign Medal with combat service star * Iraq Campaign Medal with combat service star * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * NCO Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 2 * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 4 * North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge and Combat Action Badge 10. The applicant's OMPF does not contain the Commander's Inquiry Report for the contested change-of-rater NCOER covering the period 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014. 11. There is no record of indiscipline in the applicant's OMPF. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. The information provided on the NCOER or academic evaluation report combined with the Army's needs and individual leader qualifications, is used as a basis for personnel actions. Included are: promotion, elimination and retention in grade, retention on active duty, reduction in force, command selection, school selection, assignment, specialty designation, Regular Army, and Joint integration. To ensure that sound personnel management decisions can be made and that a leader's potential can be fully developed, evaluation reports must be accurate and complete. Each report must be a comprehensive appraisal of a Soldier's abilities, weaknesses, and potential. Reports that are either incomplete or fail to provide a realistic and objective evaluation make it difficult to determine a Soldier's true potential. a. Paragraph 1-9 provides that Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or NCO Corps. Performance will be evaluated by observing actions, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, counseling forms, and as explained in Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). b. Paragraph 1-11 provides that when it is brought to the attention of a commander or commandant that a report rendered by a subordinate or by a member of a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of this regulation, that commander will conduct an inquiry into the matter. The commander's inquiry will be confined to matters related to the clarity of the evaluation report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the evaluation with policies and procedures established by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and the conduct of the rated Soldier and members of the rating chain. c. Paragraph 2-17 provides that every NCOER will be reviewed by the company first sergeant, battalion command sergeant major or sergeant major, and will be signed by an official who meets the reviewer requirements of paragraph 2-8b. The reviewer is responsible for providing safeguard overwatch and will ensure that the proper rater and senior rater complete the report and examine the evaluations rendered by the rater and senior rater to ensure they are clear, consistent, and just, in accordance with known facts. Special care will be taken to ensure the specific bullet comments support the appropriate Excellence, Success, or Needs Improvement ratings in Part IVb-f. d. Paragraph 3-37(2) provides that rated Soldiers will always be the last individuals to sign the evaluation. The rated Soldier's signature will verify the accuracy of the administrative data in Part I, to include nonrated time; the rating officials in Part II; the APFT and weight data; and that the rated Soldier has seen the completed report. This action increases administrative accuracy of the report and will normally preclude an appeal by the rated Soldier based on inaccurate administrative data. e. Paragraph 3-52 provides that the DA Form 1059 is used to report the performance of students attending Army service schools, Department of Defense schools, U.S. Army Reserve schools, NCO academies, allied nation schools, and Reserve Component chaplain candidates for training, as well as formal school status as prescribed below. Time covered in academic evaluation report producing schools is nonrated on the NCOER that covers the same period. f. Paragraph 3-39 provides that 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, has been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represents the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. g. Chapter 6 defines the Evaluation Redress Program and provides guidance regarding redress programs, including commanders' inquiries and appeals. h. Paragraph 6-8 states substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an NCOER through date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time period will require the applicant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR. i. Paragraph 6-11a provides that the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-39 and 6-7 will not be applied to the report under consideration, and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. The evidence presented must be of a clear and convincing, and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and provides that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. 4. Several Military Personnel messages have been published providing guidance and procedures in support of the QMP. The purpose of the QMP Board is to identify selected NCOs for possible involuntary separation; specifically, those with a general officer memorandum of reprimand, conviction by a court-martial or Article 15, relief-for-cause NCOER, a "No" in the Army values on an NCOER, a senior rating of "4" on an NCOER in the overall performance or potential blocks, and/or NCO Education System failures. * Soldiers selected by the QMP for denial of retention on active duty must exercise an option (appeal, accept, retire, etc.) * Soldiers may appeal on the basis of a material error in their records when reviewed by the board; the chain of command, all the way to a general officer, must recommend approval or disapproval * Soldiers who elect to appeal but fail to submit their appeal within 30 days or without compelling justification will continue to process for discharge; the Directorate of Military Personnel Management is the final authority for the disposition of appeals 5. Department of the Army Pamphlet (623-3) prescribes the policy and tasks for the Army’s Evaluation Reporting System. a. Chapter 3 provides rules for designating a senior rater on an NCOER: (1) A senior rater will be an officer or NCO of the U.S. Armed Forces or an employee of Department of Defense (including non-appropriated fund employees) who is senior to the rater by either pay grade or date of rank. Members of allied forces are not authorized to be senior raters. (2) A senior rater will be a supervisor over all other rating officials in the rated Soldier's chain of command or supervisory chain. The senior rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rater and designated as the rated Soldier's senior rater for a minimum period of 60 consecutive days. b. Paragraph 3-8 provides Part V of the NCOER, structured potential rating for overall performance and potential consists of, and includes, rater box marks for promotion/service potential; rater specific positions recommendation; senior rater overall performance and potential; and senior rater choice of alternatives for future performance. (1) Part Vc: Senior rater evaluates overall performance by placing one computer generated, typewritten or handwritten "X" (in black ink) in the appropriate box. The senior rater's box marks are independent of the rater's. There is no specific box mark ratings required of the senior rater based on box marks made by the rater. The following definitions will be used when completing Part Vc: (a) Successful/Superior. A "1" rating represents the cream of the crop and is a recommendation for immediate promotion. A "2" rating represents a very good, solid performance and is a strong recommendation for promotion. A "3" rating also represents a good performance and, should sufficient allocations be available, is a recommendation for promotion. (b) Fair. A "4" rating represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time. (c) Poor. A "5" 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 DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the QMP. (2) Part Vd: Senior rater evaluates overall potential by placing one computer generated, typewritten or handwritten "X" (in black ink) in the appropriate box. The senior rater's box marks are independent of the rater's. There is no specific box mark ratings required of the senior rater based on box marks made by the rater. The following definitions will be used when completing Part Vd: (a) Successful/Superior. A "1" rating represents the cream of the crop and is a recommendation for immediate promotion. A "2" rating represents a very good, solid performance and is a strong recommendation for promotion. A "3" rating also represents a good performance and, should sufficient allocations be available, is a recommendation for promotion. (b) Fair. A "4" rating represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time. (c) 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 DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the QMP. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's appeal of his denial of continued service under the QMP was carefully considered. He contends the ESRB corrected administrative errors in the NCOER and he believes inaccurate or contradictory comments were expressed throughout the NCOER. 2. The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 August 2013. He received a change-of-rater NCOER covering the period 25 September 2013 through 15 March 2014. The change-of-rater NCOER covered a 6-month rating period and was his first NCOER in the rank of SSG. 3. The applicant's contested NCOER shows he was rated by an SSG who gave him a "Fully Capable" evaluation for his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. The contested NCOER also shows he was senior rated by an SSG who gave him a "3-Successful" rating for his overall performance, and a "4-Fair" rating for his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. 4. The evidence shows the applicant's commander conducted an NCOER inquiry in May 2015 wherein he determined the overall incompetence of the rating chain prevented the applicant from receiving an objective NCOER. The commander further determined the contested NCOER contained administrative errors and bullet comment inconsistencies that called into question the evaluation as a whole. The commander recommended the inquiry be made a part of the applicant's OMPF; however, the inquiry is not filed in his OMPF. 5. The evidence shows the applicant was selected for involuntary separation after a QMP Board convened in June 2015. The purpose of the QMP board at that time was to identify selected NCOs for possible involuntary separation; specifically, those with a general officer memorandum of reprimand, conviction by a court-martial or Article 15, relief-for-cause NCOER, a "No" in the Army values in an NCOER, a senior rating of "4" in an NCOER in the overall performance or potential blocks, and/or NCO Education System failures. The evidence shows the applicant received a "No" rating in the Army values and a "4" rating in the senior rater portion of the contested NCOER related to his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. 6. The applicant appealed the contested NCOER with the ESRB. The ESRB provided him a partial relief by correcting administrative information and changing ratings where bullet comments did not support where an "X" was initially placed. The ESRB removed the "No" blocks related to his Army value ratings; however, it did not make changes to the senior rater's "4-Fair" rating, which was viewed by the QMP Board. 7. The applicant appealed the involuntary separation decision while providing the QMP Board a copy of the ESRB's Record of Proceedings. The QMP denied his request and determined he must separate. It appears the decision to continue his involuntary separation was based on the decision not to change the "4-Fair" evaluation of his potential for promotion made by the senior rater. 8. The evidence of record shows the commander determined the overall incompetence of the applicant's rating chain prevented the applicant from receiving an objective NCOER. 9. The contested NCOER shows the rater determined the applicant needed "Much Improvement" in Part IVd "Leadership," addressing his lack of proficiency and preparation as a trainer to junior Soldiers and his difficulty delegating tasks to subordinates. However, the rater gave him a "Success" rating in Part IVe "Training," addressing his competence as a leader sharing his experience, and ensuring Theater Specific Individual Readiness Training tasks were completed. These two ratings are indicative of what the commander determined to be inconsistent bullet comments during his inquiry into the NCOER. Only the bullet comment about his difficulty delegating tasks applies to the "Leadership" block, while the other two bullets are training related. 10. The evidence of record shows the senior rater determined the applicant's overall performance for the 6-month rating period was evaluated as "3." The "3" represents a good performance and should sufficient allocations be available, the applicant is recommended for promotion. However, the senior rater determined he should not receive a promotion now, but should spend more time in his current grade to develop as a leader. 11. The senior rater evaluated his potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as "4-Fair," a rating which represents he believed he required additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time. The "3" and "4" ratings given for his performance and potential are inconsistent since the "3" articulates to promote him if positions are available while the "4" implies do not promote him at this time and is a decisive factor for QMP. 12. The applicant's subsequent NCOER as an SSG covering the period 16 March 2014 through 15 January 2015 (before the QMP board convened) clearly shows he had a new rating chain where the senior rater determined his overall performance was rated "2-Successful" and rated "2-Superior" for his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. This is evidence he improved as an SSG before the QMP Board convened. 13. There is no record he received punishment for acts of indiscipline during his service. If the QMP Board determined his involuntary separation is based solely on his promotion potential, the subsequent NCOER serves as confirmation he can continue to develop as a leader. 14. The governing Army regulation clearly states an evaluation report 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 to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 15. The evidence of record shows the applicant's rating officials did not evaluate him in compliance with regulatory guidance, his commander's inquiry report on the contested NCOER was not made a part of his OMPF, and the ESRB made corrections to his NCOER. There is no evidence the commander's inquiry was reviewed by the QMP Board. The applicant provided convincing evidence that shows the contested NCOER is unjust, in part, and contains substantive inaccuracies. 16. The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority. 17. In this case, there is evidence indicating the contested NCOER was unjust and filed in the applicant's OMPF. Maintaining the contested NCOER within his OMPF could negatively impact his selection for future assignments and promotion. The evidence further shows the only basis for his referral to the QMP was the contested NCOER. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017490 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170005907 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2