ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170009511 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * a reconsideration to remove the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering the period 20090921 thru 20100516 * a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-4 to RE-1 * reinstatement into the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) Program * back pay for time lost as a result of being released in error * promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 due to his promotion packet being pulled for the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) board * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Online DD Form 149 * 10 Letters and Memorandums of Recommendation * 13 Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) * Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) Certificate Orders number 138-003, dated 18 May 2011 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20160007438 on 9 June 2016. 2. The applicant states he has received nothing less than outstanding or above standard NCOERs throughout his career. The NCOER, covering the period of 20090921 thru 20100516, should be removed from his file so that he can be allowed to continue service. The QMP board members should have noticed that the Rater and Senior Rater comments and ratings contradicted the first and second bullets in Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions). a. He should have been given a rating of 3, not a 4. b. He should have not been released from active duty solely based on this NCOER. 3. The applicant provides: a. Ten recommendation letters / letters of support: (1) Two recommendation letters addressed to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 5 and 7 December 2015, written by the Great Lakes Training Division commanding general and command sergeant major, in support of retaining the applicant on active duty. Both recommendations attest to his dedication to his unit and the Army's mission, as well as him being a valuable asset to the Army. Further stating, the NCOER that contained the derogatory information was not sufficient enough to warrant a review from the QMP Board. (2) Eight letters of support, submitted by former colleagues, reflect the highest regards for the applicant in terms of being a competent leader, professional, dedicated, and consummate advocate for self-improvement. Each letter of support resonates two common themes, the NCOER that led to the appeal was contradicting and lacked the basis for a QMP board. Each letter recommends restoral of the applicant in the AGR Program. b. 13 NCOERs covering the periods from 2004 through 2016, reflect the following: (1) Rated as "Exceeded Standards" for overall performance and "Highly Qualified" for his potential on his final evaluation, for the period covering 20151020 thru 20160501. (2) Received the rating of "Among the Best" for his overall potential for promotion from his rater on eight evaluations for the periods covering 200403 thru 200502 200503 thru 200506 20050701 thru 20060630 20060701 thru 20070630 20080701 thru 20090630 20131020 thru 20141019 20141020 thru 20151019 (3) Received the rating of "Marginal" for his overall potential for promotion and a "4" for both his performance and potential from his senior rater on a Change of Rater, for the period covering 20090921 thru 20100516. Part Ve. (Senior Rater Bullet Comments), reads (third bullet) "needs direction on priority of work; mentor and train into current position" and (fourth bullet) "needs to work with senior level battalion NCOs to learn overall responsibilities." (4) Received the rating of "Fully Capable" for his overall potential for promotion from his senior rater and less than stellar bullet comments for the four rating periods covering 20070701 thru 20080630, 20100517 thru 20110403, 20110404 thru 20120403, and 20120404 thru 20130403. c. MSM certificate, dated 18 May 2011, was awarded for his superior and undaunting (sic) service to the 95th Training Division and the U.S. Army, from 4 February 2004 to 31 March 2011. 4. A review of the applicant's service records show: a. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 June 1988, having served in a variety of assignments, mainly in Lexington, Kentucky. b. He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 October 2001. c. On 25 January 2004, the applicant entered into the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program. d. He received an 8-month change of rater NCOER, for the period covering 21 September 2009 through 16 May 2010, as the Battalion Training/Intelligence NCO. (1) Part IVb (Competence), the applicant received a "Needs Improvement (Some)" and the following bullet comments: * inability to provide appropriate time management affected maximizing section's capabilities; required daily guidance on tasks and areas of concentration * routinely missed suspenses for request for information, training schedule submissions and administrative actions related to training and unit readiness * did not display understanding of overall concept of operations or subtasks necessary to accomplish mission/training planning and execution; lacked managerial skills (2) Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability), the applicant received a "Needs Improvement (Some)" and the following bullet comments: * attendance and accountability of time requires improvement; personal issues affected attendance; leave and pass procedures were not consistently followed * counseled by Battalion Commander and Command Sergeant Major concerning attendance and professional/personal priorities * responsible for access and control of weapons vault for battalion (3) Part Va (Rater - Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Marginal" rating. (4) Parts Vc and d (Senior Rater - Overall Performance and Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Fair/4" rating (5) Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the bullet comments read: * fully capable of completing assigned work * a competent Soldier who works well with individual tasks * needs direction on priority of work; mentor and train into current position * needs to work with senior level battalion NCOs to learn overall responsibility e. There is no indication the applicant requested a Commander's Inquiry or appealed to the contested NCOER through HRC to the Enlisted Special Review Board. f. There is no indication the applicant was selected by a Department of the Army Centralized Promotion Selection Board for the next higher rank of sergeant first class/ E-7. g. On 1 May 2016, the applicant was discharged in accordance with chapter 4 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) by reason of "Non-Retention on Active Duty." He completed 13 years, 2 months, and 27 days of creditable active service. He was assigned Separation Code JGH and Reentry (RE) Code of 4. 5. By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers may be separated for non-retention on active duty under retention programs such as the QMP. A Soldier denied continued service under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) may appeal the determination and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance and/or presence of material error in the Soldier’s record when reviewed by the selection board. It also states that a Soldier may submit only one appeal, requests for reconsideration of denied appeals are not authorized, and the Soldier may submit relevant material in support of the appeal. USAR AGR Soldiers are granted a maximum of 90 days from completion of DA Form 4914-R (Statement of Option) to submit their appeals to their commander. 6. By regulation (AR 623-205) a. Evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps. Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, and counseling forms. b. 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. Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier’s OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored. The following will not be used to alter or withdraw a report or be included in the rated individual’s OMPF: * statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier * statements from rating officials that they did not intend to rate the rated Soldier as they (rating officials) did * requests that ratings be revised * statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in recording block selection indicating professional competence, performance, or potential; it is imperative that rating officials ensure that these evaluations are accurately recorded on the NCOER prior to signing that report c. Each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. 7. By regulation (AR 623-5-1), Soldiers separated under the QMP due to non-retention are assigned Separation Code JGH. The RE Code associated with this type of separation is RE-4. 8. By regulation (AR 601-210 - Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), an RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non- waivable disqualification. 9. The appropriate selection boards review the performance portion of the official military personnel file (OMPF) and other authorized documents pertaining to Soldiers in the QMP zone of consideration. This material forms the basis for the board’s evaluation of the Soldier’s past performance and potential for continued service, leading to a determination of whether the Soldier does or does not warrant retention. 10. By regulation (AR 15-185), applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 11. The ABCMR corrects military records. If as a result of this correction, a financial entitlement or a debt is created, the Board's decision is transmitted to DFAS for collection or payment. For any alleged entitlement to unpaid pay and allowances, a service member claiming additional pay and allowances previously accrued but not paid, has the burden of proving that he/she was not paid the pay and allowances claimed. Such requests are addressed directly to DFAS. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence presented by the applicant and found within the military service record, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction of the applicant’s record. After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the Board found that all due process protections were afforded the applicant and that the processing of both the NCOER and the QMP was done within regulatory guidelines and standards. For that reason, the Board recommended that denying the requested relief was appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 5/21/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 623-205 (Personnel Evaluation Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System), prescribes the enlisted evaluation function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS). Chapter 3 governs evaluation principles, forms, preparation, and submission of evaluation reports. a. Paragraph 3-13, prescribes the 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) Rater will use the following definitions when completing part Va: * Among the best. NCOs who have demonstrated a very good, solid performance and a strong recommendation for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. * Fully capable. NCOs who have demonstrated a good performance and strong recommendation for promotion should sufficient allocations be available. * Marginal. NCOs who have demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time. (2) Senior rater will use the following definitions when completing parts Vc and Vd, overall performance and potential: * 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. * Fair represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time. * Poor 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. b. Paragraph 3-15a, prescribes each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated NCO for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period. The determination of whether an incident occurred during the period covered must be based on the date of the actual incident or performance. It will not be based on the date of any subsequent acts, such as the date of its discovery, a confession, or finding of guilt, or the completion of an investigation. 2. The appropriate selection boards review the performance portion of the official military personnel file (OMPF), DA Form 2A and 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), or Enlisted Record Brief, official photograph, and other authorized documents pertaining to Soldiers in the QMP zone of consideration. This material forms the basis for the board’s evaluation of the Soldier’s past performance and potential for continued service, leading to a determination of whether the Soldier does or does not warrant retention. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 19-11, states a Soldier denied continued service under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) may appeal the determination and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance and/or presence of material error in the Soldier’s record when reviewed by the selection board. It also states a Soldier may submit only one appeal, requests for reconsideration of denied appeals are not authorized, and the Soldier may submit relevant material in support of the appeal. USAR AGR Soldiers are granted a maximum of 90 days from completion of DA Form 4914-R (Statement of Option) to submit their appeals to their commander. Appeals are considered by QMP appeals boards normally conducted in conjunction with HQDA centralized promotion selection boards and will consider all information considered by the QMPL board and all information included in the appeal. The mere fact that a Soldier’s performance has improved or that the Soldier’s file contains material error is not necessarily sufficient to overcome the reason for QMP selection. The appeal board may determine that the reason for QMP selection still applies even in the light of the improved performance or correction of an error. Successful appeals result in removal of the denial of continued service determination. 4. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Chapter 3 prescribes the basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes used for administrative purposes and applicants should be advised that these codes are not to be considered derogatory in nature; they simply are codes used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure. * RE code 1 applies to persons who completed an initial term of active service who were fully qualified for enlistment when separated * RE code 3 applies to persons who are not qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable * RE code 4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification