ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170010062


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  removal of the following documents from her official military personnel file (OMPF) and/or correction:

* Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the rating period 20 August 2015 through 19 August 2016
* Letter of Reprimand (LOR)

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* Orders 1A-14-016-006, 14-017-00006, BL-027-0037, BL-027-0037 (A1),          1A-14-016-006 (D), and BL-027-0037 (R)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending on 23 January 2014
* DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report)
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
* Void Previously Issued DD Form 215 memorandum

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states she is requesting removal or correction of the NCOER, ending on 19 August 2016, to justly reflect her performance, contributions, and subsequent tour.  The LOR she was issued on 11 December 2016, should be removed from her OMPF because it was closed favorably as unfounded.  She is currently suffering the consequences from improper administrative neglect and practices.  She is also discovering new insight on the injustices related to financial collections and negative administrative actions related to deployability and retention status.  She is further suffering from the injustices related to incompetent attempts to correct her record that resulted in continued active duty status that was also related to the debriefing and release from the Warrior Transition Unit and demobilization administrative actions on subsequent deployments.



2.  Review of the applicant's military record shows: 

	a.  She enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 6 May 1997 and she held military occupational specialty 88H (Cargo Specialist).  She reenlisted in the USAR on 16 August 2001. 

	b.  She was ordered to active duty (AD) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and entered AD on 24 November 2012.  She served in Kuwait from 16 January to 8 September 2013.

	c.  She provides:

* Permanent Orders 1A-14-016-006, issued by Headquarters, First Army, Rock lsland, IL on 16 January 2014, ordering her to AD in support of OEF, for an initial period of 342 days.  
* Orders 14-017-00006, issued by Headquarters, Deployment Support Command, Birmingham, AL on 17 January 2014, mobilizing her for OEF, for a period of 342 days

	d.  She was honorably released from AD on 23 January 2014, for completion of required active service, and was transferred to a Reserve unit.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 1 year and 2 months of net active service.

	e.  She also provides:

* Orders BL-027-0037, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison Command, Fort Bliss, TX on 27 January 2014, deploying her in support of OEF, not to exceed 335 days
* DD Form 220, dated 13 February 2014, showing she entered AD on 24 January 2014
* Orders BL-027-0037 (A1), issued by Headquarters, Fort Bliss, TX on 12 September 2014, amending orders BL-027-0037 by adding an accounting code
* Orders 1A-14-016-006 (D), issued by Headquarters, First Army, Rock Island on 12 January 2015, releasing her from AD no later than 31 December 2014
* Orders BL-027-0037 (R), issued by Headquarters, Fort Bliss on 10 February 2015, revoking Orders Bl-027-0037, dated 27 January 2014

	f.  An extended annual NCOER, for the rating period 14 September 2013 through 8 May 2015, shows she served as a Transportation Management Coordinator for the USAR Deployment Support Command, Birmingham, AL.  She received ratings of Excellent, Successful, and Fully Capable.

	g.  She reenlisted in the USAR on 12 April 2015, for a period of 6 years.  She again entered AD on 20 August 2015.

	h.  A change of rater NCOER, for the rating period 9 May to 19 August 2015, shows she served as a Transportation Management Coordinator for the USAR Deployment Support Command, Birmingham, AL.  She received ratings of Excellent, Successful, and Fully Capable.

	i.  An annual NCOER, for the rating period 20 August 2015 to 19 August 2016, shows she served as a Section Chief/Full-Time Support for the Transportation Company Detachment.  The NCOER shows the following entries in:

		(1)  Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, and Competencies (Rater), block f (Leads), the rater rated her as “Did Not Meet Standards” and entered the bullets:

* opposed challenges, debated necessities to support leadership in the dynamic environment this organization operates
* failed to make an effort to understand leadership’s point-of-view, displayed dissatisfaction with Soldier obligations
* frequently overthought tasks and managed time inefficiently; lacked flexibility and was unsuccessful at adapting behaviors to navigate changes

		(2)  Also Part IV, Block h (Achieves), the rater rated her as “Did Not Meet Standards” and entered the bullets:

* did not operate within the Commanders intent; excess assertiveness was counterproductive and did not align with goals of the unit
* displayed inadequate organizational skills and failed to complete several assigned tasks
* displayed lack of disciplined initiative and required frequent counseling

		(3)  Rater Overall Performance – the rater entered the bullets:

* exhibited misdirected attentiveness, continued to engage in problem focused discussions rather than feasible solutions
* lacked tolerance and professionalism and did not recognize harmful behaviors; frequently displayed an unwillingness to cooperate

		(4)  Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential) the senior rater rated her as “Qualified” and entered the narrative: [Applicant] had unlimited potential; however, must learn to respect others’ viewpoint and make an effort to comply with orders.  She may be ready for promotion after further mentorship and training. NCO refuses to sign

	j.  On 30 November 2016, a Commanders Inquiry regarding the applicant’s release from the Fort Hood mobilization site memorandum, informed her chain of command the they found the applicant’s intent to deceive the chain of command and medical personnel at Fort Hood was clear.  The motive behind her behavior was unclear.  Receipt of an LOR was recommended, filed in her OMPF, for misleading a commissioned officer into believing that she was physically clear to deploy and partake in the training that was required to deploy to the Central Command Area of Responsibility.

	k.  On 11 December 2016, she was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) after an         AR 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation found she had intentionally withheld information regarding her health, by not disclosing important details regarding her health during two Soldier Readiness Process events during mobilization.   

	l.  On 11 December 2016, she acknowledged receipt of the LOR and she elected to submit a statement and/or documents in her own behalf.  She submitted a rebuttal on 30 December 2016.  

	m.  On 2 March 2017, after carefully considering all matters available and the recommendations by the applicant's chain of command, the imposing general officer directed permanently filing of the LOR in the applicant's OMPF.

	n.  She further provides a DD Form 215, dated 8 May 2018, and a memorandum, dated 28 June 2018, wherein she was advised that the DD Form 215, with an end date of 23 January 2014, was voided as it was done in error.  The memorandum also informed that she had a valid DD Form 214 covering the correct timeframe and a DD Form 220 that butted right up to DD Form 214 covering the remaining active duty days.

	o.  She was honorably released from AD on 12 December 2018, for completion of required active service, and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 3 years and 4 months of net active service.

	p.  She is currently serving in an active Reserve status.

	q.  Her record is void of any evidence she petitioned for a Commanders’ Inquiry pertaining to the 2015 to 2016 NCOER.  Her record is also void of evidence she petitioned the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for removal of the LOR from her OMPF.


3.  By regulations:

	a.  AR 623-3 – Evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, an applicant 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.

	b.  AR 600-37 – administrative memorandums of reprimand may be issued to a Soldier for adverse action.  The memorandum will be referred to the Soldier.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient will be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made.

	c.  AR 600-8-104) – for an evaluation report and/or LOR, once placed in the OMPF becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.

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 that there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant any removal of documents from the applicant’s record.  The Board found that all due process rights were afforded to the applicant and no irregularities in the processing of the NCOER or LOR occurred.



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.
	 
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.


REFERENCES:

1.   Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.  The regulation states in:

	a.  Paragraph 3-2i (Evaluation requirements) – rating officials have a responsibility to balance their obligations to the rated individual with their obligations to the Army.  Rating officials will make honest and fair evaluations of Soldiers under their supervision.  On the one hand, this evaluation will give full credit to the rated individual for his or her achievements and potential.  On the other hand, rating officials are obligated to the Army to be discriminating in their evaluations so that Army leaders, selection boards, and career managers can make intelligent decisions.

	b.  Paragraph 3-39 (Modification to previously submitted reports) – evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the 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 appellant.

2.  AR  600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that an administrative memorandums of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier.

	a.  The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand.  Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made.

	b.  A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7.

	c.  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.

	d.  Unfavorable information filed in the OMPF that indicates substandard leadership ability and a lack of promotion potential, morals, or integrity must be identified early and shown in those permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making positions of significant trust and authority or positions or appointments screened for suitability personnel decisions.  Other unfavorable character traits of a permanent nature should be similarly recorded.

	e.  Only memoranda of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted folder.  Normally, such appeals will be considered only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers.  The above documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.

3.  AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the Army Military Human Resource Record, including the OMPF.  

	a.  Chapter 2 provides detailed guidance and instructions with regard to the initiation, composition, maintenance, changing, access to, and transfer of the OMPF.  Documents authorized for filing in the OMPF are kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and corrections to other parts of the OMPF.  It also serves to protect the interests of the Soldier and the Army.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency.  
	b.  Table B-1 states a memorandum of reprimand is filed in the performance folder of the OMPF unless directed otherwise by an appropriate authority (Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board or this Board).  


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170010062


5


1