ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180009264 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * correction of his DA Forms 2166-8 covering the periods 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 and 22 August 2014 through 9 January 2015 to show – * his unit identification code (UIC) in Part 1m (UIC) as WXXX03 * his rater's rank in Part IIa (Authentication – Rank) as first sergeant (1SG) * correction of his DA Form 2166-8 covering the period 22 August 2013 through 21 August 2014 to show his rater's rank in Part IIa (Authentication – Rank) as 1SG * consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSG) by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) if relief is granted APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * self-authored memorandum, dated 15 June 2108 * NCOER covering the period 11 February 2012 through 21 August 2012 * NCOER covering the period 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 * NCOER covering the period 22 August 2013 through 21 August 2014 * NCOER covering the period 22 August 2014 through 9 January 2015 * four DA Forms 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form), dated 18 September 2012 (Initial), 18 December 2012 (Later), 26 March 2013 (Later), and 12 June 2013 (Later) * Email, dated 3 and 4 January 2018 * six DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 10 December 2014 * three Character Reference Memorandums, dated 30 September 2015, 13 June 2018, and 14 June 2018 * Enlisted Record Brief, dated 15 June 2018 * Senior Rater Counseling memorandums, dated 14 January 2014 and 30 April 2014 * Report of Equal Opportunity Informal Complaint Investigation, dated 15 December 2014, with enclosures and Exhibits A through R * Extract, U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) Pamphlet 623-2 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report Preparation Guide), dated 10 September 2013, Figure 3-1 (Sample of a Completed DA Form 2166-8, Page 2) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. He requests removal of the NCOER covering the rating period 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 from his AMHRR based on the quarterly counseling he received and the outdated U.S. Army Recruiting Command Pamphlet 623-2 the command used to base the rating they gave him. b. When he reviewed his DA Form 2166-8-1 and read the bullets that were written by his senior rater, he did not think he was going to receive a rating of "Successful/3" in Part Vc (Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility) and "Superior-3" in Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility). c. His final quarterly counseling showed that if his rater were to rate him at that point, he would have given him "Excellence" ratings in the areas of "Competence," "Leadership," and "Training," and "Success" ratings in the areas of "Physical Fitness," "Military Bearing," and "Responsibility and Accountability." d. He was commended in his NCOER for his selection as the Center Commander of the Quarter in the first and second quarters. e. When he received his NCOER, he was told the "3/3" rating was based on USAREC Pamphlet 623-2, page 30, stating that if he were promoted with his peers the ratings must be " 3/3." He felt this was unjust since USAREC Pamphlet 623-2 no longer exists. His accomplishments, written as bullet comments in his NCOER, did not justify receiving a rating of "3/3." His counseling statements and the fact that he was selected as the Center Commander of the Quarter twice did not justify or coincide with him receiving a rating of "3/3." f. He would like the administrative errors in his NCOERs covering the periods 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 and 22 August 2014 through 9 January 2015 corrected by changing the UIC in Part 1m to read "WXXX03" and his rater's rank in Part IIa to read "1SG." g. He would like the administrative error in his NCOER covering the period 22 August 2013 through 21 August 2014 corrected by changing his rater's rank in Part IIa to read "1SG." h. He would like consideration for promotion to MSG by a STAB if the NCOER removal and corrections are made. 3. Four NCOER Counseling and Support Forms were completed in support of his NCOER covering the period 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 a. His initial counseling, dated 18 September 2012, described what the unit required of him. b. His second counseling, dated 18 December 2012, stated he maintained a high level of standards and moral conduct, followed all obligations, lived up to the Army values, and did what was right. In addition, he received ratings of: * "Needs Improvement" in "Competence" * "Success" in "Physical Fitness," "Military Bearing," and "Leadership" * "Excellence" in "Training" and "Responsibility and Accountability" c. His third counseling, dated 26 March 2013, stated he always went above and beyond the Army values, he placed his needs before others, his integrity was above reproach, and he lived the Army values, both on and off duty. In addition, he received ratings of: * "Success" in "Competence," "Physical Fitness," "Military Bearing," and "Responsibility and Accountability" * "Excellence" in "Training" * no overall rating was given under "Leadership" during this counseling d. His final counseling, dated 12 June 2013, stated he always went above and beyond the Army values, he was dedicated to the mission, he always placed the Army's needs above his own, his integrity was above reproach, and he lived the Army values, both on and off duty. In addition, he received ratings of: * "Excellence in "Competence," "Leadership," and "Training" * "Success" in "Physical Fitness," "Military Bearing," and "Responsibility and Accountability" 4. On 10 September 2013, the applicant received an NCOER covering the period 22 August 2012 through 21 August 2013 wherein he received ratings of "3/3" by his senior rater in Part Vc and Part Vd. 5. A copy of USAREC Pamphlet 623-2, Figure 3-1, dated 10 September 2013, was attached to the above listed NCOER to show the number "3" represented promote (with peers) if sufficient allocations exist. This mirrored the bullet comment in Part 4e to promote him to MSG with his peers. 6. The applicant provided a memorandum from the recruiting company commander and recruiting center commander, dated 14 January 2014, subject: (Applicant) Senior Rater Counseling (NCOER Period Covered 20130822-20140821), that stated the memorandum served as documentation that a senior rater counseling was conducted and specified: * expectations are to effectively lead his center in all recruiting operations, at a minimum to achieve 100 percent of his assigned mission, with 12 for the U.S. Army Reserve * as of 14 January 2014 he had not achieved his year-to-date combined U.S. Army Reserve Mission * he achieved his volume mission on both sides – with the Regular Army mission he overachieved in volume * he had the ability to lead the center toward consistent mission accomplishment and the volume achievement is an indication of improvement in his center * by 14 December he had achieved his volume and quality marks on the U.S. Army Reserve side as well * he displayed potential to serve as the next higher level and as the Field 1SG – he showed great leadership potential on several occasions * he conducted briefings with the Center Commanders and provided sound advice to leaders at all levels * if she were to senior rate him that day, he would receive a rating of "3" in overall performance, but he was on his way to receiving a rating of "2" in potential because she had seen an improvement 7. The applicant provided a memorandum from the recruiting company commander and recruiting center commander, dated 30 April 2014, that stated: * they expected him to execute effective mission command when leading his center, which will allow him to be successful in all areas of recruiting operations and leadership * they expected him to achieve his mission potential * achieving his assigned mission was success – achieving his mission potential was excellence * the focus of the company for the future was quality * he displayed an impressive ability to improve overall performance, development, and operations * his subordinate leaders were crippled when he was out of the office * he had the potential to serve at the next higher level * if his company commander were to senior rate him that day, he would have received a rating of "2" in overall performance and a rating of "3" in potential * while his company commander saw improvement, she did not believe he was ready to be promoted above his peers 8. On 3 October 2014, the applicant received an NCOER covering the period 22 August 2013 through 21 August 2014 showing his rater's rank as SFC and duty assignment as 1SG. 9. On 24 November 2014, the applicant filed an informal Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint through email with an attached statement that showed: a. He perceived being discriminated against on the basis of race and position. b. He was under investigation and the accusations he identified were in no way to attempt to change the outcome of the investigation against him, but were part of the reason he felt he was targeted. c. There were no outright racial actions, rather more "behind the scene" actions. d. His position was previously vacated abruptly by an African-American who informed him that he began to receive recruiting improprieties prior to leaving the recruiting station, which happened after his arrival in the company. The African- American had since been relieved as a Center Commander and retired. e. Upon arrival, he immediately felt he was being targeted by the 1SG because he asked him random questions and made random statements that he kept in a log. He asked to see his government vehicle log and questioned why he was driving to certain locations. He was accused of driving to an unauthorized site. The site he drove to was where the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery was taken. He was investigated for vehicle misuse. f. He overheard a statement made by the 1SG who stated, "if you are not smarter than me, you can't be my leader." He felt this statement was also targeted toward certain Soldiers even though he was a supervisor. g. He felt if he brought the statement listed in paragraph f above to the command team, they would not have addressed it. h. An investigation for a government vehicle misuse allegation and suspected impropriety resulted in making him feel nervous, uneasy, and targeted. i. Overall, his statement contained much speculation, but his perception was that there was a problem that needed to be looked into. He stated he didn't think it was a good environment for Soldiers whose careers may be in jeopardy based on the color of their skin. 10. On 24 November 2014, the Recruiting Command appointed an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigating officer (IO) to investigate the allegations of discrimination based on race. 11. On 15 December 2014, the report of EO informal complaint investigation was completed. There were 17 sworn statements that were taken from Soldiers within the company (see exhibits B through R). The findings stated: a. The 1SG was identified as a professional senior NCO and was not working in any manner to warrant an EO complaint and found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. b. The perception that the 1SG was an elitist led to others to identify him as different and found the allegation was substantiated – not as a racist, but perceived as a racist. c. The IO recommended that the company command team step in and fix issues that arise within the company. d. The final recommendations to the command team were redacted. 12. On 5 January 2015, the applicant received an NCOER covering the period 22 August 2014 through 9 January 2015 showing his rater's rank as SFC and duty assignment as 1SG. 13. On 30 September 2015, SGT M____ J. S____ wrote a character-reference letter in support of the applicant stating: * he worked with the applicant as the Recruiting Center Support Team NCO * the applicant was one of the most knowledgeable and supportive leaders he had seen in his 10 years of service * the applicant went out of his way to take care of Soldiers * the applicant always trained to standard and upheld an image of what was right at all times * the applicant held the position of NCO of the Year while being a full-time student and motivated his Soldiers to also become students * he would not have started taking college courses if it weren't for the applicant motivating him to do so * he watched the command team emotionally belittle and bash the applicant's performance on a regular basis, which he felt was wrong and invalid * the applicant always stepped out of the office motivated, ready to lead, train, and push his team to move forward no matter how the command team treated him * the command team told the applicant that he was incapable of leading and planning, yet sent him before leader boards and placed him in the Company First Sergeant position on several occasions * the applicant lead the company training operations, enforced regulations, filled gaps in leadership, identified solutions, and took responsibility for his and his team's actions * the command team did not give him the credit he deserved * favoritism was shown to other members of the team and other station commanders were praised for substandard accomplishments on a regular basis * the applicant's leadership skills, knowledge, and care for the Soldiers earned him the respect from his subordinates 14. The applicant provided two email messages, dated 3 and 4 January 2018, that showed he received an email from his rater identifying his date of rank for MSG/E-8 as 1 February 2013. 15. On 13 June 2018, Sergeant First Class J____ P. M____ wrote a character- reference letter in support of the applicant stating: * as a newly assigned recruiter of a recruiting station, he had no idea what to expect until the applicant was assigned * the applicant took all NCOs from the center under his wing to make sure that old recruiters would stay away from old habits and detailed recruiters would learn how to recruit with honor and be the face of the Army * the applicant mentored him to be one of the top NCOs, not only within his shop but within the company * due to the applicant's leadership, he was able to overcome many trials and tribulations that recruiting brought * the applicant not only "delegated" his Soldiers to attend company, battalion, and brigade-level boards, but he became the example by attending and winning the Station Commander of the Quarter Board for three quarters and went to brigade level * the applicant's can-do attitude elevated the morale and gave motivation and life back to the recruiting station when they were having difficult times making mission * the applicant volunteered to attend the Master Resiliency Trainer Course so he could learn how to overcome adversity and further to teach his Soldiers how to become more resilient at work and at home * when told by the 1SG that he would ensure he failed mission because the unit was far behind, he accepted defeat and revamped the way his entire shop operated to allow better functionality to improve the mission and continued with this process * the reason the applicant received a rating of "3/3" was based on operations of the battalion and company at that time and everyone was supposed to receive that rating based on USAREC Pamphlet 623-2, which no longer exists * the rest of the Army and USAREC were not following that USAREC pamphlet guidance and when he saw the applicant's quarterly counseling, he was shocked that the applicant received a rating of "3/3" 16. On 14 June 2018, Command Sergeant Major (CSM) M____ E. K____ wrote a character-reference letter in support of the applicant wherein he stated: * he had the opportunity to serve with the applicant while serving as the recruiting battalion CSM * the applicant was a competent and confident NCO who possessed the attributes and competencies to effectively serve at the highest levels * the applicant's NCOER he received was based on the USAREC pamphlet guidance and not the Army regulation, which is why he received the rating of "3/3" * the applicant was the definition of a servant leader (philosophy in which the main goal of the leader is to serve) who places the needs of others first * the applicant had remarkable character and integrity, which enabled him to operate independently with little or no oversight * the applicant was physically fit and challenged those around him on a consistent basis * in his 20 years of service, the applicant was in the top 1 percent of all NCOs with whom he had the privilege of serving * he has full faith and confidence in the applicant's ability to lead Soldiers in any environment and would recommend his selection for promotion to the next grade 17. The applicant provided a copy of his ERB, dated 15 June 2018, showing he was assigned to UIC W___03 from 22 August 2013 through 21 August 2014. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board discussed the NCOERs in question and determined that the UIC noted was not in error. The Board determined that the preponderance of evidence did not show that the contested NCOER was unjust and did not support the applicant’s request to remove it. The Board concurred, based on the evidence, with the requested administrative corrections to show the rank of the applicant’s rater as 1SG. The Board further determined that based on their denying removal of the contested NCOER that the applicant’s consideration by a STAB was not warranted. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s NCOERs for the periods: 22 August 2012 to 21 August 2013; 22 August 2013 to 21 August 2014 and; 22 August 2014 to 9 January 2015 to show in Part II – Authentication a – Rater to show the Rater’s Rank as 1SG. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to removal of the NCOER for the period of 22 August 2012 thru 21 August 2013 from his AMHRR, changing the UICs on the three requested NCOERs and referral of the applicant’s file to a STAB for promotion to MSG. 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. 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 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. 2. 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. It is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 4-2a (Information) states an NCOER may have administrative errors or may not accurately record the rated Soldier's potential or the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties. The Evaluation Report Redress Program protects the Army's interests and ensures fairness to the evaluated officer or NCO. At the same time, it avoids impugning the integrity or judgment of the rating officials without sufficient cause. A Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry and an evaluation report appeal are separate and distinct actions. Rated Soldiers may seek an initial means of redress through a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry; however, a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry is not a prerequisite for the submission of an appeal. b. Paragraph 4-7a (Policies) states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to: (1) be administratively correct, (2) have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and (3) represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. c. Paragraph 4-7b 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. d. Paragraph 4-7c states the rated Soldier or other interested parties who know the circumstances of a rating may appeal any report that they believe is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of this regulation. An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered. The determination regarding adequacy of evidence may be made by the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Evaluation Appeals Branch. e. Paragraph 4-7h states claims of administrative error pertain to Part I; Part II; Part III, blocks a and b; and Part IV, blocks a and b. f. Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) states because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous evaluation report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time will require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR, in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185. g. Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) states the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. h. Paragraph 4-11b states clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions. i. Paragraph 4-11d states 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. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. j. Paragraph 4-11e states no appeal may be filed solely because the information on a support form or counseling form was omitted from an evaluation, or because the comments of rating officials on the evaluation report are not identical to those in the applicable support form or counseling form. While there will be consistency between a rating official's comments on both forms, there may be factors other than those listed on a support form or counseling form to be considered when evaluating a rated Soldier. In addition, no appeal may be filed solely based on the contention that the appellant was never counseled. k. Paragraph 4-13a (Appeals Based on Substantive Inaccuracy) states a decision to appeal an evaluation report will not be made lightly. Before deciding whether or not to appeal, the prospective appellant will analyze the case dispassionately. This is difficult, but unless it is done, the chances of a successful appeal are reduced. The prospective appellant will note that: (1) pleas for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future value to the Army are rarely successful; and (2) limited support is provided by statements from people who observed the appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances); letters of commendation or appreciation for specific but unrelated instances of outstanding performance; or citations for awards, inclusive of the same period. l. Paragraph 4-13b states once the decision has been made to appeal an evaluation report, the appellant will state succinctly what is being appealed and the basis for the appeal. For example, the appellant will state: (1) whether the entire evaluation report is contested or only a specific part or comment; and (2) the basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an erroneous perception of their performance. Note that a personality conflict between the appellant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal; it must be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust evaluation. 4. USAREC Pamphlet 623-2 (NCOER Preparation Guide) provides a simplified, easy- to-read guide for preparing and conducting the NCOER and the counseling and support form. The intent of this guide is not to replace the governing publications (Army Regulation 623-3 and Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System)). Rather, this guide will serve as a useful teaching tool for noncommissioned officers and officers in the command. Users will still become familiar and comply with the provisions of Army Regulation 623-3 and Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3. a. Applicability: This pamphlet applies to all Army NCOs, officers, and civilian personnel, as well as members of other services, who rate and senior rate USAREC NCOs. b. Introduction by Command Sergeant Major: (1) NCOs assigned to USAREC are charged with providing the strength for an all-volunteer Army. This is arguably one of the most challenging missions expected of Soldiers within the ranks of our Army. As such, these professionals should expect to receive NCOERs that provide an accurate and well-written narrative, based on the whole-Soldier concept, of the NCO's duty performance and potential during the specified rating period. (2) The purpose of this guide is to convey to USAREC leaders the absolute importance of providing sound counseling to Soldiers in USAREC. As a result of these professional development efforts from those personnel in the Soldier's rating chain, the rated Soldier should be the recipient of a quality NCOER that accurately reflects a Soldier's duty performance and potential addressed within the documented rating period. (3) This guide contains detailed guidance and recommendations regarding the composition of the NCOER Counseling and Support Form and the NCOER. It is intended to reinforce official Army doctrine mentioned throughout this publication. You will find key points to consider when writing an NCOER, such as recommendations related to duty descriptions, bullet comments, etc. Promotion board panel members depend on inclusive and quantifiable NCOER ratings focusing on the total Soldier in order to select the best qualified NCOs for promotion. USAREC leaders must ensure they take the necessary time to prepare reports for our recruiting force that effectively address all areas listed on the NCOER and include far more information than just recruiting production data! For instance, this guide provides standardized duty descriptions, from detailed recruiter to brigade CSM, which are to be used throughout the command with only minor adjustments. Additionally, this guide provides NCOER bullet examples (Excellence and Success) for detailed recruiters, station commanders, and 1SGs. There are several other areas of concern which are also addressed in order to provide sufficient guidance regarding a well-written NCOER. (4) Department of the Army centralized promotion board panel members confirm there are recurring deficiencies contained in USAREC NCOERs. These stated flaws include, but are not limited to, such issues as using USAREC acronyms and jargon in bullet comments with which board members are not familiar; annotating an "Excellence" rating on the reverse side of the NCOER without writing measurable or quantifiable bullets to support such a rating; recycling NCOERs or using the same comments year after year with only the dates changing; just to name a few. These shortcomings warrant correction in order to ensure our Soldiers are given NCOERs that correctly reflect both performance and potential as stated above; these deficiencies are addressed in more detail elsewhere in this NCOER Preparation Guide. Committed professionals within this command have diligently worked together to develop this guide which addresses these and other areas of concern regarding a well-written NCOER. (5) Again, as leaders we must ensure we take the time to adequately quantify and reflect the duty performance of our NCOs who take on the challenge of providing the strength for an all-volunteer Army, the greatest fighting force in the world. They deserve nothing less! ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180009264 10 1