IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 October 2000
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2000046434
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the
proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the
Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Chairperson
Mr. Allen L. Raub Member
Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi Member
The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)
1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for
exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
2. The applicant initially requested that her military records be corrected by changing
the reenlistment eligibility code on her Enlisted Record Brief from 9L to 10; by removing
her noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) covering the 12-month period
ending February 1998; by reconsidering her for attendance to the Sergeants Major
Course (SMC); and by reconsidering her for promotion to sergeant major/command
sergeant major (SGM/CSM). At a later date she requested the Board review the
decision of the Department of the Army (DA) Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB)
regarding her appeal of the NCOER cited above.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that she did not receive just consideration for
selection to attend the SMC, or just consideration for promotion to SGM/CSM due to
erroneous processing of her NCOER. In support of her application she has provided a
binder of documents which includes a copy of the subject NCOER with the
commander’s inquiry, an information paper from the office of the Command Sergeant
Major, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), the DA imposed bar to
reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), copies of her appeal
requests and electronic communications between herself and various offices showing
her attempts to correct the code in question.
4. The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army for 3 years on 27
December 1983 in the rank and pay grade of private first class E-3. At that time she
held a juris doctor in criminal law. She served in a variety of assignments both in the
United States and overseas. In 1987 she reenlisted for duty as a drill sergeant. She
quickly progressed up the ranks and was promoted to master sergeant (E-8) on 1
November 1996. At the time of her application she was still on active duty serving as a
senior supply sergeant (92Y5M) in the rank of master sergeant.
5. The applicant’s military records further show that she received 20 NCOER’s during
the period from March 1987 through June 1999. With only one exception (the
contested report), every report reflects a highly motivated, conscientious soldier, who
was given high marks for her duty performance. The NCOER for the period from
February 1997 through February 1998 is not consistent with any of her previous reports
or with her two subsequent reports.
6. On 27 March 1998 the Commander, Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis,
Washington, published permanent change of station orders reassigning the applicant
from Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 593rd Corps Support Group to
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, United States Army Garrison, Fort Lewis,
Washington. Her report date was 2 April 1998.
7. On 31 March 1998 the applicant received an NCOER for the period from February
1997 through February 1998. That evaluation report reflected 3 rated months during
the 12-month rating period. The remaining 9 months were non-rated time due to her
being intransit, a medical patient, a student, and due to the lack of a qualified rater. In
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
Part IVc she received a “success” rating with bullet comments of “Physical profile does
not hinder duty performance”, “Does not meet height and weight standards in
accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-9 due to current medical waiver” and “Not
enrolled in overweight program.” The Army Physical Fitness Test data is shown as
“PROFILE 9802” and HEIGHT/WEIGHT data is shown as “63/163 NO.” Part IVd
shows “Needs Improvement (Some)” with negative bullet comments of “Only concerned
with her advancement; disagreed with her job title as Senior Supply Sergeant despite
counseling and MTOE description”, “Fails to set the example for subordinates to follow;
disobeys direct orders as she feels she needs too; has her own agenda" and "Fails to
display the mental toughness needed to deal with difficult situations necessary for a
MSG and a Group Staff NCO.” In Part Va she received a “Marginal” rating. The
senior rater assessed her overall performance/potential in Parts Vc and d as “Fair” with
bullet comments in Part Ve of “Does not lead by example,” “Does not take responsibility
for her actions” and “Do not promote.”
8. On 3 April 1998 the applicant requested a commander’s inquiry in accordance with
AR 623-205, paragraph 2-15 regarding the subject NCOER. She stated in this request
that the comments in Part IVc about her height and weight status, all comments in Part
IVd, and entries in Part V were unjust. She went on to discuss details of her working
relationships within the organization and the disrespect she received from subordinate
male noncommissioned officers. She indicated that the specific problems with the
NCOER all revolved around a medical problem and subsequent surgery.
9. On 13 April 1998 the servicing personnel detachment processed the subject
NCOER, indicating that a copy was forwarded to the applicant on that same date. It
appears the signatures of the rating officials and the rated soldier have been dated in
the same handwriting, all showing 13 April 1998.
10. On 10 June 1998 the commander appointed an investigating officer to inquire into
the allegations made by the applicant regarding the subject NCOER.
11. On 15 July 1998 the investigating officer concluded his investigation and rendered
his findings and recommendations. He stated that the allegations made by the
applicant of illegality, untruthfulness and violation of regulation regarding her NCOER
were not supported by evidence found during his inquiry. Furthermore, he found no
support for the allegation of a negative command climate. However, he did find that
the NCOER was unjust in that it did not accurately reflect her total overall performance
of duty, but rather centered on the last three months of the rating period. He noted that
during the rating period, the applicant was legally absent for over a month and was
reassigned to another unit within a month after the ending period of the report. He
recommended deletion of the NCOER from the applicant’s military personnel record and
“replace it with unrated time.”
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
12. On 19 August 1998 the Chief of Administrative Law, Fort Lewis, Washington,
concluded that the commander’s inquiry was not legally sufficient because the
recommendation that the NCOER be replaced with non-rated time was inconsistent with
Army Regulation 623-205. He did find that apart from the recommendation, the inquiry
complied with all legal requirements and the evidence supported the findings.
13. On 20 August 1998 the servicing personnel detachment returned the subject
NCOER to the applicant’s unit for a correction to Part IVc. The only change apparent is
the addition of the comment “Not enrolled in overweight program.”
14. On 28 August 1998 the investigating officer resubmitted his original findings and
determination that the NCOER was unjust, but with the recommendation that the rater
and senior rater reconsider their bullet comments and evaluation blocks in Parts IV and
V, and that the reviewer reconsider his concurrence with those evaluations. He added
that the purpose of this recommendation was to ensure that the comments and
evaluations reflected the rating chain’s evaluation of the applicant’s performance for all
of the rated time and did not give a disproportionate weight and focus to negative
events of the last month. The Administrative Law Attorney, Fort Lewis, Washington,
found this version of the inquiry to be legally sufficient.
15. On 2 October 1998 the Staff Judge Advocate published a memorandum for the I
Corps commander informing him that the commander’s inquiry was legally sufficient and
that the recommendation by the investigating officer to return the NCOER to the rating
officials for consideration was appropriate. However, the rating officials could not be
pressured or forced to change their evaluations. He further explained that if the rating
officials corrected the NCOER to account for matters revealed in the inquiry, then the
report would be sent to the United States Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center
(USAEREC) with no reference to the inquiry or action taken. If the rating officials did
not agree with the need for change, as identified in the inquiry, then the results of the
inquiry would be forwarded, along with the NCOER, to PERSCOM in accordance with
AR 623-205, paragraph 2-15c(3).
16. On 21 October 1998 a staff judge advocate internal memorandum indicates that
the subject NCOER was inappropriately processed to USAEREC and was not
forwarded to the Commander, PERSCOM as required by regulation.
17. On an unknown date the commanding general approved the commander’s inquiry
and provided the guidance from the staff judge advocate to the rating officials for their
review and necessary action.
18. On 3 December 1998 the Commander, USAEREC published a memorandum for
the applicant informing her that the Department of the Army had imposed a bar to
reenlistment against her under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). The
memorandum identified the subject NCOER as the sole basis for the bar to
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
reenlistment. The applicant was counseled on 14 December 1998 and subsequently
elected to appeal the imposed bar to reenlistment.
19. On 5 January 1999 the commanding general published a memorandum for the
Commander, PERSCOM, wherein he summarized the findings of the commander’s
inquiry and recommended that this memorandum be filed with the subject NCOER in
the applicant’s official military personnel file. A copy of the inquiry was enclosed but
not the subject NCOER.
20. On 11 January 1999 the applicant appealed the Department of the Army bar to
reenlistment imposed under the QMP on the basis that the subject NCOER was the
subject of an investigation at the time of the QMP decision. Also, her OMPF did not
contain an NCOER for the follow-on period due to the on-going investigation.
21. On 16 January 1999 the applicant appealed the subject NCOER on the basis of
both administrative and substantial error. She contended that rater qualification had
not been met since she only had 49 days of rated time under her supervisor. She
denied that any incident of insubordination ever took place. She also pointed out that
she had a profile issued on 23 February 1998 exempting her from the height/weight
standard, which was the same day she exceeded the authorized body fat by 0.98
percent. Three doctors agreed that she should not be held to any physical fitness
standard at that time due to her recent surgery. Lastly, she related the findings of the
commander’s inquiry wherein the investigating officer concluded that the NCOER was
the result of perceived poor performance in the last month of the rating period and that
the report overall was unjust.
22. On 31 March 1999 the Commander, USAEREC notified the applicant that her
appeal of the Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment was approved. The
commander directed removal of all references to the bar to reenlistment from the
applicant’s Department of the Army Forms 2A and 2-1 and indicated that the
correspondence notifying her of this approval would be filed in accordance with Army
23. On 3 August 2000 the Commander, USAEREC notified the applicant that in the
opinion of the ESRB the evidence presented in her appeal of the subject NCOER did
not justify altering or withdrawing the report
24. In October 1999 the applicant was considered in the secondary zone for
attendance at the SMC and for promotion to SGM/CSM. The applicant’s records at
that time contained the subject NCOER without the commander’s inquiry and with an
Enlisted Record Brief showing a code of 9A, signifying she was ineligible for
reenlistment due to lost time.
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
25. Data extracted from the Enlisted Distribution and Assignment System (EDAS)
shows that as of 4 October 2000 the applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief reflects a
reenlistment code of 10, signifying no disqualification for reenlistment. Electronic
communications between offices located in Europe and Fort Lewis, Washington indicate
that the code was inadvertently changed from 9L (QMP BAR) to 9A (LOST TIME) at the
time the QMP appeal was approved and was not corrected to code 10 until sometime
after 8 March 2000.
26. In October 2000 the applicant will be in the primary zone of consideration for
selection to attend the SMC and for promotion to SGM/CSM.
27. Army Regulation 351-1 prescribes policies and procedures for individual military
education and training of Army personnel. It provides, in pertinent part, that the
prerequisites for selection to the SMC are to be an enlisted person in the rank of master
sergeant or first sergeant, E-8, with at least 1-year time in grade as of 1 August, but not
more than 5 years time in grade as of 31 July of the calendar year the United States
Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA) Selection Board convenes, have 23 years
or less time in service as of 31 August of the calendar year following the calendar year
in which the USASMA Selection Board convenes, have not submitted an application for
retirement, have not been denied reenlistment through a local or DA-imposed bar to
28. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing
promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph 4-14d(3)f provides
that only soldiers who were not selected from a primary zone of consideration will be
reconsidered for promotion. Soldiers who were considered in the secondary zone will
not be reconsidered.
29. Army Regulation 623-205 sets forth the policies and procedures for the enlisted
Evaluation Reporting system. Paragraph 4-2 states, in pertinent part, that an
evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a noncommissioned
officer is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating
officials at the time of preparation. Paragraph 4-7 of that regulation states, in pertinent
part, that when submitting an appeal, the burden of proof rests with the applicant and
that he must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly 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.
1. The applicant’s reenlistment code is currently correct and thus requires no further
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
2. The findings and recommendation of the ESRB to deny the applicant’s appeal of the
subject NCOER are within the guidance of the appropriate regulations.
3. However, while the ESRB was constrained to limit its review to the validity and
accuracy of the contested report, the Board is convinced and concurs with the
investigating officer (Commander’s Inquiry) that the report is unjust, in that it did not
reflect her total overall performance of duty during the rating period, but rather centered
only on the last 3 months.
4. The commander’s inquiry, as approved by the commanding general supports this
5. The staff judge advocate’s internal memorandum indicating that the NCOER was
improperly processed supports the applicant’s contention that she did not receive a fair
consideration for schooling or promotion.
6. After an extensive review of the applicant’s records, the Board notes that her 17
previous reports and 2 subsequent reports evaluated her as an outstanding soldier in all
areas. The disparity between those reports and the subject report is too wide to just
ignore. Furthermore, 3 months of rated time should not be allowed to erase an entire
career of excellent service nor should it become an obstacle to future favorable
personnel actions and career progression.
7. All things considered the Board is of the opinion that leaving the subject NCOER
with or without the commander’s inquiry on any part of the official military personnel file
will only serve to harm the applicant. Therefore, the subject NCOER and all associated
documents should be removed from the OMPF.
8. Furthermore, the sole basis for the QMP bar imposed against the applicant was the
subject NCOER. The approval of her appeal resulted in the bar to reenlistment being
voided. Nonetheless, associated documents still remain on her OMPF. In fairness to
the applicant and to permit an accurate evaluation of her performance by future
selection boards, all documents associated with the QMP bar should also be removed
from her OMPF.
9. The applicant was considered from the secondary zone for promotion to E-9 and
attendance at the SMC with the contested NCOER and erroneous reenlistment code on
her Enlisted Record Brief. Unfortunately, there are no provisions for reconsideration for
promotion or schooling for applicants considered from the secondary zone.
10. The Board is aware that soldiers are considered several times for schooling and
promotion and that the applicant will have an opportunity to be considered for promotion
and attendance at the SMC once her records are corrected.
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
11. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by removing from the performance fiche of the individual concerned the
NCOER for the period from February 1997 through February 1998 and all associated
documents, to include the commander’s inquiry and the applicant’s appeal; and
b. by removing the DA QMP bar to reenlistment and all associated documents.
2. That a non-prejudicial statement be placed on the performance fiche of her official
military personnel file indicating that the period from February 1997 through February
1998 was non-rated.
3. That following administrative implementation of the foregoing corrections, and
provided she was not selected for promotion by the October 2000 SMC/SGM/CSM
Selection Board, her corrected records be referred to a standby advisory board (STAB)
convened under the criteria of the October 2000 regular board for promotion
reconsideration to sergeant major (E-9).
4. That if selected for promotion to pay grade E-9 by a STAB, the individual be
integrated into the E-9 centralized selection list with appropriate sequence number, and
that she be promoted accordingly with the appropriate date of rank, provided she is
5. That following completion of the administrative corrections directed herein, the
proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this appeal be returned to the
Board for permanent filing.
6. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing is denied.
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
__EJA___ __ALB__ __BFH___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_Elzey J. Arledge__
ABCMR Proceedings (cont)
CASE ID AR2000046434
DATE BOARDED 20001031
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
BOARD DECISION GRANT (Partial)
ISSUES 1. 267