MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 August 2000
DOCKET NUMBER: AR1999032885
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.
Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Sherri V. Ward Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer Member
Ms. Linda D. Simmons Member
The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552,
convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army
Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the
corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal
hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny
the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application
to the Board and as restated herein.
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)
ABCMR Memorandum of
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that a May 1993 Noncommissioned Officer
Evaluation Report (NCOER) be expunged from his records and that his U.S. Army
Recruiter Identification Badge and achievement stars be restored.
APPLICANT STATES: That he “was not aware of these action until” he reviewed his
official military personnel file (OMPF) in 1998 in preparation for promotion consideration
to sergeant first class. He notes that in March 1993, while performing duties as a
recruiter, he was scheduled to attend the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course
(BNCOC) for his primary specialty 91D (operating room specialist). However, he states
his recruiting battalion commander and sergeant major attempted to coerce him into
changing his specialty from 91D to 00R (recruiter) by “implying” that if he did not agree
to the reclassification “an unfinished investigation…may not be found in [his] favor….”
He states that following his return from BNCOC he met with his station commander and
unit commander and had a “conversation dealing with the investigation” reference
above. He states he was told that he was not “being relieved, but rather returning to
the regular army because it would be in the best interest of the U.S. Army and myself.”
Subsequently, he noted that he gave a copy of the “investigation” to the recruiting
command inspector general who told him he “should not be relieved of [his] duties as a
recruiter….” “Two days later” the applicant indicated that he was asked by the
inspector general if he “would like to stay in recruiting or just go back to the regular
army.” The applicant said he did not wish to remain in recruiting and in June 1993 was
reassigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He notes he departed without “an NCOER,
notification documents, or a chance to rebut the investigation or these negative
In support of his request he submits commendatory letters and memorandums
regarding his performance as a recruiter and a copy of his initial NCOER as a recruiter.
He also submits an undated statement from his former station commander.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 18 November 1982 and was promoted to pay grade
E-5 in May 1987. The applicant completed the Army Recruiter Course in April 1991.
An NCOER, completed in July 1992, indicated the applicant was a successful recruiter
and his senior rater placed him in the top block for overall performance and in the
second block for overall potential.
Between March 1992 and April 1993 the applicant was awarded several Recruiter
Incentive Awards. In May 1993 he returned from BNCOC and in June 1993 was
reassigned to Fort Campbell in his primary specialty (91D).
According to the statement submitted by the applicant’s former station commander the
“investigation” referred to by the applicant apparently revolved around an individual who
ABCMR Memorandum of
was enlisted into the Army by the applicant. The former station commander noted that
“one of the young men that [the applicant] enlisted into the Army was said to have a
charge before he enlisted and [the applicant] was relieved from recruiting duty.” The
author noted that “when [the applicant] was relieved, [he-the author] was under the
impression that he would not be hurt on his NCOER….”
A 17 May 1993 memorandum signed by the commanding general, U.S. Army Recruiting
Command (USAREC), notes that he (the commanding general) “reviewed the report of
investigation concerning improper recruiting practices dated 28 October 1992 with
addendum dated 2 March 1993, recommendations of the chain of command, and [the
applicant’s] rebuttal thereto…[and ]… determined that the preponderance of the
evidence establishes that [the applicant] committed a recruiting impropriety by
intentionally concealing a felony drug charge of [a recruit].” The commanding general
directed that the applicant be relieved of his duties in accordance with Army Regulation
601-1, paragraph 5-6a and noted that the applicant “has been notified of the reason for
his relief.” The commanding general’s memorandum was included as part of the
applicant’s relief for cause evaluation report and filed in his OMPF.
On 19 May 1993 the applicant’s Recruiter Incentive Awards were revoked in
accordance with Army Regulation 601-1 and Army Regulation 672-5-1, paragraph 5-46.
His relief for cause evaluation report, covering the period July 1992 through May 1993
was authenticated in September 1993 and “forwarded to [the] NCO.” The report noted,
in part, that the applicant’s “hunger for success over shadowed good judgement” and
that he “allowed an unqualified applicant to join the Army.”
An 18 June 1993 memorandum from the applicant’s unit commander to the
commanding general, USAREC requested that the applicant be allowed to keep his
Recruiter Incentive Awards. The unit commander noted that “the investigation resulting
in his relief was initiated in September 1992” and that an exception was warranted
because the “relief for cause efficiency rating, relief from duty, termination of SDAP
[Special Duty Assignment Pay], termination of duty assignment, embarrassment,
degradation of pride and self esteem are punishment enough.” The applicant’s records
do not contain any indication that the request for exception was approved.
In October 1995 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6.
Army Regulation 601-1 states that the initial period of detail to recruiting duties in
USAREC is 36 months. At the completion of this period, a recruiter must either return
to duties in his or her primary specialty or he or she must be reclassified to 00R and join
the career recruiting force. Normal reclassification to 00R will be accomplished after
the 24th months on recruiting duty. The recruiter must submit a request for
reclassification, must not be pending investigation or any unfavorable action, and must
ABCMR Memorandum of
have completed a minimum of 24 months on recruiting duty among other things. A
request for reclassification is voluntary on the part of the recruiter.
Army Regulation 601-1 also states that normally, recruiters released from recruiting duty
will receive an NCOER that characterizes their duty performance during the rating
period; however, those recruiters who are involuntarily released for cause, ineffective, or
unsuitable (paragraph 5-5a or 5-6), and are formally relieved from recruiting duty will be
evaluated under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-205, paragraph 2-10.
Army Regulation 623-205, paragraph 2-10 states that a relief-for-cause is defined as the
removal of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) from a ratable assignment based on a
decision by a member of the NCO’s chain of command or supervisory chain that the
NCO’s personal or professional characteristics, conduct, behavior, or performance of
duty warrant removal in the best interest of the Army.
Army Regulation 672-5-1, then in effect, states that the commanding general, USAREC,
is delegated authority to revoke award of the recruiter badges.
In September 1999 the applicant’s NCOER appeal was returned without action by the
U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center noting that it did not meet the
criteria outlined in Army Regulation 623-205 which noted that failure to submit an
appeal within five years of the NCOER’s completion date may only be excused if the
appellant provides exceptional justification to warrant an exemption.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by
the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is
1. At the time the applicant completed the Army Recruiter Course and assumed duties
as a recruiter in 1991 he was serving in pay grade E-5 and had nearly 10 years of active
Federal service. He had been receiving evaluation reports for several years. The
Board contends that an individual with as much experience as the applicant should
have been aware that he would receive some sort of evaluation report upon his
departure from recruiting duties in June 1993. The fact that he was not available to
authenticate the report is not an indication that he was unaware of the basis for the
2. While the applicant maintains that he was not aware that he was relieved from his
duties as a recruiter and never had the chance to “rebut the investigation or these
negative personnel actions” evidence in available records indicates otherwise.
Statements contained in several of the documents provided by the applicant indicate
that he was “relieved” of his duties. The memorandum authored by the applicant’s unit
commander in June 1993 requesting the applicant be allowed to retain his Recruiter
Incentive Awards clearly states that the applicant was relieved. That memorandum
ABCMR Memorandum of
was provided by the applicant in support of his request and was not in his OMPF. The
May 1993 memorandum from the commanding general, USAREC notes that he (the
commanding general) reviewed the applicant’s “rebuttal” to the October 1992
3. The revocation of the applicant’s Recruiter Incentive Awards was within the
authority of the commanding general, USAREC and inspite of the fact that the applicant
may have been a successful recruiter the basis for his relief justified revocation of the
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the
satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that
requirement. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.
5. While it may be unfortunate that the applicant was not aware of the negative
documents in his OMPF that is not sufficient justification to conclude that an error or
injustice occurred and is not a basis to now remove those documents.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__svw___ ___mhm__ ___lds__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
ABCMR Memorandum of
CASE ID AR1999032885
DATE BOARDED 20000817
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
BOARD DECISION Deny
ISSUES 1. 111.02