AR20160001972

IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE: 1 March 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001972

THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her records by:

a. removing the noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the rating period 12 March 2011 through 11 March 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the contested NCOER).

b. removing a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 12 October 2011, and associated documents.

c. removing her from the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) List and, based on that action, having pending separation orders revoked.

2. The applicant states, in effect:

a. With regard to the contested NCOER:

(1) It contains both administrative and substantive errors. The report was neither fair nor an accurate reflection of her performance.

* administratively, the number of rated months is incorrect and the appropriate non-rated code was not entered
* concerning the non-rated code, she attended the Senior Leader Course (SLC) from 9 January 2012 through 16 February 2012, as evidenced by a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report); the appropriate non-rated code should have been “S” (student at military or civilian school)
* although the thru date is 11 March 2012, it was not signed and submitted until 13 December 2012, which violates Army Regulation 623-3 (Personnel Evaluation – Evaluation Reporting System) wherein it requires completed NCOERs to be sent to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) no later than 90 days after the thru date
* as to substantive errors, her rater, Major (MAJ) CPH, battalion executive officer (XO), was coerced into changing his original bullet comments; “Excellence” ratings were changed to “Success,” and the rating of “Among the Best” was revised to “Fully Capable”
* as proof, she provides draft copies of her NCOER which reflect her ratings before changes
* Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) ALK, her senior rater and battalion commander, included bullet comments that were unsubstantiated and untrue; his overall rating of “Poor” is not supported by any evidence, which violates Army Regulation 623-3
* the senior rater and reviewer’s concurrence as to her performance were based on chronic deficiencies within the battalion and no effort was made to quantify those bullet comments which alleged she did not complete her assigned duties
* she feels the negative senior rater comments were made in retaliation for a Congressional inquiry she filed during the rated period

(2) The contested NCOER is not supported by counseling, and the counseling dates shown on the report are erroneous.

* she did not receive a DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form) from either her rater or her senior rater when they assumed their roles in her rating chain
* quarterly counseling was not conducted, contrary to what is shown on the contested NCOER
* she did not receive copies of her rater’s/senior rater’s support forms
* while she takes responsibility for failing to ensure she was counseled, both initially and on a quarterly basis, the fact she was not counseled violates Army Regulation 623-3
* senior rater comments indicate her section failed an Initial Command Inspection; she requested a copy of the inspection report because she was told at the time her section had passed
* she was never provided a copy of the Initial Command Inspection report, and was never counseled with regard to this alleged failure; she has provided evidence which will contradict her senior rater’s comments

(3) She is requesting relief from the Board because, when she filed her initial appeal, it was submitted to the wrong agency. Her second appeal was filed after the 3-year deadline and she was advised to apply to the Board for resolution.

b. As to the GOMOR:

(1) She appealed the GOMOR to the DA Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), who granted partial relief moving the document to the restricted folder of her official military personnel file (OMPF).

(2) The DASEB determined she had not provided sufficient evidence to support her contention the GOMOR was unfair, untrue, and unjust. She is now providing evidence for the Board’s consideration.

(3) The GOMOR contained two allegations claiming violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Absent without Leave (AWOL)) and Article 92 (Dereliction of Duty). Concerning the allegation of AWOL:

* AWOL is defined as occurring when a member, without authority, fails to go to her appointed place of duty, leaves her place of duty, or absents herself and remains absent; it is punishable by a court-martial
* Army Regulation 630-10 (Personnel Absences – Absence without Leave, Desertion, and Administration of Personnel involved in Civilian Court Proceedings) and Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 600-8 (Personnel General – Military Human Resources Management Administrative Procedures) require the unit to:

* report a Soldier as absent
* conduct an inquiry to determine the Soldier’s location and reasons for absence
* prepare a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag))
* notify the Provost Marshal within 24 hours of the Soldier’s absence
* record the results of the inquiry on a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
* notify the retention and security offices
* the above-stated actions were not performed; no inquiry or investigation into her absence was conducted because her command knew exactly where she was, why she was absent, and where to locate her
* she had been placed on stress leave by her primary care physician as of 12 August 2011 (emphasis added); LTC ALK waited until 22 August 2011, 11days later, to prepare a counseling statement which alleged she was AWOL; this was a clear violation of Army Regulation 630-10 and DA PAM 600-8
* she requests the Board note the copy of the 22August 2011 counseling form she provides is missing both her and her rater/battalion commander’s signatures; she further asserts the copy provided as evidence for the GOMOR was also not signed
* based on the fact her unit failed to complete the actions required by regulation and DA PAM, her commander lacked the substantiating evidence needed to support the allegation of AWOL; this, coupled with the fact no judicial or nonjudicial actions were taken, thoroughly nullifies her chain of command’s claim

(4) As to the second allegation, dereliction of duty, it was based on five counseling forms, dated 17 July 2010, 1 February 2011, 14 April 2011, 12July 2011, and 22 August 2011, respectively.

* according to the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), to prove dereliction of duty, the evidence must show the accused had certain duties, she knew of or should have known of these duties, and that she then either willfully, through neglect, or by culpable inefficiency, failed to perform those duties
* the duties can be imposed a number ways, and there must be evidence the duties actually existed; their existence cannot be assumed

(5) The five counseling statements served as the sole basis for the dereliction of duty allegation, and none of them were valid, in that her chain of command did not adhere to Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 6-22.1 (The Counseling Process). ATP 6-22.1 identifies a four-stage counseling process; to correctly fulfill the counseling process, the ATP requires identifying the need to counsel; preparing the counseling; conducting the counseling; and following up.

(6) Although the GOMOR suggests she received a written counseling on 17 July 2010, what was actually prepared was a memorandum for record (MFR) written by Command Sergeant Major (CSM) KDR, Brigade CSM; he wrote the MFR following a meeting he conducted with the applicant and other key unit personnel.

* this meeting was prompted by her written request to address rear detachment issues she had identified, and resulted from the battalion headquarters’ mobilization
* CSM KDR chose to annotate the MFR as an initial counseling for the applicant, indicating aspects of her job performance required improvement; her actual job performance was not addressed in the MFR
* rather than using an MFR, it should have been written on a DAForm 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form)

(7) Paragraph 1 of the GOMOR indicated she failed to report daily to Mr.NFM:

* she refutes this allegation stating she did report daily to Mr. NFM and Mrs. EKM (who both worked within the Brigade as Staff Supervisory Assistant and Staff Assistant Advisor, respectively)
* as the only full-time staff available at her battalion, she needed to communicate with every section within the Brigade staff daily to accomplish her duties

(8) Paragraph 2 referenced the 1 February 2011 counseling issued by Mr.NFM:

* in the counseling, Mr. NFM did not identify what type of counseling he was conducting (whether event, performance, or professional growth)
* he also did not conduct a follow-up counseling session to assess whether his plan of action was achieving the desired results
* his failure to do so violates ATP 6-22.1 and, by the absence of a follow-up assessment, the counseling is neither valid nor supports the claim of dereliction of duty

(9) Paragraph 3 stated Mr. TWA, Command XO, 98th Training Division (Initial Entry Training (IET)), counseled the applicant on 14 April 2011 because she missed a Division-wide conference call; failed to let anyone know, prior to the call, that she would not be participating; failed to provide necessary information to the Division; and displayed a continued lack of responsiveness and diligence with regard to her assigned duties.

* Mr. TWA never actually conducted an in-person counseling, rather she was sent a signed copy of the document via an email from Mr.NFM
* contrary to what Mr. TWA wrote, she did call into the conference call, she just did so at the incorrect time; the Division is in a different time zone and the time difference caused her to get the start time wrong
* also, despite Mr. TWA’s contentions, she provided the required information to Ms. JD (98th Training Division G-1), Mrs. EKM (Brigade Staff Assistant Advisor), and Staff Sergeant (SSG) L (of the 98th Training Division G-1) on the same day an hour after the call; she was very diligent about fulfilling her assigned duties and notes Mr. TWA never spoke to her about a lack of performance or failure to follow procedures
* Mr. TWA was not in her chain of command, and she had no direct or daily contact with him; if she was to be counseled, she contends, it should have been done by her senior rater/battalion commander, LTC ALK, or by First Sergeant (1SG) KPN, Mr. NFM, or Mrs. EKM
* she is not aware of any Division policy which required a written counseling to be issued for missing one conference call, or that it should be administered by the Division Command XO
* counter to the requirements of ATP 6-22.1, she was not provided advanced notice of the counseling, nor was she allotted time to prepare a rebuttal; Mr. NFM was very accusatory in his email, and implied one day was sufficient time to respond; this is in direct violation of the ATP
* Mr. TWA, as well as other Brigade and Division staff, were counseling her on alleged deficiencies, but none were keeping her chain of command informed
* Mr. TWA indicated he would conduct a follow-up counseling after 90days; this never happened and the lack of a follow-up violates the ATP

(10) Paragraph 4 cited the 12 July 2011 counseling, issued by her senior rater/battalion commander, LTC ALK. It concerned an alleged failure to provide timely status and information-reporting on several aspects of her position. It did not include any details as to when she was to have provided that information, nor any specifics on what information was to be reported. This counseling also served as her official notice of the initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).

* LTC ALK did not establish a basis for this counseling, in that he never gave her an initial counseling at the start of the rating period, following his assumption of command on 12 March 2011
* had he conducted her initial counseling, it would have included a description of her duties, and addressed any additional duties she was assigned
* it should also have identified her strengths and weaknesses, and those tasks requiring improvement
* by virtue of his failure to perform initial counselling, he essentially forfeited the ability to later allege her performance was poor
* the proposed separation action, mentioned in this counseling, was later dismissed, but she was never provided official written notice as to why; this is in clear violation of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 2-3 (Action by Separation Authority)
* improper notification could be perceived as withholding relevant facts and/or information from the Soldier which could have exonerated her of any and all alleged charges; she was only made aware the separation action had been halted when she received notice of the GOMOR
* had LTC ALK conducted a follow-up counseling, as required, it would have been an opportunity to tell her about the dismissal of the separation action along with the reasons why

(11) The GOMOR references the 22 August 2011 counseling in paragraph5. In this counseling, LTC ALK alleged numerous infractions related to the unit’s battle assembly, which took place between 12 and 14 August 2011. He also addressed issues regarding her role as a full-time unit staff member.

* the counseling was initiated 11 days after the alleged infractions, and she was never given a signed copy; she did submit a rebuttal
* LTC ALK alleged she failed to provide timely status updates of logistical activities; and she was AWOL, hindering the drawing of weapons, and preventing the timely reporting of a break-in at the unit facility in the Reserve Center

* she asserts she coordinated and provided timely status of logistical activities
* she was not AWOL, she was on physician-prescribed stress leave
* she did not hinder weapon’s drawing; Ms. CK, the Unit Administrator, had, the day prior, agreed to open the weapons vault, and she did so in a timely manner
* someone broke into the Reserve Center while everyone was away; it was promptly reported upon discovery and handled by the battalion XO because he was a local police detective
* against her doctor’s orders, she went in to work on 15 August 2011 to ensure pay was inputted for all Soldiers, and to close out all food and lodging expense reports; when she was there, she found the Unit Administrator had already opened the weapons vault so the weapons could be secured
* she also continued to consult with the local police regarding the break-in

* the 22 August 2011 counseling is invalid because it does not contain any signatures
* the fact it was administered 11 days after the fact is a failure of the counselor to provide a timely counseling, which violates
ATP 6-22.1

(12) The foregoing serves to affirm the GOMOR had no basis in fact; that it failed to address the elements of proof for the alleged violations of the UCMJ; and that the command did not show she willfully, by neglect, or as a result of culpable inefficiency, failed to perform her duties.

c. In a memorandum, dated 18 November 2015, issued by HRC, she was informed she had been recommended for denial of continued active duty service under QMP. This action was based on the two documents she is asking the Board to remove. She filed an appeal of her QMP action on 19 January 2016. The removal of the contested documents will facilitate her appeal.

3. The applicant provides:

* memorandum, dated 23 December 2015, subject: Request for Extension of Submission of Appeal of QMP Selection Board Decision of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service for [applicant]
* memorandum, dated 18 November 2015, subject: Notification of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service under the QMP
* Statement of Options, QMP, signed by the applicant on 24 November 2015
* contested NCOER
* GOMOR with applicant’s rebuttal and the imposing authority’s filing decision
* memorandum, dated 8 January 2016, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal for [applicant], period 20110312-20120311
* Appeals and Corrections Case Summary showing the applicant’s appeal exceeded the 3-year time limit
* memorandum, dated 8 January 2016, subject: NCOER (20110312-201210311) showing appeal was returned without action based on exceeding the time limit
* three draft versions of the contested NCOER
* sworn statement by the applicant, dated 8 January 2016
* eleven letters of support
* seven pages of documents related to the applicant’s Congressional inquiry to her Congressman
* ten pages of email correspondence regarding the applicant’s Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint
* DA Form 1059, Course Title: SLC, for the period 9 January 2012 through 16 February 2012
* 15 documents related to the unit’s battle assembly and weapons qualification conducted 12 August 2011 to 14 August 2011
* email, dated 22 July 2011, subject: Battalion Weekly Update
* DASEB letter and first page of the Record of Proceedings, dated 5February 2015
* MFR, dated 17 July 2010, prepared by CSM KDR, with document titled Battalion Rear Detachment Issues (undated) and associated email dated 18July 2011
* DA Form 4856, dated 1 February 2011, with rebuttal by the applicant and associated emails dated 1-2 February 2011
* DA Form 4856, dated 4 April 2011, with rebuttal by the applicant and associated emails dated 14-15 April 2011
* DA Form 4856, dated 12 July 2011, with emails dated between 11-12 July 2011
* DA Form 4856, dated 22 August 2011, with rebuttal by applicant, two DAForms 31 (dated 28 July 2011 and 12 August 2011, respectively), and a prescription form signed by a doctor on 11 August 2011
* letter from the applicant’s doctor, dated 9 May 2012
* DA Form 1059, Course Title: Army Basic Instructor Course for the period 19October 2015 through 30 October 2015
* DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with Meritorious Service Medal Certificate
* DA Form 1059, Course Title: Battle Staff NCO Course for the period 15November 2013 through 17 December 2013
* Certificate of Training, Observer Coach/Trainer Course for the period 15May 2014 to 21 May 2014
* Joint Knowledge Online Certificate of Training, 3 hours
* Certificate of Training, dated 2 July 2015
* college transcripts showing the award of a Bachelor of Science degree
* NCOERs covering from 24 June 2013 through 7 June 2015
* memorandum, dated 19 January 2016, subject: Appeal of QMP Selection Board Decision of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service for [applicant]

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. With regard to the applicant’s request to be removed from the QMP list and, based on that action, to have her pending separation orders revoked, an email from HRC, dated 2 February 2016, states her appeal to HRC of the QMP action is currently pending. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) requires all administrative remedies to have been completed prior to requesting relief from the Board. As her appeal is still awaiting consideration, she has not yet exhausted all administrative remedies. Should her appeal not be favorably considered, she may then reapply to the Board for relief. Based on the foregoing, this issue will not be further addressed in this record of proceedings.

2. After having had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 29 June 2000. She entered active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status on 26February 2007, and was assigned to 1st Battalion, 378th Regiment as the Senior Human Resources (HR) NCO. She has served continuously in an AGR status since that date. She was promoted to her current rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 on 1May 2011.

3. On 12 October 2011, the applicant was administered a GOMOR by Brigadier General (BG) DRE, Commanding General (CG), 98th Training Division (IET). The GOMOR essentially stated:

a. The applicant was counseled on 17 July 2010 as to the identity of the members of her direct chain of command, and that she was to respond promptly to their telephone calls and emails. Additionally, she was instructed to report daily to Mr. NFM for guidance on priorities. She did not fulfill the requirements of this counseling.

b. On 1 February 2011, she was counseled by Mr. NFM. He instructed her to prioritize all of her work through him. To this end, she was also directed to make daily contact with the Brigade staff and attend all conference calls. This guidance was not followed.

c. The battalion commander, LTC ALK (also her senior rater), counseled the applicant on 12 July 2011 regarding her continued poor performance and her dereliction of duties. This was based on her failure to provide timely status reports, for being late or missing important suspense dates, and for not returning his calls or emails.

d. LTC ALK counseled the applicant again on 22 August 2011 for violating Article 86, UCMJ by being AWOL from 12 August 2011 through 15 August 2011, without a valid DA Form 31. During her absence, someone broke into the Reserve Center used by the battalion. The applicant, in her capacity as the unit’s Physical Security Manager (PSM), did not respond to telephone calls, and could not be located. As a result, she did not perform her duties as the PSM and failed to assist her command in its response to this serious incident.

e. The GOMOR was identified as being an administrative reprimand imposed under the provisions of, and in accordance with, Army Regulation 600-37 and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.

4. She provided a rebuttal to the GOMOR on 15 November 2011.

a. She acknowledged instances of miscommunication between some members of her chain of command and herself, and that these miscommunications sometimes resulted in missed suspense actions.

(1) She realized this was an area requiring improvement and affirmed she was working to make improvements.

(2) She felt she was often hampered by the fact she had been assigned six additional duties, in addition to her primary duty as the Senior HR NCO. She indicated the work was sometimes more than one person could effectively handle, and she was thus forced to prioritize and realistically determine what could and could not be done.

b. She informed her chain of command of the aforementioned issues, but there had been no reallocation of resources, equipment, or workload to better help her accomplish her requirements.

(1) She stated she felt she had been set up for failure and her requests for assistance were not taken seriously.

(2) As a senior NCO she realized she was expected to find solutions, and she prided herself on her ability to do so. She asserted she had achieved many significant accomplishments, and she identified two. Recently she felt she was expending all of her efforts, only to be told those efforts were inadequate.

c. The frustration she felt was affecting her health. She had sought medical assistance and, on 12 August 2011, her physician had recommended time off.

(1) She was out of the office on Friday, 12 August 2011, as recommended by her doctor. She was in communication with her chain of command on that date, so she was not AWOL.

(2) On Monday, 15 August 2011 she was away from her office based on the instructions of her doctor and guidance from her chain of command.

(3) She submitted a leave request on 12 August 2011, asking for leave during the period 29 August 2011 to 27 September 2011.

(4) No DA Form 4187 was ever generated changing her duty status from present for duty to AWOL.

d. She was scheduled to permanently change station (PCS) in the near future, and believed being assigned to a different position would allow her to start over with a set of clearly assigned duties, along with the opportunity to receive the guidance and resources needed to be successful.

e. She felt she had more to contribute to the Army and requested local filing of the GOMOR. She stated she had taken the reprimand to heart and was approaching the challenges she faced with a renewed determination to succeed.

5. On 4 December 2011, BG DRE directed filing the GOMOR in the performance folder of her OMPF.

6. In March 2012, she received the contested NCOER, which was an annual report covering the period 12 March 2011 through 11March 2012. Her rater was MAJ CPH (battalion XO), her senior rater was LTC ALK (battalion commander), and the reviewer was Colonel (COL) BES (Brigade commander).

a. She was in an AGR status, was rated for 12 months, and no non-rated codes were entered.

b. The rater signed it on 26 November 2012, and the senior rater signed it on 12December 2012. The reviewer signed on 5 December 2011.

c. Part III (Duty Description) (Rater) shows:

(1) Her duty position is listed as Senior HR Sergeant.

(2) Counseling dates are 16 April 2011 for the initial, and 17 July 2011 and 1 October 2011 for later dates.

d. All blocks under the heading of Army Values (Part IV – Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions (Rater)) have the “Yes” block checked.

e. Part IV (Rater) (Values/NCO Responsibilities) shows “Success” in each block. The bullet comments are favorable.

f. Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), section a (Rater – Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) indicates “Fully Capable.”

g. Part V, section e (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) are not favorable. They cite poor job performance, note the applicant received several written counseling statements, and that the S-1 section under the applicant’s leadership failed both a staff assistance visit and a Brigade Initial Command Inspection. It also indicates the applicant refused to sign the report.

h. Section c (Senior Rater – Overall performance) shows a rating of “5/Poor” and section d (Senior Rater – Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) contains a rating of “5/Poor.”

i. The reviewer non-concurred with the rater’s evaluation, and wrote an addendum which essentially stated:

* the applicant was unsuccessful in her role as senior personnel NCO for the battalion
* both the Division and the Brigade conducted several staff assistance visits to help correct chronic deficiencies within the battalion; despite direct intervention, no visible improvement occurred
* the applicant did not accept responsibility for the poor administrative performance of the battalion, and routinely ignored the efforts of her battalion commander and higher headquarters to provide guidance and assistance
* the battalion ranked dead-last in the Training Command’s 7 primary performance metrics during the rated period
* the applicant was counseled on more than one occasion but failed to take any substantive action to correct deficiencies; while the applicant is not solely responsible for the battalion’s failure to make progress in achieving minimum standards, her lack of initiative and refusal to cooperate with her chain of command were both disruptive and detrimental to the readiness of the unit

7. On 13 October 2014, she applied to the DASEB requesting removal of the GOMOR. On 5 February 2015, the DASEB granted partial relief by requesting transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted folder within her OMPF. The DASEB further noted the applicant had received four successful NCOERs outside the period reflected in the GOMOR. Additionally, she had earned a Meritorious Service Medal, completed two military schools, and earned a Bachelor of Science degree since the imposition of the GOMOR.

8. Her OMPF shows:

a. The GOMOR has been moved to her restricted folder.

b. DA Form 1059 for Course Title: SLC, for the period 9 January 2012 through 16 February 2012. She achieved course standards and was rated superior for oral communication, leadership skills, contribution to group work, and research ability.

c. The following NCOERs while assigned to the 1st Battalion, 378th Regiment, showing period, type of report, overall potential by rater, and overall performance by senior rater:

* 20070226 through 20080225 – annual – “among the best,” successful/1, superior/2
* 20080226 through 20090225 – annual – “among the best,” successful/1, superior/2
* 20090226 through 20100225 – annual – “among the best,” successful/1, superior/1 [her senior rater was LTC JD, battalion commander, this was the last report before the battalion headquarters was mobilized]
* 20100226 through 20100716 – change of rater – “fully capable.” successful/3, superior/3 [rater was the acting battalion commander, CPT RWH, and senior rater was LTC EGB, deputy Brigade commander]
* 20100717 through 20110311 – change of rater – “fully capable.” successful/3, superior/3 [the rater was CPT WRI, acting battalion commander, and the senior rater was LTC EGB, deputy Brigade commander]
* 20110312 through 20120411 – (contested report)
9. The applicant provides:

a. MFR, dated 17 July 2010, prepared by CSM KDR, which states, in summary:

* the writer met with the leadership for the applicant’s battalion (including the applicant)
* the purpose was to discuss the below standard performance of the battalion since the battalion headquarters deployed to Fort Benning, GA; the goal was to positively change the battalion’s direction
* apart from other issues listed, the meeting was also an opportunity for the applicant to bring her needs before all present, and to identify what was required to move forward; he noted the Brigade had concerns about her performance
* he indicated the applicant was designated as the new facility manager, which would require assistance from the battalion S-4; she would also work with Mr. NFM on prioritizing her work
* he recommended the unit leadership develop a work schedule for the applicant and this schedule should be posted on the applicant’s Outlook calendar for Mr. NFM to follow
* the applicant was directed to increase her communication with the Brigade, calling Mr. NFM daily
* in the upcoming week, the applicant was to focus on S-1 work, in support of the annual USAR Command Battle-Focused Readiness Review (BFRR)
* he noted the applicant was “truly overwhelmed”
* she had acted as the entire battalion staff, to include the command, for several months; even with the assistance of the Brigade, results were limited
* the first item was for Mr. NFM to assist with setting priorities; Captain(CPT) WRI and 1SG KPN assumed command roles and the applicant understood she was to receive guidance from CPT WRI and 1SG KPN
* there was a lengthy discussion about the applicant not answering phone calls and emails; the conclusion was, if she answered all calls and emails, she would not get anything done
* a schedule was established for answering emails and returning calls; the applicant also understood certain personnel required an immediate response (i.e. Mr. NFM, Mrs. EKM, the Brigade XO, and CSM KDR)
* the MFR was considered counseling for the applicant with regard to areas requiring improvement

b. DA Form 4856, dated 1 February 2011, prepared by Mr. NFM for the applicant almost 7 months after the MFR prepared by CSM KDR. Mr. NFM signed the form on 1 February 2011. The applicant signed it on 19 February 2011.

(1) It essentially reconfirmed the directions given by CSM KDR, to include directing the applicant to prioritize work through Mr. NFM and call him daily, to maintain daily contact with the Brigade staff, to utilize the calendar function within Outlook to post appointments and leaves, and receive guidance from CPT WRI and 1SG KPN.

(2) He additionally noted the perception she was continually absent from work would stop, and he provided core duty hours and identified those days the applicant would take physical fitness training.

(3) The Plan of Action section included the following:

* Soldier is to report every morning via phone and/or email at 0800 hours based on core hours of 0730 to 1700 hours
* compile all personnel actions by category
* compile all due and projected evaluations for officers and enlisted personnel
* establish an action log like the one used at Brigade headquarters

c. The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the 1 February 2011 counseling, in which she wrote, in effect:

(1) Mr. NFM counselled her concerning her duty expectations and her performance. While she understood her duties as the Senior HR NCO, she was concerned members of her chain of command did not. She listed her HR responsibilities, and then noted duties for which she, as a HR NCO, should not be responsible, which included:

* Unit Administrator
* Family Readiness Leader/Liaison
* Training NCO
* Supply NCO
* Facility Manager
* Security Manager
* PSM

(2) She affirmed she had been appointed as a Facility Manager and PSM, but this was done simply because no one else was available.
(3) Mr. NFM included an altered job description which added duties normally assigned to a Unit Administrator. She pointed out her role as a HR NCO was to assist the Unit Administrator in a number of areas, but not to actually perform Unit Administrator functions.

(4) With regard to her core hours, she pointed out her start time was 0830 hours, not 0730 hours. This was because of the location of her home in relation to her place of duty, and the need to drop off her son at school. She always worked at least 8 hours each day and had no set lunch hour; she also noted both the Brigade and Division were an hour ahead by virtue of being in a different time zone.

(5) She questioned why she needed to report in everyday by phone or email, and suggested she was being singled out. She stated she did not need micro-management. She asserted she was left without the tools, manpower, and training for the duties to which she was appointed. Now her chain of command wanted to know what her problem was. She defined her problem as her leadership expected a SSG to effectively run all aspects of a battalion without adequate full time support.

* she felt her leadership had failed her and now they were concerned because the battalion’s numbers did not look good
* she acknowledged she had been offered assistance by the Brigade staff but what was offered was not sufficient to regain the level of work output the battalion had prior to the headquarters being mobilized
* all of her personnel actions were already compiled by category, as were those evaluations which were either due or projected to become due

(6) She had no issue with creating an action log or a phone call. She also agreed to utilize Microsoft Outlook more consistently for her appointments and leave of absences.

(7) Mr. NFM made reference to the counseling she received from CSMKDR.

* she pointed out this document was an MFR which recorded a roundtable discussion that had been initiated in response to her grievance letter, and which included the applicant, the CSM, CPTWRI, 1SG KPN, Mr. NFM and others
* significantly, the MFR indicated, after the mobilization and subsequent departure of the battalion headquarters, she was left to act as the entire staff and command group for several months
* the Brigade did not do a good job of establishing command and control, or in providing her assistance
* the MFR also observed she was overwhelmed, and she stated this was still the way she felt; all the while being accused of letting an entire battalion degrade

(8) She closed by expressing a desire to know why COLs, Deputy Chiefs, Generals, and their staff all thought she, as a SSG, should be held accountable for ensuring an entire battalion ran to standard without having been given the assistance or necessary tools to accomplish the task.

d. DA Form 4856, dated 14 April 2011, prepared by Mr. TWA, Command XO, 98th Training Division (IET), in which he stated she was being counseled for failing to participate in a conference call, and because she had neither notified anyone she would not be participating, nor passed on information regarding important personnel actions.

(1) He went on to indicate she continued to be unresponsive and lacked due diligence in her work performance and assigned duties.

* on 23 February 2011, he discussed with the applicant his concerns as to her work and her lack of responsiveness; she was verbally counseled as to his expectations
* on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 she was scheduled to participate in a conference call; she had been notified of this conference call via email
* she failed to call, excuse herself, or submit the required information needed; as of 48hours after the scheduled call, she still had not provided the required information, or offered an explanation as to why she had not participated in the call
* this was not the first time he had to talk to her about her lack of performance or her failure to follow procedures

(2) He instructed her to:

* send Mrs. EKM (Brigade Staff Assistant Advisor) a summary of all actions processed or taken by her office every Friday
* report all pending actions and the projected date of completion
* each morning when she arrived at work and logged in to her computer, she was to email Mrs. EKM daily to let her know she was working
* before she left each day at the close of business, she was to email Mrs. EKM telling her she had completed her work for the day
* if she had a medical appointments or was TDY, she was to tell Mrs.EKM
* if she had an emergency and was unable to email, she was to call Mrs. EKM

(3) The applicant entered a written comment, dated 15 April 2011, saying she disagreed with the counseling and did not understand why Mr. TWA, who worked at Division-level, was counseling her as a battalion-level Soldier.

e. On 14 April 2011, Mr. NFM transmitted the 14 April 2011 counseling to the applicant via email and gave instructions to sign and return it that same day.

(1) The applicant responded, on 15 April 2011, by saying she would respond by 19 April 2011 and was preparing her rebuttal. She reminded Mr.NFM they had a battle assembly the coming weekend. She questioned why Mr. TWA was counseling her when she had been told on numerous occasions that he (Mr. NFM) was her day-to-day supervisor, and she also had an acting CSM and acting battalion commander. She added she had emailed SSGL informing her she (the applicant) had called in for the conference call but, because she had so many duties, she had gotten the times mixed up and called based on Central, not Eastern Time.

(2) On 15 April 2011, Mr. NFM responded by directing her to accept the counseling and stated she had a history of such events and they were repetitive. He indicated she had all day to review the counseling statement and her delays were part of a pattern of conduct which she displayed when higher headquarters requested something. She had a tendency to respond in her own time.

(3) The applicant sent back the counseling statement on 15 April 2011 and said she would follow with her rebuttal the next week. She further stated she did not have all day to review counseling statements. She was backlogged, as had been noted, and, despite her pleas, she was not getting any assistance. With regard to Mr. NFM’s assertion she tended to respond in her own time, she felt the same was true for her higher headquarters (i.e. providing additional personnel to help with the battalion workload in all areas, but specifically with a Unit Administrator, and a battalion S-3 and S-4).

f. The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the 4 April 2011 counseling, stating, insummary:

(1) In the counseling statement a reference was made to a discussion on 23 February 2011. This was part of a surprise visit, and took place five minutes after she had left for lunch. While she was questioned as to why she was not there, no one asked for the whereabouts of SFC P, the S-3 AGR Soldier who, as of noon, still had not arrived at work.

(2) Upon her return, five minutes later, she was met by SFC P, who was in civilian clothes on a normal duty day. SFC P should have been in duty uniform as she did not have a doctor’s appointment and no leave request had been submitted. The applicant entered the building to find Mr. TWA, along with Mr. M and Mr. H, standing in the hallway waiting and looking at her like she had done something wrong. SFC P later entered the building, then left, and no one ever questioned why SFC P was in civilian clothes.

(3) The conversation she had that day with Mr. TWA, Mr. M, and Mr. H involved getting needed assistance. This was because she was still doing the work of the Unit Administrator, the S-1, S-2, S-4, and the S-3 (because SFC P was not pulling her load).

(4) Mr. TWA questioned why policy memorandums posted on a bulletin board were out-of-date, to which she responded that the replacement memorandums had not yet been signed by the acting battalion commander, and her daily focus was not on “wooden letters” but on the overwhelming workload with which she had to contend.

(5) She contended the only purpose of the visit was to confirm false claims she was never available or in her office. She further contended they had the wrong Soldier in mind.

(6) She said she did not understand why Mr. TWA was disappointed in her performance and alleged inability to follow procedures. She never directly communicated with Mr. TWA because he was at a higher level. All issues which would have required escalation to his level should first have gone through Mrs.EKM or Mr. NFM and never directly to Mr. TWA.

(7) She requested a clarification as to what information was not provided. She asserted all the requested information was provided to Mrs. EKM (at Brigade level) and SSG L (Division G-1) so it could be forwarded to Ms. JD (Division G-1). She asked Mr. TWA not to accuse her of failing to complete actions when hers is the only signature to be found on every document required to keep the battalion functioning. As such, if Soldiers were being paid on time; battle assembly meals, lodging, and training were being provided in a timely manner; and all reports were being sent through her, this was proof she was fulfilling her responsibilities.

(8) She also contended that, if she was failing, so were her leaders, to include Mr. TWA. She objected to what she felt was micromanagement, and noted the same level of scrutiny was not being applied to SFC P who, she observed, was not completing her duties and responsibilities as required.

g. She was given a DA Form 4856, dated 12 July 2011, prepared by LTC ALK (rater and battalion commander) based upon allegations she failed to provide timely status and information on several areas pertaining to her full-time position as Senior HR NCO.

(1) From November 2010 to June 2011, LTC ALK’s association with the battalion had gone from transitioning into, to officially assuming command. During this time, he attempted numerous times to work with the applicant on suspensed and delinquent actions. She chose to ignore many of his emails, and not return phone calls.

(2) Prior to this, the applicant was given extensive coaching, and received counseling statements, emails, and memoranda of meetings with members of the Brigade and Division. These all pertained to her work behavior, performance, and attitude during 2010.

(3) He counseled the applicant in person, but she continued to exhibit a pattern of not meeting suspense dates from him, in his capacity as battalion commander, as well as suspensed actions received from both Brigade and Division headquarters.

(4) Based on her pattern of behavior and poor performance he intended to recommend her for administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.

(5) The applicant acknowledged the counseling on 18 July 2011, stating she had only received the counseling packet at 1600 hours, 14 July 2011, two days prior to the battle assembly. She had requested additional time to prepare a response in conference calls held on both 12 July 2011 and 17 July 2011. She did not agree with the content of the counseling statement and intended to submit a rebuttal (if this rebuttal was ever completed, it is not available for review).

h. LTC ALK prepared another DA Form 4856 on 22 August 2011 due to allegations the applicant failed to provide timely status updates and to coordinate activities for the battalion’s battle assembly, occurring between 12 August 2011 and 14 August 2011. Critical areas, to include contracted meals, were not coordinated in advance of the battle assembly. Additionally, the applicant was AWOL from 12 August 2011 to 15 August 2011, based upon not having submitted a DA Form 31. In her capacity as PSM for the battalion, she could not be reached or located when the battalion’s building was broken into on 14 August 2011.

(1) On 12 July 2011, the applicant was notified he intended to recommend separation action. She received a notice of separation from the Brigade commander on 4 August 2011. Between 12 July 2011 and 12 August 2011, she had lessened her coordination efforts as well as her level of communication with her chain of command.

(2) In an email to Major General (MG) RPS, CG, 108th Training Command (IET), she essentially stated she was submitting her request for transition leave. Her behavior and communication since has been unprofessional, and has materially affected the battalion.

(3) She was AWOL from 12 August 2011 through 15 August 2011, and made no contact with either himself (LTC ALK) or 1SG KPN during this period.

(4) She was not available to open the arms room for weapons draw on 12August 2011, and failed to ensure coordination was made for contracted meals for the battle assembly. Higher headquarters had to be contacted for emergency support.

(5) As the primary facility building manager and PSM, she was unresponsive to phone calls on 14 August 2011 when it was discovered someone had broken into the battalion’s building.

(6) Neither the applicant nor LTC ALK signed the counseling statement, but the applicant submitted a written rebuttal.

i. In her rebuttal to the 22 August 2011 counseling statement, the applicant wrote:

(1) The allegation she did not provide timely status and coordinate activities for the battalion’s battle assembly was not true. She:

* coordinated and procured transportation
* requested and received heater meals and arranged with a restaurant to prepare the hot meals
* reconfirmed the weapons ranges were reserved
* confirmed hot meals would be paid for by the Brigade
* personally went to Fort Polk, LA, to coordinate the pick-up of ammunition

(2) She appreciated her commander mentioning the opening of the arms room because, on numerous occasions and by various people to include Training Command and Regional Support Command security personnel, it was pointed out she should not be the only person with access to the vault. Ms. CK (Unit Administrator) still had access to the arms room because of her previous assignment and she opened the vault, as was prearranged. Additionally, the battalion XO, the acting battalion CSM, and SFC S all knew she would not be there to open the vault.

(3) The same issue of not having more than one person assigned in a key position was true for the role of PSM. No alternate has been appointed violates the associated regulation and LTC ALK was so informed months ago.

(4) As to being unresponsive to phone calls, she denied ever receiving any phone calls or messages from LTC ALK. While he may have called, she had been having problems with her cellphone provider and, as such, his calls and messages did not reach her.

(5) With regard to being AWOL, she asserts was not AWOL.

* she was stressed-out from her overwhelming work conditions, which was taking a physical and emotional toll on her health
* she was physically hurting, so she went to her doctor
* as an AGR Soldier on Title 10, U.S. Code, orders, she is allowed to be out sick for 3 working days without a doctor’s excuse; more than 3days requires a doctor’s note, which was provided
* the doctor’s note covered the days she was out, starting 12 August 2011; LTC ALK did not accept the doctor’s prescription, or the fact she is allowed to be sick for a certain number of days without a prescription from a doctor
* she did not realize, as a person and a Soldier, she was not allowed to be excused from work when a physician deems it necessary

(6) She was aware of the pending separation action and neither her level of communication nor her efforts to coordinate activities had lessened. She had communicated on such things as pay status, annual training orders, and battalion logistical activities.

(7) She requested LTC ALK explain why sending an email to MG RPS was unprofessional. Her email had been coordinated through his (MG RPS’) staff, so she was unclear how her email had materially affected the battalion.

(8) She made email contact with LTC ALK, MAJ C, and 1SG KPN as to her whereabouts and all knew exactly how to reach her. No one contacted her or showed any concern for her well-being. LTC ALK is always speaking of taking care of Soldiers; she is one of his Soldiers and feels he has not been doing a good job taking care of her.

j. Two DA Forms 31.

(1) Leave request, dated 12 August 2011, requesting nonchargeable stress leave (medical) for the period 29 August 2011 through 27 September 2011. It is signed by the applicant, LTC ALK, and Mr. NFM.

(2) Leave request, dated 28 July 2011, requesting ordinary leave from 16August 2011 through 26 August 2011 to attend her son’s graduation from basic combat training. It also is signed by the applicant, LTC ALK, and Mr. NFM.

k. Doctor’s prescription, signed by LMS, civilian medical doctor, and dated 11August 2011. It shows the doctor recommended the applicant be excused from work for a period of 30 days, starting 12 August 2011. The reason given was stress.

l. Documents showing the actions she took to coordinate meals and transportation for the battle assembly from 12 August 2011 through 14 August 2011. Additionally, she includes an email which summarizes completed activities for the week of 22 July 2011.

m. Documents associated with a Congressional inquiry initiated by the applicant on 18 July 2011.

(1) She requested a Congressional investigation into the pending separation action she faced at the unit, and to remove a suspension of favorable actions submitted by the battalion commander was preventing her from being reassigned and attending the Advanced Leaders Course. She detailed issues which essentially expressed a feeling her battalion commander was biased against her and she had been tasked with numerous duties normally assigned to others.
(2) On 10 November 2011, an official from the DA Inspector General’s (IG) office responded to the applicant’s Congressional representative stating the applicant’s unit was no longer pursuing administrative separation action.

n. Emails which indicate the applicant filed an EO complaint in April 2012.

(1) The emails state, in effect, she was never given a copy of the results and, when her recent attempts to obtain a copy for inclusion with her appeal were unsuccessful.

(2) The substance of her complaint was she felt her chain of command was discriminating against her and she was, in essence, being falsely accused of not accomplishing her duties. She asserted hers was just one example of what was occurring throughout the Brigade. She had filed an IG complaint as well as Congressional inquiry, but “everything was swept under the rug.” She had thought her higher headquarters (the 108th Training Command or the 81st Regional Support Command) would have sent someone to investigate, but nothing ever materialized.

o. A sworn statement written by the applicant and dated 8 January 2016, in which she states, in effect:

* in August 2012 (she could not recall the exact date or time), she had a conversation with MAJ CPH, the battalion XO/her rater
* her NCOER had three “excellence” ratings for Competence, Leadership, and Responsibility & Accountability; her overall rating showed “among the best”
* there were also specific bullet comments which supported the above-stated ratings
* MAJ CPH contacted her by phone to tell her LTC ALK (her battalion commander/senior rater) and COL BES (Brigade commander/reviewer) had informed him (MAJ CPH) could not give the applicant any ratings of “excellence” because of the counseling statements she had received
* she told MAJ CPH the counseling statements were not supported by evidence; which was why the proposed separation action had been dismissed
* she also told MAJ CPH, if he was unsure of the duties and tasks she performed, she could provide him the appropriate documentation to verify the bullet statements
* after providing MAJ CPH the described documents, he was fine with his original bullets; he was nonetheless continually pressed by both LTC ALK and COL BES to revise his bullet comments, and he eventually changed them

p. Three draft versions of the contested NCOER, showing changes in ratings and comments in Part IV and Part V. The ratings with the comments shown below do not appear in the final report:

* first draft:

* Under Army Values: “unshakable, yielding character which was reflected through her actions” (later revised to “prolific problem solver”)
* “excellence” for Competence with bullet “processed all pay transactions and personnel actions for the entire battalion totaling over 7,000 in number”
* “excellence” for Leadership with bullet “trained S-1 NCO on the use of the MEDPROS [medical protection system] allowing the unit to increase its [medical] readiness standard to 92% [percent]”
* “excellence” for Responsibility & Accountability with bullet “coordinated the logistical aspects of weapons qualification for the entire battalion allowing for a 98% qualification rate with zero safety incidents”
* “among the best” block checked in Part V

* second draft:

* “excellence” for Competence with bullet “assisted on pay transactions and personnel actions”
* “success” for Leadership with bullet “ensured the S-1 section knew how to use MEDPROS to increase the overall medical readiness battalion”
* “excellence” for Training with all bullets same a final version
* “success” for Responsibility & Accountability with bullet “assisted the S-4 with the logistical aspects of weapons for battalion qualification”
* no block is checked in Part V

* third draft:

* “excellence” for Competence with bullet “processed all pay and personnel transactions for the battalion totaling over 1,000 in number”
* “excellence” for Leadership with bullet “ensured S-1 personal [sic, personnel] know how to use MEDPROS which allowed the unit to increase its medical readiness to 92%”
* “excellence” for Responsibility & Accountability with bullet “coordinated the logistical aspects of weapons qualification for the entire battalion which allowed a 98% qualification rate with zero safety incidents”
* “among the best” block checked in Part V

q. A letter from the applicant’s doctor which states she has been treated for leukopenia (a reduction in the number of white blood cells) and anemia (a deficiency of red blood cells) since 2008. As of 2012, she developed symptoms which raised concerns about multiple myeloma (a type of cancer which forms in white blood cells) or blood malignancy. The letter does not give a more current prognosis.

r. DA Form 638 and Meritorious Service Medal Certificate for the period 26February 2007 to 23 June 2013.

(1) On the DA Form 638, the recommender was MSG JSB, Battalion Operations Sergeant (who also provided a letter of support).

(2) The battalion commander, LTC BDB, recommended approval, the Brigade commander, COL PAD, recommended downgrade to Army Commendation Medal, but the approval authority, BG MAK, approved the higher award.

s. Three NCOERs for periods after she PCS’d from the 1st Battalion, 378thRegiment. For the periods:

* 20130624 through 20140623 – the report is very favorable, with the rater showing the applicant as being “among the best,” and the senior rater, MAJ SBW, battalion XO, giving a rating of successful/1 and superior/1; he has entered the comment “promote immediately;” the reviewer was LTC MER, battalion commander
* 20141101 through 20150222 – still a favorable report, but the senior rater, MAJ RAM, battalion XO, rated the applicant as successful/2 and superior/2 and entered the comment “promote to Master Sergeant with peers;” the reviewer was LTC MER, battalion commander
* 20150223 through 20150607 – shows the rater has given a rating of “fully capable” and the senior rater, LTC MER (listed as the reviewer in the two previous reports), also shows the applicant as successful/2 and superior/2 and entered the same comment “promote to Master Sergeant with peers”

t. Eleven letters of support.

(1) The first letter is by a former battalion commander of the 1st Battalion, 378th Regiment, LTC JD (who mobilized and deployed the battalion headquarters in February 2010; he also gave her a very favorable rating for the period ending February 2010). He affirms the applicant was left as the sole full-time staff member and she was required to handle the day-to-day operations for the entire battalion. He speaks highly of the applicant as being diligent, competent, and a Soldier who placed much energy, pride and personal sacrifice into accomplishing the mission.

(2) The second letter of support is from 1SG KPN, acting CSM from August 2010 to February 2012. It describes a situation wherein the applicant was left with no support after the battalion headquarters, along with the Unit Administrator and the vast majority of the S-1 section, was mobilized and deployed.

* during this same period, the AGR Training NCO was reassigned and moved, and his replacement decided to retire within a few months of their arrival; this left the applicant alone in fulfilling battalion requirements
* both he and the acting battalion commander sent numerous requests for additional support to higher headquarters; they were told with half the battalion mobilized, the applicant should be able to handle the workload
* no additional support was ever received until the battalion headquarters returned from mobilization
* throughout this period, the applicant worked diligently to run the battalion, ensuring meals and lodging were available for all battalion personnel supported in the battalion’s three separate locations within two States
* LTC ALK, the new battalion commander, arrived when the applicant was under a lot of stress, and was working as hard as possible to keep up with requirements; from the beginning, LTC ALK did not feel the applicant was doing enough
* after a full discussion with LTC ALK, a request for additional personnel on active duty operational support (ADOS) orders was approved
* regardless of any progress made, nothing was ever good enough; the frustrations with the situation ultimately manifested themselves in the applicant receiving a GOMOR
* he feels the applicant is a good Soldier who was dealing with circumstances that were tough, strenuous, and unfortunate

(3) In a letter, dated 5 January 2016, MSG JSB, Operation Sergeant for the battalion starting October 2011, states he had the opportunity to observe the applicant during a portion of the rated period (he also is the NCO who recommended the applicant for a Meritorious Service Medal for her period of service in the battalion).

* as the only two full-time unit staff members, he and the applicant worked together in support of the battalion; battalion leadership expectations were not always clear and concise
* on his arrival, he was not given his initial counseling, which made the completion of his daily duties challenging at times; he found a way, but with little or no support from his leadership
* after the applicant left the unit, he was put in the same unfortunate position she had faced earlier; that being the only full-time unit member, who was then expected to complete battalion actions
* in that capacity, he missed suspense dates for actions receiving minimal support
* in his opinion, there was just too much work for one person to track and complete; he was expected to do the job of three full-time staff members
* during his time working with the applicant he found her to have a sound work-ethic and to be extremely competent

(4) SFC MAA provided a letter of support which addressed his observations of the applicant in his role of Brigade Senior Supply Sergeant.

* he affirmed the applicant was left behind to run the entire battalion after the headquarters was mobilized
* he observed the applicant working very hard to meet suspense dates and accomplish her daily tasks
* he cannot speak to any issues related to the battalion commander, LTC ALK, but he truly believes the applicant was put in a position to fail and her leadership, to include the Brigade, did nothing to help

(5) SFC (retired) AMJ states she was the USAR Career Counselor for the applicant’s unit. Although assigned to a recruiting unit, her office was across the hall from the applicant. Because of this, she had a chance to observe the

applicant on a daily basis.

* she directly saw the sacrifices made by the applicant and the overwhelming workload she was required to manage with very little help
* when she (the writer) arrived, the battalion headquarters had already mobilized, leaving the applicant to fulfill not only the responsibilities of the Senior HR NCO, but also the Unit Administrator, supply, Training/Operations, pay administration, Facility Manager, and PSM
* she efficiently maintained her duties, and continued performing Training/Operations functions, even after the arrival of an AGR NCO, who was supposed to fulfill that function; this was because this NCO did not perform her assigned duties as required
* the applicant maintained the readiness of the headquarters and headquarters company, as well as three other companies in the battalion (one local, and the other two out of the area)
* she communicated with the Brigade staff on a daily basis and was always available
* she observed the applicant constantly being on the phone, answering calls from the Brigade staff or her own command team
* the battalion XO, whose civilian job was in the local area, would stop by periodically and was able to see firsthand what the applicant was doing
* she worked late almost every day and came in on Saturdays to better ensure unit issues were handled
* the writer was present when Mr. TWA stopped by with Mr. H and Mr. S in an unannounced visit; she noted they failed to recognize the Training/Operations NCO was late and had come to work in civilian clothes
* they appeared more focused on the fact the applicant was not there on their arrival; she had just gone to lunch and returned quickly after being notified of their visit
* she told the applicant, after Mr. TWA and his team left, they seemed biased and perhaps a little racist; she is a white female so she does not make this statement lightly
* from her vantage point, the writer believes the applicant always returned LTC ALK’s emails and calls; he was out of the country quite a bit due to his civilian job in Denmark, and he would not use his government blackberry phone
* both she and the applicant were hindered in our efforts to complete some tasks because of LTC ALK’s lack of availability
* the applicant was neither coached nor mentored, and desperately needed support from the command teams of the battalion, Brigade, and Division; she did not need a command team giving her unwarranted counselings which offered no viable plan of action to correct the problems she faced
* LTC ALK decided to initiate separation action against the applicant; the applicant filed an Congressional inquiry and also submitted a complaint to the IG, but got no resolution
* the writer felt the applicant is a good Soldier, leader, and a viable asset for the Army

(6) A letter of support from Specialist DOH which essentially states he had served in the battalion for 4 years and could attest to the sacrifices made by the applicant in support of the battalion. She was, in most cases, the only consistent Soldier within the unit, and the main point of contact for many battalion matters. He felt the applicant did much for the Soldiers in the battalion, and all without the help of a Unit Administrator, S-3, S-4, or command group.

(7) The remaining four letters of support are from members of her current unit, ranging from the senior supply sergeant to the battalion commander. All speak highly of her expertise, competence, and the dramatic improvements she made to their S-1 section since her arrival.

10. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) addresses administrative actions which can be taken by commanders, to include administrative reprimands. Commanders have the authority to give reprimands either as an administrative measure or as nonjudicial punishment. Additionally, the regulation distinguishes administrative actions from nonjudicial punishment in that administrative measures are primarily tools for teaching proper standards of conduct and performance. The two are separate and distinct kinds of authority and should not be confused. Administrative reprimands must contain a statement that it was imposed as an administrative measure.

11. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), sets forth policies and procedures authorizing the placement of unfavorable information in Soldiers i individual official personnel files.

a. The regulation’s objectives, as outlined in paragraph 1-4, include an intent to protect the rights of individual Soldiers, while at the same time, permitting the Army to consider all available relevant information when choosing Soldiers for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility.

b. Paragraph 3-2c states that unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability and promotion potential. These traits must be identified early and shown in permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making decisions that may result in selecting Soldiers for positions of public trust and responsibility, or vesting such persons with authority over others.

c. Paragraph 7-2a states that once an official document is properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. The individual has the burden of proof to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document or documents are either unjust or untrue, in whole or in part, thereby warrantying its alteration or removal. Substantive evidence must be submitted to support a claim and an appeal that merely alleges an injustice or error is not acceptable and will not be considered.

12. Army Regulation 623-3, dated 10 August 2007, in effect during the period covered by the contested NCOER, prescribed policies and procedures with regard to NCOERs.

a. In paragraph 2-12 (Role of the Rater), raters are required to provide their support forms, along with the senior rater’s support forms to the rated Soldier at the beginning of the rating period. They are also required to discuss the scope of the Soldier’s duty description within 30 days of the start of the rated period. A DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form) is to be used for the required initial and quarterly NCO counselings.

b. Paragraph 2-15 (Role of the Senior Rater or Authenticating Official) states the senior rater will ensure support forms are provided to all rated Soldiers they senior rate at the beginning and throughout the respective rating periods. They are also to ensure rating officials counsel the rated Soldier individually and throughout the rating period with regard to meeting their objectives and complying with the professional standards of the Army.

c. Unlike for officer evaluation and academic evaluation reports, there is no process for referring a report for comment to a rated NCO when the rating contains negative remarks or includes an adverse rating. No reference will be made to unproven derogatory information. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation.

d. Paragraphs 3-14 (Rater Assessment) and 3-15 (Senior Rater Assessments) stated the rating officials will assess the performance and potential of the rated NCO, and use all reasonable means to provide a fair and correct evaluation.

e. Paragraph 3-37 (Preparation and Submission Procedures) states, for NCOERs, the reviewer’s signature and date will not be before the rater’s or senior rater’s. Additionally, reports are required to be received at Headquarters, DA not later than 90 days after the ending day of the report. This requirement is reiterated in chapter 4 (USAR Evaluations), paragraph 4-2 (Roles).

f. Paragraph 6-1 states that the Evaluation Report Redress Program consists of several elements at various command levels. The program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent, and provide a remedy for, alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred.

g. Paragraph 6-2 notes 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 Redress Program protects the Army’s interests and ensures fairness to the evaluated NCO. At the same time, it avoids impugning the integrity or judgment of the rating officials without sufficient cause.

h. Paragraph 6-7 states once an evaluation report is accepted for inclusion in a rated Soldier’s OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

(1) Appeals based on administrative error pertain to Parts I, II – sections a through d, and Part III – sections a through f.

(2) Claims may include, but are not limited to errors in the report period. When the Soldier has authenticated the report, it serves as verification of the information listed in Part I.

(3) Correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report. Removal of a report for administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude correction of errors, and then only when retention of the report would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier.

i. Paragraph 6-11 states, in pertinent part:

(1) To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence which clearly and convincingly establishes 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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 Soldier or rating officials who have knowledge of the rated Soldier’s performance during the rated 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 rated Soldier’s performance as well as interactions with rating officials.

13. DA PAM 623-3 (Personnel Evaluation – Evaluation Reporting System) states, in pertinent part, third party statements form the basis of most substantive appeals. Statements from third-parties who establish they were on hand during the contested rating period, who refute faulting remarks on the evaluation report, and who served in positions from which they could observe the appellant’s performance as well as their interactions with rating officials, are both useful and supportive. These statement should be specific and not deal in general discussions of the appellant.

14. Army Regulation 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes), prescribes policies and procedures for military leave. There is no provision for stress leave. There is a provision for convalescent leave, which is not chargeable to the Soldier. A hospital commander is the approval authority for convalescent leave for 30 days or more, and then only when the Soldier has been hospitalized. The unit commander is the approval authority for up to 30 days of convalescent leave based on a doctors diagnosis and subsequent recommendation. There is no entitlement to convalescent leave.

15. Army Regulation 630-10 prescribes policies and procedures for personnel in an AWOL status. When a Soldier goes AWOL, the regulation directs the unit to follow DA Pam 600-8 and take steps to conduct an immediate inquiry to determine the Soldier’s location and possible reason for absence, notify the military police, and record the results on a DA Form 4187.

16. DA Pam 600-8 provides guidance in the areas of functional responsibilities and operational procedures applicable to military HR. Paragraph 3-9 (Procedure 3-47, Duty Status) changes in a Soldier’s duty status must be supported by authorizing documentation, such as a DA Form 31 or DA Form 4187. Table 3-3 (Procedure 3-48, AWOL and Dropped from Rolls), lists steps to be taken when a Soldier is believed to be AWOL. These steps include the conducting of an investigation to determine the Soldier’s true status, prepare a DA Form 4187 changing duty status to AWOL, and notifying the military police, the Retention office, and the Security office.

17. Army Regulation 635-200 prescribes policies and procedures for active duty enlisted separations. Paragraph 2-3 describes actions to be taken by the separation authority when a recommended separation action is received. If the separation authority determines the evidence is insufficient to support the action, it can be disapproved, or some other action under the provisions of the regulation can be taken. If disapproved, a return memorandum will cite the reasons for disapproval. This paragraph does not address procedures for notifying the subject enlisted Soldier when such action has been taken by the separation authority.

18. ATP 6-22.1 provides doctrinal guidance for all leaders, military and civilian, who are responsible for planning, preparing, executing, and assessing counseling actions. It is not a regulation, but it offers suggested approaches for conducting effective counseling.

a. Three major categories of developmental counseling are identified:

* event – involves a specific event or situation and can be used to address specific instances of substandard performance, as well as adverse separation counseling
* performance – reviews a subordinate’s duty performance during a specific period; performance objectives are jointly established and clear standards are set for the next counseling period
* professional growth – includes planning for the accomplishment of individual and professional goals; the leader and subordinate conduct a review to identify strengths and weaknesses, and create a plan to build on strengths and compensate or eliminate shortcomings

b. Specific Instances of Superior or Substandard Performance.

* the counseling session is intended to convey to the Soldier whether or not his/her performance has met the standard; successful counseling occurs as close to the event as possible
* subordinates who do not meet the standard should always be counseled
* where the unsatisfactory performance is the result of a lack of knowledge or ability, the leader and subordinate can develop a plan for improvement
* continue to assess and follow up on the subordinate’s progress
* no requirement is stated to provide prior notice to the person being counseled, nor is there a specific requirement to provide a set amount of time to prepare a rebuttal

c. Adverse separation counseling may involve informing the Soldier of the administrative actions available to the commander in the event substandard performance continues and of the consequences associated with those administrative actions. Developmental counseling may not apply when an individual is engaged in serious acts of misconduct.

d. Effective Army leaders use a four-stage counseling process wherein they identify the need for counseling, prepare, conduct, and then follow-up. The ATP recommends giving the person being counseled advanced notice. In regard to event counseling, it recommends the counseling take place as close as possible to the event being addressed. It does not address procedures or timeframes that might be associated with preparing a rebuttal to a counseling has been received.

19. Army Directive 2014-06 (QMP) prescribes Army policy for QMP. Soldiers are considered for QMP if HRC has received such actions as GOMOR and poor ratings on an NCOER. This is true whether the document is filed in the performance or restricted folder of the Soldier’s OMPF.

20. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant requests removal of a GOMOR and contested NCOER.

2. She asserts the GOMOR contained allegations which failed to address the elements of proof for alleged violations of the UCMJ, had no foundation in fact, and the five counseling statements used to support the GOMOR were invalid.
a. Although violations of the UCMJ are referenced in the GOMOR, it is an administrative, not criminal action. Commanders have the authority to resolve misconduct through judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative means. Also, Army Regulation 27-10 further distinguishes administrative actions from nonjudicial punishment. It states the two are separate and distinct actions which should not be confused.

b. As to the allegation of being AWOL from 12 August 2011 to 15 August 2011:

(1) At various times, she has explained her absence as follows:

* as an AGR Soldier on Title 10, U.S. Code, orders, she is allowed to be out sick for 3 working days without a doctor’s excuse; more than 3days requires a doctor’s note, which she provided (from her rebuttal to the 22 August 2011 counseling)
* she took time off on Friday, 12 August due to her stress level and based upon her doctor’s recommendation; she was out of the office through the battle assembly and on Monday 15 August 2011 based on those same instructions and on guidance from an unidentified member of her chain of command; she additionally was in communication with an unnamed member of her chain of command on Friday, 12August 2011 (rebuttal to GOMOR)
* her chain of command was aware she was available at her residence and had been placed on “stress leave” beginning 12August 2011 by her physician (self-authored statement to the Board)
* in her rebuttal to the 22 August 2011 counseling, she also stated she had not received any phone calls or messages, and this was likely due to issues she was having with her cellphone provider

(2) There is no mention of stress leave in the regulation, but Soldiers can be placed on convalescent leave as a result of injury or illness. Additionally, the regulation has no provision for Soldiers (to include those in an AGR status) to simply be out sick based solely on a prescription from a doctor. Physicians do have the authority to recommend convalescent leave, but a commander’s approval is required.

(3) A Soldier is considered AWOL when they are absent without proper authority. Notwithstanding the indication her unit failed to follow the procedures outlined in the regulation and DA PAM; and regardless of whether or not some members of her chain of command may have been aware of her location, the fact remains, her absence would only have been authorized were it approved by her commander. Based upon the DA Forms 31 submitted as evidence, it is clear her battalion commander was one of the approval signatories for her leave. It is also evident the battalion commander did not approve her absence.

c. The allegation of dereliction of duty was based on five counseling statements, and, she asserts, because none were completed in accordance with ATP 6-22.1, they should be considered invalid.

(1) ATP 6-22.1 is doctrinal guidance not a regulatory mandate. It provides a recommended outline for developmental counseling. Within that context, each of the five counseling statements at issue were event-oriented, and addressed what were perceived as instances of substandard duty performance.

(2) The fact the counseling statements may not have been in strict compliance with the ATP does not negate their content.

d. She disputes the facts cited in the counseling statements, specifically, that she contacted Mr. NFM, Mrs. EKM, and the Brigade staff daily. Other than argument, she provides no supporting evidence.

e. She questions the validity of being counseled by Mr. TWA, contending he was nowhere in her chain of command and there was no Division policy mandating a counseling statement for having missed a Division-level conference call.

(1) Mr. TWA was the Division Command XO and, in that capacity, served as the Division commander in the Division commander’s absence. Additionally, when he visited the applicant, he was essentially there as the Division commander’s representative.

(2) Despite the fact she may not have had daily contact with Mr. TWA, by virtue of his position he had both the authority and latitude to counsel the applicant. He also did not require a Division policy to justify the counseling.

f. The 12 July 2011 counseling served as notice of her battalion commander’s proposed separation action, which was ultimately dismissed.

(1) She states she never was given official notice of its dismissal and contends this violated paragraph 2-3 of Army Regulation 635-200.

(2) An examination of the cited paragraph addresses actions by the separation authority, to include procedures for when the proposed separation action is being returned to the unit without action. The procedures described do not include providing official notification of the action’s dismissal to the subject of the separation action.

g. She asserts, because her battalion commander never gave her an initial counseling, any counseling given later which addressed her performance was invalid.

(1) Her position is based on a contention the initial counseling would have outlined her primary and additional duties; her strengths and weaknesses; and those areas which required improvement. She argues the absence of this initial counseling essentially meant the battalion commander forfeited the ability to subsequently show her performance failed to meet standard since no standard had been set.

(2) The content of her battalion commander’s counseling statements speak to allegations she failed to provide timely status and information regarding areas for which she was responsible. Even if her assertions were accepted, it appears the issues addressed were inherent in her duties as an NCO, wherein any NCO is expected to keep his or her commander current on those areas for which they are responsible. Thus, there should not have been a need to separately identify these expectations in a counseling session.

h. She provides evidence which appears to obviate the allegation of not completing required actions in preparation for a weapons qualification event conducted during the 12 August 2011 to 14 August 2011 battle assembly. Given what she provided, it looks like the allegation was factually incorrect.

i. Her rebuttals to multiple counseling statements are summarized as follows:

(1) In her rebuttal to Mr. NFM’s 1 February 2011 counseling, she wrote:

* she was concerned that, while she well understood her duties, some members of her chain of command, from battalion to Division, did not; she elaborated
* Mr. NFM identified her core working hours as 0730 to 1700; she corrected him saying her hours were 0830 to 1730
* despite being twice directed to do so, she questioned the need to report daily by phone or email, stating she felt she was being micro-managed
* she stated her problem was “General, COLs, LTCs, CSMs expect a SSG to effectively run all areas of a battalion without sufficient support or an effective plan of action” and expressed a desire to know why
(2) Her rebuttal to the 14 April 2011 counseling received from the Division Command XO (the second in command at Division-level) included the following comments:

* she contended the only purpose of the visit was to confirm false claims she was never available in her office
* she did not understand why Mr. TWA was disappointed in her performance and her alleged inability to follow procedures; she never directly communicated with Mr. TWA because he was at a higher level
* she asked Mr. TWA not to accuse her of failing to complete actions when hers is the only signature to be found on every document required to keep the battalion functioning; as such, if Soldiers were being paid on time; battle assembly meals, lodging, and training were being provided in a timely manner; and all reports were being sent through her, this was proof she was fulfilling her responsibilities
* she asserted if she was failing, so were her leaders, to include Mr.TWA

(3) In her rebuttal to her battalion commander’s counseling on 22 August 2011, she wrote:

* regarding her absence, she did not know “that as a person and as a Soldier [she] was not allowed to be excused from work by [her] physician when it is deemed necessary”
* as to her email to the CG, 108th Training Command, she asked for an explanation why he considered her action unprofessional as it had been coordinated through the CG’s staff
* she observed that he was always talking about taking care of Soldiers; she was one of his Soldiers and he was not doing a good job of taking care of her

j. The available evidence indicates:

* she was favorably rated as the battalion’s Senior HR NCO from February 2007 through February 2010, though there was a decline in her overall ratings from “among the best,” successful/1 or 2, and superior/1 or 2, to “fully capable,” successful/3 and superior/3; this decline coincided with the deployment of the battalion headquarters
* while her NCOER for the period ending 16 July 2011 shows there was an acting battalion commander (also her rater, CPT RWH), there appears to have been a leadership vacuum which required action by the Brigade commander
* On 17 July 2010, the Brigade CSM met with members of the battalion, to include the applicant, and, at the direction of the Brigade commander, designated replacements for the acting positions of battalion commander and CSM
* the applicant was, for all intents and purposes, the only full-time member of the unit; this was because the other AGR Soldier serving with her had submitted her retirement application and, following this, her fulfillment of duties appears to have been minimal
* further, the evidence clearly indicates the applicant was saddled with all rear detachment responsibilities, but not provided additional personnel to assist with the workload; the Brigade CSM noted she was “truly overwhelmed” (17July 2010 MFR)
* the lines of authority for the applicant were diffuse and, at times, she appears to have received conflicting guidance; she was responsible to the acting battalion commander and acting battalion CSM, but also to Mr. NFM and Mrs. EKM of the Brigade staff; she received additional requirements from Mr. TWA, Division Command XO
* during the period February 2010 through March 2012, she appears to have developed a contentious relationship with members of her chain of command (specifically, Mr. NFM, Mr. TWA, and her senior rater and battalion commander, LTC ALK)
* the evidence also suggests she acquired a reputation, whether accurate or exaggerated, for being unresponsive, not being consistently available to her leadership when needed, and tending to do things her own way and in her own time, rather than aligning with the procedures and timelines directed by her chain of command
* in response to command perceptions, she seems to have denied their accuracy or justified her actions by asserting she was completing essential personnel tasks, though not always in accordance with command guidance, and apparently at the expense of time-sensitive command actions; her actions suggest she felt she knew better than her superiors what needed to be done and when
* in her rebuttal to the GOMOR she wrote that she did her best to manage her heavy workload, and was forced to prioritize and realistically determine what could and could not be accomplished; in light of the fact she had been directed in two counseling statements to make such determinations in coordination with Mr. NFM, her words clearly suggest she chose not to follow that guidance
* the absence of clear lines of leadership and the fact she was saddled with an overwhelming workload, while not provided an appropriate level of support, would seem to mitigate the issues cited in the GOMOR
* the applicant’s apparently stubborn resistance to guidance and her contentiousness make her behavior appear less supportable

k. When the DASEB considered her application, they determined the purpose of the GOMOR had been served and, while they did not recommend removal, they did direct HRC to move the GOMOR to her restricted folder. The fact it is in the restricted folder, does not preclude its consideration by a QMP selection board.

3. With regard to the contested NCOER, the available evidence indicates:

a. The assertion of administrative errors as related to the missing non-rated code and the fact the signature of the reviewer predates that of the senior rater, appears valid. The contention the counseling dates are erroneous is more difficult to validate.

(1) Much of the focus of the applicant’s arguments concerning initial and quarterly counseling is on what she asserts her senior rater failed to do. The dates shown on the report, address only when the rater affirms he counseled the applicant. The Board proceeds from a presumption of administrative regularity. Barring clear evidence to the contrary (which was not provided by the applicant) the dates must be presumed to be correct.

(2) The regulation states correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis to invalidate an evaluation report. In this instance, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to support removing the contested NCOER on the basis of the above administrative errors.

b. As proof of substantive errors on the contested NCOER, the applicant provides evidence which purports to show her rater was coerced to change his ratings.

(1) Three draft NCOERs showing comments not included in the final report, as well as ratings of “excellence” where the final version only showed ratings of “success.” There is no concrete way to validate their legitimacy.

(2) A sworn statement given by the applicant recounting a phone conversation with her rater wherein he is alleged to have stated the senior rater and reviewer had told him he could not give her “excellence” ratings because of the 12 July 2011 counseling statements she had received.
* she told her rater this counseling statement was not supported by evidence and she could provide documents which detailed her duties and the tasks she performed
* with these documents, she states her rater indicated he was fine with his original bullets, but after continued pressure, changed them to what was in the final report

(3) She offers no other evidence, such as a statement from her rater, which might serve to further substantiate her arguments or provide a more complete explanation for any changes made from previous drafts.

c. The senior rater ratings of “poor” and his adverse bullet comments were also contended to be neither true nor substantiated.

(1) She was showing difficulty in managing workload and acting on suspensed items in a timely manner was well documented in the five counseling statements. Additionally, she acknowledges this as an area requiring improvement in her rebuttal to the GOMOR.

(2) Also evident from the two counseling statements executed by her battalion commander/rater is she did not effectively collaborate or communicate with her commander. Based upon her responses to counseling statements, her contentious manner likely contributed to the marginal rating.

(3) Other than what is recorded in counseling statements and this NCOER, the available record does not reflect the results of any staff visits or inspections. The applicant indicates she was unsuccessful in obtaining a copy of the Brigade’s Initial Command Inspection and asserts she was never provided a copy.

d. A rating is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials who render the report. The burden is on the applicant to show clear and convincing evidence that overcomes this presumption. The evidence presented in this case does not appear to be sufficient to warrant removal of the contested NCOER.

4. Based on the foregoing, there does not appear to be a sufficient basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

_______ _ _X_____ ___
CHAIRPERSON

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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001972

3

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001972

21

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1