Issue: NCOER with typo sent to HRC prior to SFC board.

2013-12-25T09:36:03-05:00

Situation: My battle buddy just had an annual NCOER with a typo sent up to HRC. The SFC board convenes in about 5 weeks.

Should he appeal? Can he appeal?

Who's fault is it: S-1, NCO Support Channel, Rated (for signing), or Rater/ Senior Rater?

Has anyone experienced this before? Is it something to worry about?

The typo was "adn" instead of "and"...

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Dec 25 at 2013 9:52 AM

2013-12-25T09:52:19-05:00

If you look on the HRC website there is a email address to the NCOER Section. Email them and ask, they are the subject matter experts on this matter. Something like that is something they might can change. Another thing is it in his OMPF yet?

On who to blame I say it is the Ratee, did he look over the report? Did he tell them and it was just not fixed? Its his report if he did not care enough to look it over and see the typo why is he worried now? It is something simple, and I think it can be fixed, use the resources out there, the email to ncoer's section and ask for their advise, they might even be able to fix it I don't know.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 25 at 2013 10:07 AM

2013-12-25T10:07:47-05:00

Where is the typo? Is it glaringly obvious? I almost feel like a letter might draw attention to something that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 10:31 AM

2013-12-25T10:31:55-05:00

I wouldn't worry about a typo like that, remember evaluations should be generally free of errors. Writing a letter to the board will only draw unwanted attention and clog the system with people who have more valid reasons to address the members of the board. Ultimately the blame is human error not the S1.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 10:40 AM

2013-12-25T10:40:39-05:00

See, this is why I posted this on here!! This is great info. I appreciate everyone's input and advice. All valid points.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Dec 25 at 2013 1:04 PM

2013-12-25T13:04:00-05:00

I would not really worry about it too much. First if you draw attention to it, you may create a Streisand Effect where drawing attention to a problem magnifies it a lot more than it would have been had nothing been said. Also with the amount of reading a board will likely go through, there is a good chance that they will not even realize there is a typo, and by the sound of it that seems like a minor error. I'd only take action after if it results in any problems for the solider.

Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitat...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 2:26 PM

2013-12-25T14:26:16-05:00

SSG(P) Moore,

I would not worry about it; I say that as if it was my own. The board members will be able to determine what was "intended". This goes back to the old saying that no human being is perfect.

Response by SPC Matthew Birkinbine made Dec 26 at 2013 9:21 PM

2013-12-26T21:21:49-05:00

I think it'd be more of a reflection of the person who typed the bullet, personally, than the personnel editing the document. I would welcome correction from a subordinate for a typo on a document, but for me, being the person rating that subordinate, it'd be embarrassing to me to have to receive it. For that very reason, to save myself from embarrassment from seniors, peers, or subordinates, I prefer to scrub any piece I write. I personally think all leaders should take that same approach.

That being said, obviously the persons viewing the document, after the person wrote the bullets, are equally responsible for lackadaisical editing; which could have led to the correction of the typo, before it was submitted through appropriate channels.

All of this in consideration, even I miss my own typos now and then, and if I do, I expect my own work to be tossed in the round paper file. There may be another chance next time. We're all human.

I think it's honestly up to the person, trying to make the board, how s/he responds to the situation. If s/he genuinely wants to correct the fault, then I would suggest following the instructions of those here to correct the honest mistake. Honest mistakes happen. Own up to yours, is what I always say.

If the person being reviewed however, doesn't think one would lose interest in his/her review based on that one typo, or simply does not want to take ownership for this one, very minor mistake; then I would say, "the ball is in your court" and what happens is your choice.

I couldn't be hurt over a decision to lose interest in me over a typo I could have corrected. That one flaw in things of seemingly unimportant matters could be the thing that gets me killed in the heat of battle.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2013 6:52 PM

2013-12-30T18:52:42-05:00

Everyone is pretty much correct, but I'm a by the reg kind of guy, so I'm going to show you from the reg, AR 623-3, page 70.

---

g. The BN/BDE S1 or administrative office servicing the rated Soldier’s unit may request minor administrative changes to an accepted report. However, the request will be accompanied by substantiating evidence. The type of evidence that could be used includes an official copy of the officer record brief or enlisted record brief, orders, or duty appointment documents. These requests are not appeals. See DA Pam 623–3 for information on appeals.

h . A p p e a l s b a s e d o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e r r o r o n l y w i l l b e a d j u d i c a t e d b y H Q D A , E v a l u a t i o n A p p e a l s B r a n c h

(AHRC–PDV–EA), for active Army and USAR OERs, NCOERs, DA Form 1059, and DA Form 1059–1. Appeals

based on administrative error for ARNG OERs, NCOERs, DA Form 1059, and DA Form 1059–1 will be adjudicated

by NGB (NGB–ARP).

(1) Claims of administrative error pertain to—

(a) DA Form 67–9, parts I, II, III, block a, III, block b, and IV, block c.

(b) DA Form 2166–8, parts I, II, and III.

(d) DA Form 1059–1, items 1 through 10.

(2) Such claims may include, but are not limited to, deviation from the established rating chain, insufficient period

of observation by the rating officials, errors in the report period, and errors in the APFT and/or height and weight

entries.

(3) Nonrated periods of time and missing evaluation reports require special consideration—

Note. For evaluation reports on IMA and IRR Soldiers not performing duty, gaps will occur.

(a) A period of undocumented nonrated time resulting in a gap between completed evaluation reports in a Soldier’s

OMPF may be administratively corrected upon request from the rated Soldier, unless the period reflects a chain of

command’s failure to render a mandatory report that was due (paras 3–40 through 3–55). In some cases, administratively

correcting a “FROM” date on a report may cause it to be not in accordance with the rules of AR 623–3. When

this occurs, the Evaluation Appeals Office will mark “Corrected Copy per HQDA Appeals Office” so the altered

“FROM” date will be understood by future selection boards and career managers.

(b) A period of time for which an evaluation report should have been prepared by the rating officials, but was not,

will be left as a gap between reports in the Soldier’s file. The Soldier should make every effort to obtain missing

evaluation reports from the rating officials. If the Soldier is unable to obtain a missing evaluation report, the Soldier

should submit a request for a nonrated time statement in accordance with paragraph 3–33e. Requests submitted under

these circumstances will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

Note. ARNG-specific nonrated time and missing evaluation reports are addressed in appendix H.

USAHRC (AHRC–PDV–EA) (mailing and e-mail addresses are in app F).

(4) It should be noted that the rated Soldier’s authentication in part II of a DA Form 67–9 or DA Form 2166–8

verifies the information in part I. It also confirms that the rating officials named in part II are those established as the

rating chain and authenticates the accuracy of the APFT and height and weight entries made by the rater. Appeals

based on alleged administrative errors in those portions of a report previously authenticated by the rated Soldier (parts

I, II, and III, block a) will be accepted only under the most unusual and compelling circumstances. The rated Soldier’s

signature also verifies that the rated Soldier has seen a completed evaluation report. 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 the correction of errors, and then only when retention of the report

would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier (see fig 4–2 for an example format for a request for minor

administrative correction; see DA Pam 623–3 for an example memorandum format for an administrative appeal).

70 AR

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2014 7:15 PM

2014-12-28T19:15:43-05:00

So many questions to answer...Should he appeal? No. Can he appeal? Yes. Who's fault is it? The rated NCO, for failing to properly review their own NCOER. Partial blame to the rater and senior rater for not using the BUILT-IN SPELL CHECK! Has anyone experienced this before? Not in my own NCOER, but in practically EVERY NCOER I review (written by SFC, MSG, CSM, CPT, MAJ, LTC, COL) there are always minor errors. AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3 puts the onus of errors on the rated NCO and the rating chain. Is it something to worry about? Not really, too minor of an error to stop someone from getting selected for promotion.