Has anybody successfully submitted an appeal against a falsified NCOER?

Take this to the I.G.'s office. There's more going on here than a crap NCOER. There are several reasons why this should have never happened. Several people aren't doing their jobs---Let the I G sort it out.

They need to see Jag and they will have to do a sworn statement and submit it to HRC they can review it and make the decision if they want to remove the NCOER but there will be an investigation

Not directly. Instead, the situation I faced was, after doing evaluations that would stand up to an accurate statistical norm for our type of unit. there was considerable pressure from the company commander to skew all NCOERs to outstanding. Which would not be fair to other units who fairly did their NCOERs, and thus possibly deny a promotion to someone who deserved it more than the soldier who would get a "administrative false positive." Believe me, I got a lot of pressure, but I wouldn't change one, unless there was a case where it was warranted, and there were no seirous challenges. Believe me, I put a lot of work into those NCOERs, as I had kept records during the year to personalize every single one. IMO, there should be a system wide screening for excessive false positives. The pressure on officers for retention of troops leads to pressure to falsify NCOERs, and, in my experience, results in retaining some bad apples, who create at least 18x the administrative headaches than they should.
It should be noted that the Roman practice of decimation (eliminating every 10th troop during a discipline crackdown) has been adopted by none other than Harvard Business School, which preaches eliminating 1/10th of the group every year, just for the principle of decimation, to prompt competitiveness. A steady state pruning operation, in the long run, may be more desireable than the roller coaster feast or famine cycle of cutbacks one sees during military careers lasting two decades or more. Conversely, it is also damaging to morale when units fail to promote those that almost universally have won acclaim from the troops for leadership. The Army has plenty of good doctrine and guidance on how to run a proper system; the problems IMO center around the uneven application of these programs.
It was written somewhere that in Gulf War II, the Defense Dept. had some 700 or so management and operations computer systems managing both the US effort and the Coalition effort. One would suggest not just looking at the individual case, but where it fits into the system, because whatever system your unit is part of may well be skewed statistically also, resulting in a double whammy for the soldier with even a nodestly unfavorable NCOER.

The individual does have to sign the NCOER and then put the appeal in. I know NCO's are busy but this is a must setting proper counslling dates. If no help was given, let's say APFT during a failure and the individual wasn't properly counselled for corrective action like remedial PT, then an appeal would have some merit. However, it's not like you're peer didn't know his or her shortcomings and a good NCO would take corrective action on their own to fix their deficiencies so both are at fault.

In my honest opinion, regardless if its a 4/4 rating or a 1/1 rating... that NCOER looks like my six year old daughter wrote it.

Another thing, the values don't match the comments on the other side....IF he was THAT BAD you'd think he would have a NO in there somewhere

SGT Nia Chiaraluce Great post! I have not a clue about the appeals process so I find this interesting. I will continue to follow. Please let us know the outcome.

Many times, I had raters who created NCOER's and the comments shown described the raters more than those with whom they were rating. At least that's been my experience. Moreover, today's promotions seem to center less around performance and more around "who do we like to fill the slot..." The buddy system is so prevalent, that retention is often jeopardized due to doctored and inaccurate reporting. It disinfranchises good troops. There really is no secret to this...if you're in a good, quality unit, your experiences and motivations will happen automatically.

From my experience the Appeal process is just to satiate the rated NCO. I filed an appeal based on the NCOER being completely falsified. The rater was wrong, the counseling dates were wrong, and the duty position was wrong. I had a well written evidence filled appeal, it was returned with them stating there wasn't enough evidence. I was a bit confused, I wondered how someone who was on rear d was able to write a NCOER for a NCO that was deployed for 6 of the 8 rated months. Even after the deployment the MTOE remained split between rear d and the forward element. The duty position on my ERB and NCOER did not match up but hey, you can give it a shot. Make sure you use Army resources, I wouldn't want you to waste your money.

Of course, the SM should go to request a round table about this with his supervisor, all those in-between him and the 1SG, and the 1SG. In that discussion, he should express that he disagrees with this NCOER (if he in fact disagrees). Then he should let them know that, before he appeals, he would like to resolve it in-house if possible. The only leg he has to stand on is that this NCOER looks to be motivated by a personality conflict and a personal dislike for the Soldier (not completely impartial). The Rater states in a bullet that the SGT failed to mentor his subordinates -- but how is HE (the Rater) mentoring his NCO by falsifying counseling dates and not putting it down in official counselings how this NCO can improve? I think the Rater needs to take some responsibility for the failure of his NCO!

I cannot see how any rating chain would sign this. They know better. If this NCO was as bad as this NCOER attempts to make them look, why do they have all "Yes's" in the Army values? Why is this NCO a success in Competence if they have to be supervised? Why is the PT score listed when it does not qualify as exceeds the standard? Where are the numerous AR-15's that should have happened if this NCO was disrespectful, late, FTR and lost a weapon on deployment? If the bullets are to be believed, why does the last block state "Needs Improvement, Some"? Shouldn't it be more than that? This entire document doesn't make a bit of sense. Honestly this looks like something someone did out of anger, the rating information is not present, counseling dates are missing, appointed duties missing.