NCOER after article 15; What are my obligations and options?

SFC Josh Jackson — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:20:21 -0500

Hi, all. I had a career first last night; One of my subordinate NCOs got a field grade article 15 for inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. He is reduced in rank to E5, and has 11 years in service. There will be no GOMR. I want to rehabilitate this Soldier, but in this age of drawdown, I don't know if that's possible.

So here is my question, since I am in uncharted territory. What am I obligated to include in his next NCOER? It's more than 180 days out, if that makes a difference. There will be the glaringly obvious difference in rank from his last eval to his current one. Is it an automatic Needs Improvement? Is it a NO for one or more of the Army Values? I could do these things very easily, but am I required to?

I'm angry with him, but I also want to help him climb out of the hole he dug himself into. I remember a time when an NCO could bounce back from UCMJ action. Now, in the age of drawdown, I don't know if I have time to help him redeem himself. With a field grade article 15 and a bad NCOER, he would have little chance of surviving the next QMP board. I appreciate and look forward to your counsel.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 5 at 2015 12:33 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:33:48 -0500

SFC Josh Jackson I do not know the answers to your questions but I do encourage and applaud your efforts in assisting this NCO through this process. Even though he will have glaring changes if you can help soften the blow then you have done your job.

Maybe MAJ Monique Ruiz, CSM Private RallyPoint Member can shed some light your questions.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 2:56 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:56:37 -0500

So I take it this was a dating relationship with a junior enlisted, and she was under his supervision?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 7:54 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:54:29 -0500

Well, his next NCOER is not 180 days out. It's due now as a Relief for Cause NCOER, and as such it will have to contain the details of the cause.

That will reset the clock on his rating period, and he'll have 12 months (if not chaptered out) of time at SGT to earn a clean, supportive NCOER.

Your reference on this is AR 623-3, Section 3-55.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 5 at 2015 8:02 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:02:29 -0500

On the AF side, it IS required to report it on the next report and it will be a "referral" which has severe repercussions in and of itself.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 5 at 2015 8:03 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:03:09 -0500

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not in the situation you're in, because that is a difficult choice to make. I would say that the punishment for their actions has already imposed, so there is no need to be overtly aggressive in the NCOER. I would note it in the Army Values section in a factual way without any fluff, probably with regards to Integrity.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 9:24 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:24:10 -0500

I probably missed the part that he got counseled. Because in my experience, before a situation escalated to a RFC NCOER. Someone, somebody noticed or had the perception of an in proper relationship was going between them two, Someone should have said something or counseled this NCO prior to this incident to happen. I'm not saying this NCO is right or innocent. All Im saying is, this situation could have been prevented.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 10:14 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:14:30 -0500

From what I read, it could be more than just inappropriate relationship. The NCO is married. More cans to open.

If he was reduced in rank, he should lose his position of PSG and thus, to further back up the regulation, he needs a RFC. He is being relieved of his PSG duties for failing to adhere to UCMJ and failing a few of the Arny values.

I know it's hard. I know it's difficult when you know his potential. But, now it's about the rest of the Soldiers and leaders around him. If you don't do a RFC, you'll set the wrong precident.

He still has an opportunity to bounce back. He has more time for 5 or more NCOERs before his look to E7. He needs to know that.

Side note: please ensure his AA flag is lifted and his H (punishment phase) flag in started. Then his H flag is removed upon completion of any extra duty applied to his Artcile 15.

Response by CW2 Eric Scott made Mar 5 at 2015 10:25 PM

CW2 Eric Scott — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:25:08 -0500

He has to have a RFC NCOER, Just rate him like you would any other person from the end of RFC NCOER date on out. If there isn't a RFC NCOER just rate him as you would any other E5 depending on how he performs.

Response by CSM Mark Gerecht made Mar 5 at 2015 11:01 PM

CSM Mark Gerecht — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:01:51 -0500

SFC Jackson,
You raise a great point. All of us have made mistakes. Some received Article 15's some did not. Needless to say all of us could have received an Article as I doubt any of us are so exceptional that we never violated the UCMJ. Now what comes into play is how our Chain of Command chose to deal with us. Some chose to use corrective training when appropriate others just used UCMJ.

When dealing with an infraction I believe there are two aspects that need to be reviewed.

1. Was the offense part of what I refer to as 1 of the 4 unforgivable sins of Leadership: Illegal, Unethical, Immoral, unsafe. If it was one of these then it was not an honest mistake and offense was committed with full knowledge that it was wrong...which speaks to values.

2. Next was the offense committed by a leader, was it committed during a time of draw down, what was the overall impact of the event on the unit/Army, is the Soldier worth saving? If so why?

This act was in my opinion an unforgivable sin. The NCO knew they were doing something that was absolutely wrong...no honest mistake answer accepted. We have seen numerous examples of Senior NCOs and Officers getting a pass in issues like this. So should the Soldier get a pass? What was the impact of the Leader's action on the unit/Army? Only you can answer that question? How hard should the NCO be held accountable? Only you and the rating chain can answer that question.

Now here is what the rating chain has the authority to do:

1. There is nothing in AR 623-3 that states the event must be mentioned on the evaluation report? In fact the information on the rater and senior rater portion of the NCOER is totally at the discretion of the rater and senior rater? You can not mention it, you can allude to the infraction, and you can outright state the infraction in hard facts.

2. No mention of punishment can be made on the evaluation report IAW AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3. The actions that led to the punishment can be mentioned.
For example:

You cannot say "NCO received an article 15 for an inappropriate relationship".

You can say something like: Soldier exhibited poor judgement by participating in an inappropriate relationship or adulterous relationship.

So what you say, if you say anything, and how hard of a stance you take is up to you and the members of the rating chain and the reviewer.

3. I have seen NCOER in which a Soldier made one mistake. Lets say they failed an APFT. The rating chain hit them in Values, Training, Leadership, Accountability, etc. My opinion find the most appropriate place to mention the offense and address it one time on the report in the most appropriate wording.

4. Now does the Soldier deserve to receive consideration for past performance? Should the rating chain go light on the issue...only the rating chain can make that assessment.

Recommendation: If you seriously believe the Soldier is already receiving appropriate corrective action and has learned their lesson consider the following actions.

1. List the facts of the issue, Address how the Article 15, reduction of rank, etc, have and will impact the Soldier's potential to continue to serve.

2. Answer this question from you perspective. Was the Field Grade Article 15 administered by the chain of command to get the Soldier's attention, to correct a wrong, and/or to crush their ability to continue to serve or some combination thereof.

3. If you believe the intent was to allow the Soldier to continue to serve then you should develop an argument you can defend with facts from this perspective. IAW AR 27-10 Commanders are authorized to look at age, experience, maturity, performance, mitigating factors, extenuation, etc in determining punishment. They are also provided this flexibility when determining the Soldiers potential for future service, bars to reup, separation from service, etc. You can use what types of punishments were used in the past for similiar events for Officers, NCOs, and Soldiers.

4. Once you have conducted your research and developed your argument I would encourage you to seek input from the rating chain how do they view the issue? What do they see as the most appropriate course of action? In my opinion the goal is to reach a collective decision on how best to proceed. Keep in mind if the Rater says the Soldier is awesome, and the senior rater says the Soldier is okay, and the reviewer attaches a letter of nonoccurrence and states the Soldier should not be retained because the rating chain failed to mention violations of value on the NCOER the QMP board is absolutely confused. Send a united, fair, and clear message.

5. How you say it matters. You must be honest with your self and more importantly do your duty to the Army even if that goes against your emotional and personal feelings about the Soldier and the offense. If the Soldier deserves a chance to continue to serve do your homework...base it in fact and take your argument to the rating chain and reviewer.

6. We all make mistakes! The bottom line is you should be able to find justice by asking yourself a few questions:
a. Have I fulfilled my obligations as a leader to the Army?
b. Are my actions fair and just?
c. Is this the way I would want to be treated by my chain of command if the roles were reversed?
d. If this leader were leading my son/daughter into battle would I accept the decision of the chain of command to allow the Soldier to continue to serve as a reasonable decision?
e. If my son/daughter were the victim of the offense would I be satisfied with the decision/action of the chain of command?

WARNING WAR STORY----Keep in mind, AR 623-3 states NO ONE Can make you change your ratings and you cannot make them changer theirs. So the key it to be a team an compromise so the right message is sent on the evaluation report. That is what is right for the Army and for the Soldier. When I personally saw a potential injustice being done on an evaluation report (OER/NCOER) and I spoke to the rating chain I sometimes heard "You can't make me change my rating...I will go to the IG, JAG, etc"! My response was simple. "I have not pressured you, I have not directed, implied or demanded you change anything. I have ask you to look at the issue from a factual perspective and treat the Soldier like you would want to be treated and as your duty and responsibilities say you must treat the issues at hand".
Then I would sum it up this way. "So you absolutely believe you are applying the standard fairly in this evaluation report"? If they said "YES", I would say something like "Then you will have no problem with me applying the same standard to your evaluation report correct"?

It never failed the response was WHAT? Wait a minute, you can't do that? Are your threatening me? My response- "Absolutely not I am only saying I will hold you to the same standard you are holding your Soldier too. You stated your standard is fair and therefore you should have no problem meeting it".

In 100% of the cases the individual rating team Officers/NCOs alike came back to me usually a day or two later and said we thought about what you said and see your point we have made some adjustments. Usually I was later told "Hey CSM until you put it to me that way I did not see your point. Once you held me accountable and I thought about it...I saw that I was really angry at the Soldier, or felt the Soldier embarrassed me or let me down, and I was emotionally connected to the issue. Thanks for getting my attention.

Last but not least keep this in mind. Life is not fair! What happens to one Soldier may not happen to another Soldiers. Soldiers that get in trouble during a draw down are more likely to pay a higher prices than those that get in the same type of trouble during non drawn down years. I once heard it expressed this way- We are only retaining the best Soldiers and the best Soldiers don't get Article 15, are not fat, don't fail APFT, WPNS QUAL, etc. There is truth to that statement with an exception...the ability to impose UCMJ is very broad and sometime perhaps not the best choice for the infraction. In this case I believe UCMJ was most likely appropriate.

Finally all leaders have a different degree of what fair and just looks like- some are more lenient while others only believe in crushing a Soldier (funny these types usually want a lot of compassion for themselves when they are in trouble).

If you believe the Soldier deserves a chance to serve and take their chances with a retention or QMP board then you have a duty and responsibility to look at the facts, do your research, build your argument and present realistic solutions to the rating chain. Only you can decide what is appropriate. Do not let your emotions lead you. If you think through the issue I believe you will reach a decision you are comfortable with.

Remember you did not put the Soldier in this position. They put themselves in this position and ultimately it was their actions, choices, and decisions. I once had a Soldier say to me "CSM why are you all up in my personal business"? My response was "1SG, Trust me I have no desire to be in your personal life, but once your private life becomes public knowledge and is put on my desk based on your actions and choices you put me in your private life and that requires me to act. So if you don't want me in your private life I would suggest that you KEEP YOUR PRIVATE LIFE PRIVATE"!

Your questions shows your concern and compassion. There is no Right Answer here. There are hard choices you must make as a leader. We all learn through a process called experience and by sharing lessons learned.

Be factual, calm, professional, and honest. The answer will be appropriate in the end.

On a Separate note I host WWW.ASKTOP.NET with a panel of subject matter experts including legal SMEs. There are a lot of posts you might useful on this topic.

I you want to chat off line I am more than happy to do so. I hope you found this information useful and not a lecture.

Respectfully,
TOP

AskTOP.net - Leader Development for Army Professionals

Leader Development for Army Professionals

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 11:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:17:44 -0500

My advice (absent detail):
"No" box check in values under Honor. It is debatable for Selfless Service or Respect, but I think Honor captures it better. More than one is piling on. Bullet should be specific enough to eliminate any ambiguity about the reason for the box check. Something like -
o compromised his Honor by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, resulting in reduction

On the back of the report, I would give a NI-much in Leadership, again specifically detailing the issue and how it damaged the SM's ability to continue as a leader. Something like -
o removed from leadership position due to NJP under Article 134 - fraternization

Overall rating of Marginal is a judgment call that I'd make based on the details, but I would lean that way

The Senior Rater should probably enter a 4 in performance and a 4 or 5 in potential for promotion. He clearly shouldn't (and likely can't) be considered for promotion at this time.
Suggested bullets -
o potential for positions of greater responsibility is contingent upon swiftly learning from mistakes
o do not promote at this time; Soldier has demonstrated a lack of professionalism and concern for good order and discipline
o may be rehabilitated through consistent mentoring and focus on the mission at hand over personal advantage

It sounds harsh, but I have absolutely no tolerance for fraternization in my formation, particularly in a superior/subordinate situation. The way I have always put it:
If you engage in fraternization, the Senior Soldier can expect to match the junior Soldier's rank immediately prior to their forced transfer to another unit.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 7:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 07:58:36 -0500

Awesome Topic. I am normally pretty good at NCOER situations but this one I would have to read up on.

I would have to read the regulation again personally. I would scrub AR 623-3 and the DA PAM.

You are his rater though, what are the Senior Raters thoughts?

Finally I would seek advice from Seniors you know and not just Rally Point. Any CSM's and 1SG/MSG's

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 8:55 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:55:48 -0500

QMP is inevitable for him. His next NCOER is not 180 days away, rather 365 days from the Relief for Cause that is required right now. Anytime an NCO is reduced, a Relief for Cause is in conjunction with it, because he/she is being relieved of their current rank.

As far as the Army Values are concerned with the NCOER, NO is a definite for Honor and Integrity. Anytime anybody gets a no on any of the Values, Honor automatically gets one. Don't believe me? Honor is "lives up to the Army Values." It's a shame that this has to happen, but an example must be made to show that this behavior is not tolerable. That said, don't take the easy way out not do your duty.

The degree of NEEDS IMPROVEMENT really depends on the extent of the relationship and how long it went on for.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 9:19 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:19:41 -0500

Not sure if u have completed the deed as of yet...but he would need a RFC NCOER time he became an E5. His next NCOER would be due in 12 months if you are still his rater. When u dont have an option then you dont have an option do what the regulations tell you to do.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 10:40 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:40:05 -0500

SFC Jackson,
A RFC NCOER is most definitely what should happen. With him only having 11 years in, that doesn't mean that his military career is 100% over. QMP could happen, but there is a chance that it couldn't. It really all depends on if he can be rehabilitated or not (it's totally up to him). I commend you for wanting to take the time to work with him. I know it'll be a hard NCOER to write, but I also know that, if it were me, I wouldn't hold back on the bullets I put on there. I do agree that his punishment has already been imposed, but at the same time, his actions need to be reflected on his RFC NCOER. If it has to be harsh, then so be it. Because he did it to himself. I personally would dig into AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3 and seek the advise from my seniors. Good luck!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 12:45 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:45:18 -0500

I am curious if you are wanting to keep him in your unit. Are you considering having him transferred to a different unit? it would be very difficult for him to lead his current soldiers if they see that he has been reduced in rank.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 9:02 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 21:02:07 -0500

SFC Jackson, was the ART 15 placed in his permanent or restricted section? If it is restricted, I don't believe you are authorized to mention it at all for his NCOER. Please check this as I had to deal with a similar circumstance on reviewing an NCOER after administering UCMJ.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 5:32 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 05:32:30 -0500

SFC Josh Jackson, I admire your intent and this is never an enviable position. Some good posts already with some great idea, guidance and what must happen (especially from CSM Mark Gerecht and 1SG Private RallyPoint Member. Here's something for you to consider that was my philosophy when dealing with issues such as this, ingrained in me by my very best mentors and leaders over the years (seems they're the only ones that stay around to hear the whole story).

You want to help this NCO and that is admirable. But what happens next isn't about him. He had decisions, and no matter what the extenuating circumstances are, he did something wrong (in this case adultery, violating Army Values among others) and in sports terms, he "punted".

What that means is he forfeited his spot as to who the leadership must consider when determining the way ahead. Specifically, your desire to keep him around in a down-sizing Army -- even if you could overcome the many administrative hurdles -- will come at a cost to another NCO who may not have ever committed an infraction, or maybe not have had a misstep as serious as this. What about that NCO? Who can explain his separation to him, his family or his Platoon Sergeant when that young, albeit possibly unspectacular NCO gets separated while one who has not represented the NCO corps well gets his "second chance".

This isn't about zero defects. We all have made missteps and received punishment that was relatively light in terms of what could have happened. We live in today, so those that lament, "I know a guy who..." in terms of being allowed to serve with multiple infractions just doesn't help you out here.

This is about you knowing you did your best and if you sincerely care about this leader as a person, then as you replied in earlier posts, help him with transition. Refer him to me on Linked In and I'll mentor any way that I can. He does get a second chance, but not necessarily in the Army. And in no way should his second chance come at the expense of someone else who is still on their first chance.

Lastly, remember that as the rater (I assume), you comment on his performance. You will sign the document. How did he perform? Honestly; remember your reputation and your career is represented by your signature. Giving him the NCOER he earned doesn't dilute your commitment to helping his as a leader, mentor and possibly friend.

I hope this makes sense and helps out. I have always hated when good, compassionate leaders have this dilemma; often times, I do not think their efforts are appreciated by those they are trying the most to help.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Mar 11 at 2015 4:32 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 04:32:09 -0400

the truth.....no further obligation required

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2017 2:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:00:41 -0500

If the article 15 is restricted, can it be mentioned in the ncoer? Can the negative ncoer be restricted also.

Response by SPC Earl Semler made Oct 4 at 2018 4:41 PM

SPC Earl Semler — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:41:23 -0400

I think what this soldier did was inexcusable when you become a supervisor the first thing you learn is that you can be friendly with your subordinates but not friends. That is why you are transferred out of your old platoon so you don't have to supervise and evaluate your friends. To have a relationship with a subordinate especially an intimate one which this sounds like dishonors the rank and uniform. I don't believe that this won't occur again, but it does show a weakness in judgement and honor. How you address this will determine what you do in the future if it happens to someone else. So good luck in retraining this NCO as the Command did leave him in the NCO ranks take that as a guide.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Oct 4 at 2018 5:09 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:09:01 -0400

In my opinion, he will mostly likely be QMP. Some things you can soldier your way out but that is the exception. Best advise for him is to plan on becoming a civilian again and find a job.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 26 at 2019 6:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:44:51 -0400

I put a bullet on an NCOER that stated, "One time he did not meet Army Values." or something like that.

Response by PFC Bradley Campbell made Apr 27 at 2019 4:34 AM

PFC Bradley Campbell — Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:34:21 -0400

i rail on military life and it's ruin people mentality over bullshit.a shot at redemption is what all of us hope for. i dont think this is the kind of act to ruin a career.. however as an adult and leader he should know better. cultivate him and offer opportunities to rise above his mess. we are all humans and we all suffer from the dumbass syndrome. and we have had many a dumbass in uniform rise up and do great things. i reference ssg maynard harrison smith.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2019 10:08 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:08:16 -0400

Well damn that IS a problem. Actually I do not believe that we are in a draw down any longer. President Trump announced upon election his plans to restore the armed forces to a larger force capable of actually defending the nation against the likes of the Red China, Russia, N. Korea, and Iran.