APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 14 December 1987-13 December 1988 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That derogatory information was used throughout the report to support the evaluation of “do not promote”.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 17 June 1982, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant, in the Army Reserve (USAR) and was promoted to first lieutenant effective 25 May 1985.

On 14 December 1987, he was ordered to active duty, for     3 years, as a Active Guard Reserve/USAR Personnel Staff Officer, military occupational specialty 42A (Adjutant General Officer).

On 11 April 1989, he received his OER for the period in question, which indicated that:

	a.  the applicant scored “six 1’s, five 2’s and three 3’s”, in the professional competence areas (part IV),

	b.  the rater marked the third performance block (met requirements” (part 5a),

	c.  the rater marked the third block (do not promote) (part 5d), and

	d.  the senior rater marked the fifth potential evaluation block (part VIIa).  He was fifth of 5 officers rated and positioned in the center of mass.

On 24 May 1989, he was promoted to captain.

On 22 June 1989, the applicant initiated an appeal of his OER.

On 11 and 23 October 1989, the OSRB contacted the rater, who indicated that the contested OER was accurate, fair and objective.  He provided examples of the applicant’s substandard performance.

On 11 October 1989, the OSRB contacted the senior rater, who indicated that the contested OER was accurate and fair; it was not too harsh; and, it was an objective evaluation of performance.  He indicated that he had considered the applicant’s lack of training when he rendered the OER and provided examples of his substandard performance.

On 10 January 1990, the Appeals Branch, US Army Reserve Personnel Center notified the applicant that the OSRB had determined the evidence he submitted did not justify altering his OER and that his appeal was denied.  In his denial, he was advised that he could apply to this Board for relief.

On 29 June 1990, the applicant made his request to this Board, using the same documentation he had used to appeal to the OSRB, in 1989.  For reasons unknown to this Board, his request was not received until 1995.

On 13 December 1990, he was released from his AGR tour, in the rank of captain.

Further details of the applicant’s military career, the contested OER, unsuccessful OER appeal and the rationale for denying his request are set forth in the case summary provided by the OSRB in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (COPY ATTACHED).

Facts relating to the applicant’s contention that the contested OER should be removed from the records are contained in an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) from the OSRB, which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated.  The OSRB opined that the applicant had failed to submit compelling countering arguments and evidence that would warrant alteration or deletion of the contested OER.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

3.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective an valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from his OMPF.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director