APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his request to remove an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 2 March 1991 through 1 July 1991 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the contested OER should be removed because it was not prepared in accordance with the applicable regulation in that there is no indication on the report, as required by regulation, to show that an officer, junior in rank to himself, was authorized to rate him.  He goes on to state that he has since requested a copy of his rater’s promotion orders and discovered that his date of rank made him junior to himself and therefore ineligible to rate him, unless he had been appointed to command on duly constituted orders.

NEW EVIDENCE:  In support of his application he submits copies of his and his rater’s promotion orders indicating that the applicant has a date of rank which precedes that of his rater. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were incorporated in the Memorandum of Consideration prepared during the original review of his case.

The Board denied the applicant’s original application in a Memorandum of Consideration (COPY ATTACHED) on 17 May 1995.

In the processing of this case, a staff member contacted officials at the Montana Army National Guard to ascertain if the applicant’s rater had assumed command during the period in question.  A facsimile copy of the orders (COPY ATTACHED) authorizing the applicant’s rater to assume command during the contested period was provided to this Board on 26 September 1996.

Army Regulation 623-105 serves as the authority for the preparation of OER’s for members of the Army National Guard. Paragraph 8-10 states, in pertinent part, that when a rater in a command position rates an officer who is of the same grade, but senior in date of rank to the rater, a copy of the assignment-to-command order will be attached as an enclosure to the rated officer’s report and annotated in part IIh.
   
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Although the applicant is correct in his assertion that the required orders were not included with the contested OER, his contention that the OER is invalid for the same reason is without merit.

2.  The absence of the assumption of command order by the rater is simply an administrative error that has no bearing on the ratings rendered by the rating chain and can be remedied by a simple administrative correction to the contested OER and addition of the order to his OMPF.  Consequently, there is no basis to remove the OER from the applicant’s OMPF.

3.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that an error or injustice exists in his case.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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

NOTE:  The Commander, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) will be requested to administratively correct the applicant’s records by indicating in part IIh of the contested OER that an enclosure to the OER exists.  Additionally, orders number 048-002, dated 7 March 1991 will be placed beside the contested report on the applicant’s OMPF as an enclosure to the report.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director