APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 11 May 1985 through 10 May 1986 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he witnessed the unit administrator prepare the contested report and sign the rater’s signature. At that time, he questioned the unit administrator and was informed that as the unit administrator it was necessary for him to sign OER’s in order to meet suspenses.  The applicant further states, that as a second lieutenant, he was not comfortable with pursuing the issue because he was afraid of the repercussions, and he did not want to be perceived as a troublemaker; especially since this was a common practice within the unit and no one else would provide a statement, essentially for the same reasons.  He goes on to state that he has obtained a copy of the unit administrator’s signature and a comparison of his signature clearly shows that the rater (unit commander) did not sign the report;  however, after contacting the rater, he was unable to get the unit commander to verify that his signature had been forged.  In support of his application, he submits statements from other members of the unit who were present during the period of the contested report. 

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

The applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 11 May 1985.

The contested OER is an annual report covering the period 11 May 1985 through 10 May 1986, evaluating him as a technical supply platoon leader of a USAR unit in San Antonio, Texas.  The report was not an adverse report and as such was not referred to him.  The applicant signed the report on 20 May 1986.

On 9 January 1989 the applicant was ordered to active duty in the rank of first lieutenant.  He has remained on active duty and was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 June 1991.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

The two supporting statements submitted by the applicant indicate that the two individuals were assigned to the same unit as the applicant during the contested period and that they were aware that the unit administrator routinely signed documents using the commander’s signature.  

In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted the rater of the contested report regarding the applicant’s contention that his signature had been forged.  The rater indicated that the applicant had provided him a copy of the report and after reviewing the report, he could not say with any certainty that he did or did not sign the contested report.  He also indicated that he barely remembered the applicant.

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.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that the rater’s signature was forged on the contested OER, he has failed to show that the ratings and comments on the OER were unwarranted.

2.  Inasmuch as the rater cannot confirm that that he did not sign the contested report and the applicant has not provided evidence to repudiate the contents of the report, there is no basis to remove the report from his records.

3.  While the third party statements support the applicant’s contentions that the unit administrator was known to sign the unit commander’s signature in his absence, they do not address the specific issue at hand, that being that the unit administrator signed the contested report without the commander’s knowledge or permission, and that the contents of the report were in error or were inaccurate.

4.  His contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently supported by the evidence of his application.  He has not shown that he was not rated properly or that the rating procedures were violated.  He has failed to overcome the presumption that the contested OER is administratively correct, that it was prepared by the properly designated officials, and that it represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		David R. Kinneer
		Executive Secretary