2. The applicant requests correction of his military records by removing the entire senior rater portion (Part VII (Senior Rater)) of his officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 9 July 1993 through 7 July 1994. Also, he requests that his records be reconsidered for promotion to the rank of colonel (O-6). 3. On 5 June 1974, he accepted an appointment in the Regular Army, in the rank of second lieutenant, after graduating from West Point Military Academy. 4. The applicant was serving, in the rank of lieutenant colonel, as a battalion commander at Fort Knox, Kentucky, during the period covered by the contested OER (change of rater). 5. He completed the Armor Officer Basic course during the period 5 June through 7 November 1974. He completed the Armor Officer Advanced Course during the period 19 June 1978 through 15 March 1979. He completed and exceeded the course standards, was an Honor Graduate, and placed on the Commandant’s List for the Supply Management Officer Course during the period 15 March through 20 July 1979. He completed the Air Command and Staff College Course as a “Top 1/3d Graduate” during the period 3 June 1985 through 6 June 1986. He attended and completed the U.S. Army War College during the period 8 July 1994 through 10 June 1995. 6. Through the periods 8 November 1974 through 24 September 1979, the applicant received the following OER scores (maximum score was 200): 184, 186, 190, 192, 198, 199, 198, and 200. The following is the remainder of the applicant’s OER history. The rating system depicted below has six entries: the first two entries are derived from the rater performance and potential blocks, expressed in Roman numerals, with I the highest and V the lowest; the last four entries are derived from the senior rater potential evaluation (senior rater profile), with the third entry reflecting the applicant's standing in a bell-shaped distribution pattern of 100 officers of the same grade (i.e. top, top two through eight, and bottom), and the fourth through sixth entries portraying, respectively, the number of officers ranked above, equal to, and below the applicant. Period Duty Position Rating 25 Sep 79-30 May 80 Battalion S-4 I/I/Top/0/1/0 30 May 80-17 Oct 80 “ I/I/Top/0/5/0 16 Oct 80-13 Mar 81 “ I/I/Top/0/6/1 14 Mar 81-15 Oct 81 Company Commander I/I/Top/0/26/26 16 Oct 81- 2 Jun 82 “ I/I/Top/0/4/38 3 Jun 82- 2 Jun 83 Assistant I/I/Top/0/2/6 Professor of Military Science 3 Jun 83- 2 Jun 84 “ I/I/Top2/1/1/0 3 Jun 84- 2 Jun 85 “ I/I/Top2/9/14/8 7 Jun 86- 6 Jun 87 Support Operations I/I/Top/0/1/5 Officer 7 Jun 87-10 Dec 87 “ I/I/Top/0/7/7 11 Dec 87-10 Dec 88 Battalion I/I/Top/0/6/20 Executive Officer 11 Dec 88-10 Dec 89 “ I/I/Top/0/18/32 11 Dec 89-14 Jun 90 ACofS, G3 I/I/Top/0/4/3 Operations Officer 15 Jun 90-13 Jun 91 Operations Officer I/I/Top2/1/3/1 14 Jun 91-31 Oct 91 HQDA System I/I/Top/0/35/109 Itegrator 1 Nov 91-31 Jan 92 “ I/I/Top/0/42/104 1 Feb 92-29 Jun 92 HQDA Staff Officer I/I/Top/0/28/12 30 Jun 92-14 Jan 93 Squadron Commander I/I/Top/0/5/2* 15 Jan 93- 8 Jul 93 Battalion I/I/Top/0/26/4 Commander 9 Jul 93- 7 Jul 94 “ I/I/Top2/21/15/1** _________ *The senior rater on the contested OER was the intermediate rater on this OER. **The contested OER. 7. During his military career, the applicant has received the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (Third Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Achievement Medal (Second Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Expert (Pistol). 8. On 11 August 1995, the applicant’s initial appeal of 25 June 1995 of his contested OER, in which he requested removal of the senior rater profile, was reviewed by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB)in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Personnel (DCSPER). The OSRB determined that there was not sufficiently convincing evidence that Part VIIa of the contested OER was inaccurate and did not adequately reflect the applicant’s potential, and that the report should not be amended. Denial of the appeal was recommended. 9. On 18 August 1995, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) advised the applicant that the information that he submitted and his official records were reviewed by that headquarters and referred to the OSRB; that the OSRB determined that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the report; that a request for reconsideration was authorized only upon presentation of new substantive evidence; and that he could apply to this Board. 10. On 16 January 1996, the applicant submitted his second appeal of the contested OER indicating that he was discriminated against on the basis of race. 11. On 9 February 1996, the PERSCOM advised the applicant that his appeal correspondence was “Previewed” to the DCSPER OSRB to determine if there was sufficient evidence to warrant review by that board; that his appeal was returned by that board as unacceptable indicating that the burden of proof was upon the applicant not the OSRB to prove that an evaluation report was unjust; that his claim of racial discrimination was not supported with convincing evidence, only his self-authorized statement; and for that reason his appeal was returned without action. He was advised that he could apply to this Board. 12. A staff member of the Board was informally advised by the authorities at the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office that the applicant has made a senior rater official allegation against a general officer, which is being processed. Since the applicant made no protected disclosures, he does not qualify under the Military Whistleblower Protection provisions. Upon completion of their action, the applicant may apply under the Freedom of Information Act for release of the information. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON