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 1s, five 2s and three 3s, 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607830C070209
The applicant also submitted a statement from the SR of the contested report which indicates that he (the SR) made a serious administrative error by placing the applicant in the third block instead of the second block. The SR rated the applicant as a top block COM officer both prior to and subsequent to the contested report. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by changing the SR evaluation in part VIIa on the OER ending on 22...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003644
The applicant requests that Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the periods ending on 4 May 1989 and 6 August 1989 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). However, evidence of record shows the IG considered allegations made by the applicant against his SR and could not substantiate any of those within its purview. The evidence of record supports the applicant's contention that there are "different sets" of the contested OERs.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711770
APPLICANT STATES : That he appealed to have these two reports removed from his file in 1987 because (1) his signature had been forged on the report ending 12 September 1981, (2) both reports incorrectly asserted that he had been given the opportunity to submit an OER support form, and (3) both the rater and senior rater marked his reports down due to a misunderstanding of Army policy, which required them to show due regard of an officer’s current grade, experience, and military schooling. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002613
The applicant provides a copy of the contested OER; a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 4 February 2009; his OER appeal memorandum, dated 13 January 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from his former senior rater, dated 24 November 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from a former senior rater, dated 12 January 2009; and an OER appeal supporting statement from his current battalion commander, dated 13 January 2008 [sic], in support of his request. He provided the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606408C070209
The raters narrative comments on her performance and potential were complimentary and he placed her in the usually exceeded requirements block (the second highest rating). (The senior rater potential evaluation portion of an OER contains nine blocks. The applicant has not established a basis for removal of the contested OERs nor has she shown that her case merits reconsideration for promotion to the grade of major.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608428C070209
The applicant states that the contested OER is administratively inaccurate because it contains the comment [Applicant] is being released from active duty due to a second time non-selection for major in part Ve, and because it was not referred to her as an adverse report based on the SR having placed her in the fifth block of part VIIa, under potential evaluation. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610391C070209
The contested OER is a relief for cause report for the period 14 December 1992 through 18 May 1993. The applicant appealed the OER in question to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) on 24 August 1994. The statement from the show cause board member (a colonel) indicates that all of the board members (colonels) unanimously decided without reservation that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the applicant, that there were no attempts by his rating chain to investigate the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088782C070403
Paragraph 3-32 of Army Regulation 623-105 states in part, referred reports will be given to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before they are sent to Headquarters Department of the Army. Any report with a senior rater promotion potential evaluation of “Do not Promote” in Part VIIa or narrative comments to that effect from the senior rating official.Paragraph 1-15 of Army Regulation 623-105 provides that a rated officer may request a CI. d. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608908C070209
The OSRB contacted the SR to ascertain why the SR had placed the applicant in the second block and to determine if he had mistaken the applicant for someone else. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officers potential with all other officers of the same grade rated by the SR. The Department of the Army then uses the reports to record the SRs rating history (profile).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004886
Through a State Representative, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his two earlier petitions requesting the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the periods ending on 4 May 1989 and 12 October 1989, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and his reinstatement on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. In a letter to his State Representative, the applicant states, in effect, that...