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 raters 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 raters 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 applicants 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 applicants rater had assumed command during the period in question. A facsimile copy of the orders (COPY ATTACHED) authorizing the applicants 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 OERs 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 officers 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants OMPF as an enclosure to the report.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003111
The applicant requests removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 October 2009, and a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report OER)) for the period 1 May 2009 through 1 February 2010 (20090501 thru 20100201, hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (also known as Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). c. Procedural background: (1) On 8 July 2011, the applicant submitted an appeal to the DASEB, requesting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018084
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests removal or transfer of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)), dated 8 October 2011; letter of reprimand (LOR), dated 22 October 2011; and referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER) that are filed in the performance section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). On 8 October 2011, while holding the rank of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001307
The applicant requests removal of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)), for the rating period 1 July 2007 through 31 May 2008, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). (b) In the contested OER, his rater stated that he was counseled in writing due to his sub-standard performance. (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed a checkmark in the "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" block.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014969
The SR stated he provided performance counseling to the applicant on what is required to be successful in the next period. On 2 September 1998, the applicant submitted comments to the contested OER. In response to comments in Part Vc of the contested OER, the applicant stated none of his stated performance objectives and contributions on his OER support form for the rating period were mentioned in the OER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072561C070403
Member The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She goes on to state that when she requested to see her senior rater (commanding general) in regards to being given a reprimand by her rater (battalion commander), her rater was essentially boxed into a corner at the time he himself was due an OER by the same SR. She also states that she was given the adverse report in March 2001 for a period that ended in June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005319
In Part IV (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism) of the OER, the rater, a CPT, evaluated the applicant as indicated: a. However, there is insufficient evidence to support removal of the two OERs in question. The evidence of record in this case fails to show the applicant requested a commander's inquiry or appealed these reports to the OSRB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018356
The applicant requests, in effect, a. a "Complete the Record" Officer Evaluation Report (OER) he received for the period 3 December 2008 through 18 [sic] July 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested report) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and replaced with a corrected OER; b. correction of his military record to reflect all of his active federal service; and c. promotion with his peers. The applicant states: a. the contested report shows he was evaluated by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002378
If the applicant felt his professional duties required contact with one of those individuals, the applicant was to contact his supervisor or the CG prior to contacting the individual regarding why he believed he needed to speak with that individual. c. Paragraph 2-19 states that when an officer is officially relieved of duties and a relief-for-cause report is subsequently prepared (paragraph 3-58), relief-for-cause reports require referral to the rated officer. The evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022048
He goes on to state that the issue in his case is one of standardization because he was not given the same material to study that the other pilots were given in advance of the no-notice test and he was the only one who failed and was required to undergo extensive training before being returned to readiness level 1. The statement from the 11th Aviation Regiment standardization officer is a third-party statement in which the officer opines that the commanders actions of reducing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077461C070215
The office did not have then nor did it later have any rating scheme indicating that COL B___ was the applicant's rater or that COL W___ was the applicant's senior rater. The Board notes that AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant's OER appeal in part because he did not provide original or certified copies of his published rating scheme. That the contested OER for the period 7 July 1993 - 31 January 1994, wherein COL B___ was the applicant's rater and COL W___ was the senior rater, be removed...