2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that he be reinstated to active duty, that his date of rank (DOR) be corrected, and that the senior rater (SR) profile on all of his officer evaluation reports (OER) be deleted.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged from the service during his first tour of active duty due to an incorrect DOR which caused him to be considered for promotion to the rank of major too early in his career.  He goes on to state that based on the conflicting message between the narrative portion of his OER’s and the SR profile which placed him below the center of mass (COM) on the SR’s profile, he was twice nonselected for promotion and subsequently discharged.  He further states that three different DOR’s appear on his five OER’s and that when the narrative portion of his OER’s are read and compared to the SR’s profile, they do not match.  He goes on to state that it is apparent that there is a problem with the OER system.  He also states that he was selected for conditional voluntary indefinite status which was subsequently revoked and that he received little or no notice that he was being discharged.  Additionally, he was separated without the benefit of a separation briefing informing him of his entitlements.  He continues by stating that he had to unfairly compete with officers who had more than one tour of duty and much more experience in different jobs than he had.  Furthermore, he enjoyed his career in the Army and hopes to be able to continue to do so in the future.  In support of his application the applicant submits copies of his OER’s and his separation documents.

4.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was unavailable for review by the Board.  However, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) shows that the applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 18 May 1979 and detailed as an engineer officer.  He continued to serve in a USAR troop program unit 
in Wisconsin until he was ordered to active duty.

5.  He was ordered to active duty as a USAR Dental Corps officer in the rank of captain on 23 February 1988 with a  3-year active duty service obligation.  He was given 6 years, 4 months, and 25 days of constructive service for date of rank purposes at the time he entered active duty.  His date of rank for captain was established as 28 September 1985.  Upon completion of his officer basic course he was transferred to Germany for duty as a dental officer.

6.  The applicant’s first OER (OER #1) was an initial OER covering the period 23 April 1988 through 20 August 1988.  In block VIIa, potential evaluation, the SR placed the applicant in the second block. (The SR potential evaluation portion of an OER contains nine blocks.  A rated officer’s placement in the top block determines that he possesses greater potential than an officer placed in the second through ninth blocks.)  Part VIIb contained nothing but favorable comments.

7.  The applicant’s second OER (OER #2) was an annual report covering the period 21 August 1988 through 20 August 1989.  In block VIIa, the SR (same as OER #1) placed the applicant in the third block.  

8.  The applicant’s third OER (OER #3) was a SR option report covering the period 21 August 1989 through 22 April 1990.  In block VIIa, the SR (same as OER #1 and #2) placed the applicant in the third block.  Again, Part VIIb contained nothing but favorable comments.

9.  The fourth OER (OER #4) was a change of rater report covering the period 23 April 1990 through 31 January 1991.  In block VIIa, the SR (different SR) placed the applicant in the second block.  This report also contained nothing but favorable comments.  

10.  The fifth OER (OER #5) was a release from active duty report covering the period 1 February 1991 through 24 October 1991.  In block VIIa, the SR (same as OER #4) placed the applicant in the third block.  Block VIIb contained nothing but favorable comments.

11.  On 19 March 1991 the applicant was notified by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that he had been nonselected for promotion to the rank of major and that the action to separate him was not meant to reflect unfavorably upon his faithful and loyal service. 

12.  On 4 May 1991 the applicant was notified by the PERSCOM that he had been selected for conditional voluntary indefinite (CVI) status.  The PERSCOM subsequently notified the applicant that his selection for CVI was an administrative error and that he was to be released from active duty no later than 1 October 1991.  However, the applicant submitted a request to separate in Europe which was not approved until 18 October 1991.

13.  The applicant was honorably discharged as a Regular Army officer on 22 October 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, section XVI, due to his failure of selection for permanent promotion.  He had served 3 years and 11 months, and 8 days of total active service and 7 years, 4 months, and 20 days of inactive service.

14.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever appealed to the Officer Special Review Board for a correction of the aforementioned OER’s.

15.  In the processing of this case, a review of the applicant’s case was performed by the Office of the Surgeon General which opined that the applicant’s constructive service and DOR were properly computed.

16.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn or replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at the time the OER was prepared.  

17.  Paragraph 4-11 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that Part II of the OER is for authentication by the rated officer and rating officials after each has completed his or her part of the form at the end of the rating period. The rated officers signature verifies the accuracy of the administrative data in Part I.  This action increases the administrative accuracy of the OER since the rated officer is most familiar with and interested in this information.  Confirmation of the administrative data will also normally preclude an appeal by the rated officer based on inaccurate administrative data, which by the exercise of due diligence by the rated officer would have been corrected.

18.  Paragraph 4-16, of the cited regulation discusses part VII of the OER, and explains how the SR profile is established and underscores its effect on the rated officer. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officer’s evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officer’s 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 SR’s history (profile).  This profile contains all OER’s rendered by the SR and accepted as correct by the Department for the rated officer’s grade or grade grouping.  The purpose of the profile is to place a rated officer’s OER in perspective by revealing the SR’s general rating tendency.  Part VIIb will contain the SR’s comments and will address the potential evaluation and the rated officer’s performance.

19.  Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation states that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.



CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record sufficient justification to warrant altering the OER’s as requested.

2.  In the narrative section of the SR’s portion of the OER, the SR comments on and evaluates an officer’s performance and potential, as he or she stands alone, without comparing him or her to other officers.  In the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER, the officer is compared to all officers previously evaluated by the SR in that particular rank.  Hence, the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER may often diverge from the narrative comments made by the SR.

3.  The Board believes that the appraisal of the applicant’s performance during the rating period represents the considered judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

4.  It appears, based on the available evidence, that the applicant’s date of rank (28 September 1985) was properly computed and that he was properly considered for promotion to the rank of major based on that date of rank.

5.  It also appears that the applicant was properly released from the service after being twice nonselected for promotion to the rank of major.

6.  However, the applicant was a USAR officer who was ordered to active duty and therefore should have been released from active duty and transferred to the appropriate USAR Control Group instead of being discharged as a Regular Army officer.  Therefore, his records should be corrected accordingly.

7.  Additionally, the applicant should receive any or all benefits he would have received, such as promotion consideration, had he been properly transferred to the USAR at the time of his separation from the service.

8.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

     a.  by voiding the 22 October 1991 Regular Army discharge of the individual concerned; and 

     b.  by showing that he was released from active duty as a USAR officer on 22 October 1991 and transferred to the appropriate USAR Control Group with entitlement to any and all benefits associated with assignment to the USAR.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON