2.  The applicant requests that Part VIIa, the senior rater profile, be deleted from the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) which he received for the period 910510 through 910901.

3.  The applicant contends that the senior rater profile is not indicative of his duty performance or his demonstrated potential during the rating period.  He states that he was rated in Block #1 by the same senior rater for the preceding 12 months in the same position, that of battalion operations officer (S-3).  Although his job performance was consistent, he was rated in Block #2 on the contested 4 month report.  He provides letters of support from his battalion commander, commanders of sister battalions, and the assistant division commander.  He also provides his OER support form listing his accomplishments during the period.

4.  The applicant is an infantry major with 16 years of service, having received a Regular Army appointment from the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, in June 1979.  His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) reflects a strong file of consistently above center of mass senior ratings in Part VIIa, including 5 company command OER’s covering 40 months and three separate commands.

5.  At the time of the contested OER, the applicant was a major serving as an infantry battalion S-3.  His rater was his battalion commander and his senior rater was his brigade commander.  The battalion commander gave the applicant a glowing evaluation, recommending him for accelerated promotion and early command of a battalion.  The senior rater called him a superb officer who “. . . should be promoted immediately and selected for command” adding that “He will be an exceptional commander.”  In his senior rater profile, the brigade commander placed the applicant in Block #2 with 10 officers rated above him, 13 officers rated with him, and none rated below him.

6.  The applicant received a 12 month OER as the battalion S-3 immediately before the contested report.  In that OER, the battalion commander (a different rater) had high praise for his performance and potential and recommended him for early promotion and battalion command.  The same senior rater said the applicant was a “superb officer,” who should be selected for promotion ahead of his peers and “. . . is a must for battalion command.”  He placed him in Block #1 of his senior rater profile with none above him, 3 with him, and 6 below him.

7.  The applicant attempted to talk with the senior rater about the contested OER, but said the senior rater was in the process of relinquishing command and could only spare a short time following his change of command ceremony.  The applicant chose instead to write to the senior rater.  In his memorandum, dated 6 March 1992, he informed the senior rater that his [applicant’s] career managers had told him that he would never command a battalion because of the contested OER.  He reminded the senior rater of his accomplishments during the contested period and that he had extended his tour of duty with the senior rater’s brigade by 40 days at the senior rater’s request in order to receive the contested report.  He asked that the senior rater support removing the block check in Part VIIa.  The applicant claims he never received a response to his memorandum.

8.  The applicant appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).  In addition to his self-authored statement, he provided statements from his rater (the infantry battalion commander), a cavalry squadron and an armor battalion commander within the brigade, and the assistant division commander of the division to which the brigade was assigned.  All said that the applicant was an outstanding officer and could not understand why the senior rater placed him in Block #2 of his profile.  The OSRB contacted the senior rater.  The senior rater clearly recalled the applicant and his manner of performance and stated that the placement of the applicant in Block #2 of his senior rater profile was based on a general change in his [senior rater’s] perception regarding the applicant’s potential.  He could cite no specific examples, but remained firm in his assessment that there was a perceptible decline in the applicant’s performance.  The OSRB denied the applicant’s appeal stating that the applicant had not overcome the presumption of regularity associated with reports processed at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA).

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  From a purely technical standpoint, the contested OER was prepared by the properly designated rating officials, presumed to be administratively correct when accepted by HQDA, and properly filed in the applicant’s performance fiche of his OMPF.

2.  The applicant is a career soldier with an exceptionally strong OMPF consisting of above center of mass OER’s with the exception of the contested report which is center of mass.

3.  His battalion commander, the commanders of his sister battalions within the brigade, and the assistant division commander all state that the applicant did an outstanding job as battalion S-3 during the period of the contested report and cannot understand why the brigade commander rated him in the second block.  The applicant claims that he remained in the brigade past his reassignment date at the request of the senior rater in order to receive one final report for his OMPF.

4.  The senior rater’s narrative comments called the applicant “superb” and recommended him for early promotion and battalion command selection.  These comments were not consistent his placement of the applicant in Block #2 of the senior rater profile, a  block which the senior rater reserved for average officers.  It is inconceivable that the senior rater would recommend an average officer for early promotion and battalion command.  When pressed by the OSRB to explain what led him to perceive a downturn in the applicant’s performance, the senior rater could not recall.

5.  Notwithstanding the OSRB case summary which finds the contested OER to be a fair and valid appraisal of the applicant’s performance and potential, the Board concludes that the block check in Part VIIa of the contested report is inconsistent with the senior rater narrative comments, the same comments used by the senior rater when placing the applicant in Block #1 on the preceding OER.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s contested OER by deleting Part VIIa in its entirety.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by deleting from the records of the individual concerned the senior rater block check and profile from Part VIIa of the contested report.

2.  That, in accordance with paragraph 21e, Army Regulation 15-185, following completion of the administrative corrections directed herein, the proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this appeal be removed from the OMPF of the individual concerned and returned to this Board for permanent filing.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON