APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of all officer evaluation reports (OER) covering the period 30 August 1979 through 10 December 1984 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the rank of CW3 in the Regular Army (RA).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the aforementioned OERs were rendered during his prior active service as a commissioned officer and the presence of them in his OMPF serves to create an unfair and unequal discriminator against him for promotion selection. He further states that the contested OERs were written at a time when the OER system was new and the standards were quite different. He goes on to state that his responsibilities as a commissioned officer aviator were far different and more complex than those of a warrant officer and that the more stringent rating criteria that was then in effect should not be compared to the present system or his current responsibilities. He also states that his warrant officer peers will have an OER history that is inflated and that when all of his OERs are compared to theirs, it creates a disadvantage for him. Consequently, the promotion board denied him a fair opportunity to present a true picture of his job performance as a warrant officer; therefore, the OERs should be removed from his records and he should be reconsidered for promotion to CW3.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 19 May 1979. He accepted an RA commission on 13 August 1979 and entered active duty as an infantry officer on 30 August 1979.
Shortly after entering active duty, he applied for and was accepted for rotary wing (helicopter) aviation training. He successfully completed his training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as an aviation section leader. He was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 August 1983.
On 10 December 1984, after requesting unqualified resignation and a USAR commission, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) in the rank of captain.
On 7 February 1990, the applicant accepted an appointment as a USAR warrant officer in the rank of WO1. On 30 March 1990 he was ordered to active duty for a period of 4 years as a USAR aviator in the rank of WO1. He was subsequently promoted to the rank of CW2 effective 21 March 1990.
On 23 October 1995, the applicant submitted a request for removal of the contested OERs and promotion reconsideration to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). He cited the same reasons for promotion reconsideration to the PERSCOM as he has cited to this Board. The PERSCOM informed the applicant that unless documents were improperly filed, they could not be removed from the OMPF without authorization from proper authorities. This Board was cited as a proper authority.
A review of the applicants OMPF reveals that the record of his commissioned service and warrant officer service are filed on the same microfiche. His warrant officer service picks up where his commissioned officer service left off. He was nonselected for promotion to CW3 during the fiscal year (FY) 1995 CW3 promotion selection board and will be again considered by the FY 1996 CW3 promotion selection board.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 prescribes policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the creation and maintenance of the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, that the OMPF custodian for Army commissioned and warrant officers is the Commander, PERSCOM. It further states that once started, the OMPF will be continued in use even if the soldier changes grade, changes Army component, enlists or reenlist within 24 hours after discharge, or changes status within an Army component. When a soldier reenters the Army after a break in service, the old OMPF will be sent from the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) to the appropriate OMPF custodian. The custodian may transfer all documents to a new OMPF or may continue to use the old OMPF, as appropriate. Additionally, when enlisted soldiers are appointed as commissioned or warrant officers, the performance fiche of their enlisted OMPF will not be provided to officer selection boards. However, when officers change their status to enlisted, their performance fiche (officer) may be provided to enlisted selection boards.
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. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. The applicants contention that his nonselection for promotion was the result of the presence of his commissioned officer OERs in his OMPF, is without merit. It is well known that promotion selection boards do not release the reasons for selection or nonselection. Therefore, the applicants contention is speculative at best and not supported by any evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
3. Accordingly, the presence of the applicants commissioned officer OERs in his OMPF is appropriate and in accordance with applicable regulations and there appears to be no good reason to remove them.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
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
David R. Kinneer
Executive Secretary
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005988C070206
The applicant provides a copy of her report of separation (DD Form 214), a copy of her OERs, her notification of release from active duty (REFRAD), her separation orders, her appointment memorandum, orders promoting her to chief warrant officer two (CW2), her officer record brief (ORB), the results of her appeal of three OERs to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), the results of her request for promotion reconsideration to the OSRB, and statements from three fellow warrant officers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016640
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be considered for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3)/pay grade W-3, by a promotion advisory board under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 CW3 Department of the Army Reserve Components Selection Board (DA RCSB) promotion criteria. Therefore, the officer may have a maximum time in grade date that is before the approval date of the promotion advisory board/special selection board that recommended the officer for promotion. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005330C070206
The applicant requests that he be reinstated as a warrant officer and promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3). Meanwhile, the applicant was selected for promotion to the rank of major; however, because he was serving as warrant officer, he could not accept the promotion. He was again nonselected for promotion before he had completed 1 year working as an engineer warrant officer, before he received an evaluation as a warrant officer, and before he was deemed eligible to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010519C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Board direct the Department of the Army to implement the Board’s previous decision to move a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an officer evaluation report (OER) to the restricted fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that she be granted promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the 2002, 2003, and 2004 promotion selection boards. While the applicable regulation does not provide for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081524C070215
The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a request to PERSCOM for promotion reconsideration by the FY98 LTC Chaplain Promotion Selection Board. The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a second request for promotion reconsideration. There is no evidence available to the Board which shows that the applicant's awards or decorations were removed from the ORB submitted to the FY99 promotion selection board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063444C070421
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051134C070420
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087117C070212
His counsel contends, in effect, that the imposing officer at the time, an active duty major general, now concludes that his actions against the applicant were in error and he fully supports the applicant's request for removal of the GOMOR from the applicant's OMPF. On 15 October 1998, a Department of the Army Promotion Review Board was convened to determine if the applicant should be removed from the promotion selection list. He also states that he has reviewed the events of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052662C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The chain of command endorsed the applicant’s request to the Board contending, in effect, that it was an injustice to not select the applicant for promotion and selective continuation. It states, in pertinent part, that commissioned and warrant officers who are twice nonselected for promotion will be involuntarily released from...