APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of three officer evaluation reports (OER) covering the periods from 19 October 1985 through 26 July 1986 (OER #1), from 4 June 1987 through 15 May 1988 (OER #2), and from 1 May 1990 through 5 November 1990 (OER #3), and promotion reconsideration to the rank of major. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That the contested reports are unjust and are not indicative of his performance during the rated periods.  Furthermore, they may be the cause of his nonselection for promotion to major.  He goes on to state that the ratings he received in part IVa, OER #1 were unjust and are contradicted by the comments contained in the report. He contends that the three “2” ratings he received should all be changed to “1”.  He further states that OER #2 is also unjust and is totally contradictory to his performance and the supporting comments contained in the report.  He contends that the rating he received in part V, indicating that he “usually exceeded requirements” should be corrected to reflect that he “always exceeded requirements”.  He explains by stating that he was never counseled by his rater nor given any reason to believe that his rater was dissatisfied in any way with his performance.  He also states that OER #3 is administratively incorrect in that he did not serve as a detachment commander for the entire period of the report and the senior rater (SR) profile does not accurately portray his performance or potential, as evidenced by the supporting statement from his SR indicating that it was not his intent to portray him as a below center of mass (COM) officer.  He continues by stating that he received his copy of OER #3 while attending the special forces qualification course.  After graduating from the course, he contacted the SR and made an appointment to see his SR.  When he confronted the SR with the report and informed him that he did not agree with the report, he became aware that the SR was unaware of his profile.  The SR apologized for the error and has subsequently admitted that he lost control of his profile.  In support of his application the applicant submits 15 letters of support and numerous other documents detailing his accomplishments.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 12 May 1984 and ordered to active duty on 16 July 1985.  He accepted a Regular Army appointment on 23 April 1987 while serving in the rank of first lieutenant and was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 January 1990.

OER #1 was the first OER the applicant received as a second lieutenant.  It covered the period 19 October 1985 through 26 July 1986 and evaluated him as a communications platoon leader of a field artillery battery in Korea.  In part IVa of the OER, professional competence (where on a scale of one to five, one is a high degree and five is a low degree), his rater assigned one’s in all but three of the 14 blocks.  In block one (Possesses capacity to acquire knowledge/grasp concepts), block two (Demonstrates appropriate knowledge and expertise in assigned tasks), and block four (Motivates, challenges and develops subordinates), where his rater assigned him two’s.  The report was not considered adverse and as such was not referred to him.  The applicant has never appealed this OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

The supporting documents submitted by the applicant in support of OER #1 include a statement from his SR indicating that the applicant’s performance was outstanding and that the battery commander did not perform to his (the SR’s) expectations.  He also indicated that he discussed the inconsistencies on the contested report with the rater and the rater refused to change the report.  The applicant also submits three additional statements from fellow officers who contend that the applicant’s performance was outstanding.

OER #2 was a change of rater OER covering the period 4 June 1987 through 15 May 1988, evaluating him as a communication support platoon leader of a special forces group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  In part IVb, performance and potential evaluation, his performance during the rated period was rated by his rater as having “Usually exceeded requirements”.  (The performance rating portion of the OER contains five blocks and relates to the requirements of the duty position ranging from “Usually failed requirements” to “Always exceeded requirements”.)  The rater recommended that the applicant be promoted ahead of his contemporaries.  The comments indicate that the applicant excelled in all areas of his assigned and additional duties and that he had demonstrated the potential for performance in the higher grades.  There is no evidence that the applicant appealed the OER to the OSRB.

The supporting statements submitted by the applicant in support of OER #2 include a letter from his SR which indicates that he did not remember the applicant having received a “Usually exceeded requirements” ratings.  However, had he caught it, he would have questioned the rater because he was not aware of any instances where the rater was dissatisfied with the applicant’s performance.  The SR further indicates that the applicant exceeded all the requirements placed before him and fully demonstrated the potential to serve with distinction at higher grades.  The applicant also submitted statements from the group commander, a fellow officer, and two NCO’s who all agree that the applicant exceeded all of the requirements placed before him.

OER #3 was a change of rater OER covering the period 1 May 1990 through 5 November 1990 evaluating the applicant as a detachment commander of a special forces signal detachment at Fort Bragg.  The SR (a lieutenant colonel) placed the applicant in the second block of part VIIa, the potential evaluation portion of the OER.  This placed the applicant below the COM on the SR’s profile (two officers were in the top block and one officer, the applicant, was 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.)  The comments in part VIIb were favorable.  

The applicant appealed OER #3 to the OSRB on 19 November 1991 contending that the OER was inaccurate and did not properly reflect his performance.  In support of his application, he submitted a statement from his SR in which the SR indicated that it was his intent to place the applicant “with the pack”, but due to the sequencing of his OER, his profile did not turn out that way.

The applicant also submitted statements from his rater and group commander who both attests that they would have placed the applicant above the COM.

The OSRB determined that the contested OER was one of three OER’s rendered by the SR over a 2-month period and that he had not established a “pack” (COM).  Therefore, there was no COM the SR could have placed him in.  The OSRB denied his request.

The current supporting statements submitted by the applicant in support of OER #3 include a statement from his SR indicating that it was his intent to portray the applicant as a COM officer; however, the sequencing of his OER’s did not reflect him as such.  He also submits statements from a chaplain and two NCO’s who also contend that the applicant’s performance was outstanding.

On 20 June 1996, with the release of the approved major’s competitive category promotion selection list, the applicant was notified that he was twice nonselected for promotion to the rank of major.

Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide than 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 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.

Paragraph 4-16 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 rating 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.

Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation also 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 error or inaccuracy is warranted.

Army Regulation 623-105 also states, in pertinent part, that statements from rating officials often reflect retrospective thinking, or second thoughts.  As a result, claims by rating officials that they did not intend to evaluate as they did will not, alone, serve as the basis for altering or withdrawing a report.

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.  The contested reports appear to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the periods in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for altering the reports.

2.  The applicant’s contentions in regards to OER #1, as well as the supporting statements have been noted by the Board.  However, it is apparent that the rater had a reason for rating the applicant as he did, especially since the SR admits that he questioned the rater about the rating and the rater refused to change it.  Given the amount of time that has elapsed and the absence of evidence to explain otherwise, it must be presumed that the contested report is a valid appraisal of the applicant’s performance as viewed by his rater at the time.

3.  While the supporting statements in regards to OER #2 are complimentary of the applicant’s performance, they do not address or provide an explanation of why the rater chose to rate the applicant as he did.  Given the amount of time that has elapsed and the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must also be presumed that OER #2 was a valid appraisal of the applicant’s performance as viewed by his rater.

4.  Notwithstanding the SR’s declaration of error in OER #3, the Board is not convinced that it was his intent to place the applicant in the top block.  The SR’s comments that the sequencing of his reports caused the applicant to fall below the COM of his profile appear to be without merit since his profile for captains indicates that he had only rendered three OER’s over a 2-month period, a figure that would seem to be very manageable.

5.  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.  Hence, the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER may often diverge from the narrative comments made by the SR.

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

7.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		David R. Kinneer
		Executive Secretary