2. The applicant seeks reconsideration of his request that the senior rater evaluation of his potential (block VIIa) on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 890703-900512 be corrected by moving the block check from the second to the first block, or by deleting the block check altogether. He contends that this report indicates a decline in his performance and is the cause of his nonselection to lieutenant colonel.
3. The applicant, now a major, was a captain serving as a company commander of a Personnel Service Company in Germany at the time of the contested OER. His unit provided personnel support to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) and the Fulda, Bad Hersfeld, and Wildflecken military communities. He received one previous OER as a company commander from the same chain of command. In that report (890730-900729), he was rated in the top block for potential by his senior rater.
4. The applicant appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). In a case summary dated 24 January 1994, the OSRB denied his appeal. The OSRB contacted the applicants rater and senior rater. The rater (battalion commander) stated that she considered the applicant to be an above average officer and, of her six company commanders, he was not #1, but he was not #6 either. The senior rater (Corps Adjutant General) stated that the applicant was an average performer and that his second evaluation of the his potential was lower because the applicants performance changed over time. He stated that he called the applicant on a weekend about a problem in the 11th ACR and got the distinct impression that the applicant was more interested in staying home than in going to the office to fix the problem.
5. The applicant next appealed to this Board. His application was reviewed, and denied, on 24 July 1996. The Board cited the senior raters explanation to the OSRB as the deciding factor in its denial. The senior raters insistence that the applicant was merely an average performer and that his performance declined in his second year of command [as witnessed by a decline in satisfaction on the part of the 11th ACR commander] persuaded the Board to recommend that the report be allowed to stand as written.
6. The applicant provides letters of support from various persons knowledgeable of his performance during the period in question. The commander of the 11th ACR (then a colonel, now a lieutenant general) wrote that the applicant always provided the best personnel support and indicated that he (the 11th ACR commander) was never dissatisfied with it. He added that the applicant was one of the five best company commanders in the 11th ACR area. Letters from battalion commanders in supported units indicate that the applicants unit was always responsive and never failed to support their units. Finally, the applicants own battalion commander wrote that he was a good commander and there was no downturn in his performance as a company commander, nor was there ever a complaint from the 11th ACR commander regarding support. The rater added that the comment that the applicant was not #1, but not #6 either [among her company commanders] ascribed to her by the OSRB was not an accurate representation of what she said or her opinion of the applicant. Finally, several letters state that there was little face-to-face contact between the applicant and the senior rater.
7. Army Regulation (AR) 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, 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. 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 received two OERs while a company commander in Germany. Because the second report [the contested OER] contains a lower senior rating for potential in Block VIIa than the first report, it may be viewed as indicating a downturn in performance.
2. The senior rater, in his comments to the OSRB, indicated that the applicants performance had fallen off during his second year in command and cited as an example his [the senior raters] perception that personnel support to the 11th ACR had declined.
3. The applicant provided numerous letters of support from commanders in the 11th ACR, including a letter from the regimental commander, which categorically refute any contention that the applicants unit failed to provide anything short of the finest in personnel support. The applicants rater stated in a letter that she never received a single complaint from the 11th ACR commander or his subordinate commanders.
4. The Board finds that the applicant has produced evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumption of regularity referred to in AR 623-105, and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.
5. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest of justice and equity, it would, therefore, be appropriate to correct the applicants records as indicated below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by removing the senior rater block check and profile from Block VIIa of the contested OER;
b. by inserting in the records of the individual concerned an appropriate nonprejudicial statement explaining the absence of the aforementioned senior rater profile; and
c. by placing the corrected records of the individual concerned before a special selection board for consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel.
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, including all previous appeals, be returned to this Board for permanent filing.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607830C070209
The applicant also submitted a statement from the SR of the contested report which indicates that he (the SR) made a serious administrative error by placing the applicant in the third block instead of the second block. The SR rated the applicant as a top block COM officer both prior to and subsequent to the contested report. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by changing the SR evaluation in part VIIa on the OER ending on 22...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511419C070209
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. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511834C070209
The applicant states that the OER in question is in error because his SR at the time, indicated that he was restarting his profile with a 2 block COM and that he would be the first officer rated under the new profile. The two officers also indicated that the applicants performance was outstanding and that the applicant was favored by the SR. One of the officers indicated that he witnessed the applicant going in to inform the SR of the problem with his SR profile and was informed by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610252C070209
The OSRB contacted officials at the PERSCOM to determine if the SR had submitted a request to correct the contested OER and was informed that there was no record of such a request. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officers potential with all other officers of the same grade rated by the SR. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608908C070209
The OSRB contacted the SR to ascertain why the SR had placed the applicant in the second block and to determine if he had mistaken the applicant for someone else. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officers 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 SRs rating history (profile).
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605973C070209
The second (contested) OER was his final OER in command and the same senior rater placed him in the second block for potential and said that he had the potential to serve as a lieutenant colonel as A future Bn S3 or XO. Facts relating to the applicant's contention that the contested OER should be removed from the records are contained in an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) from the OSRB. In June 1995, the applicant appealed the contested OER to the OSRB stating that he was rated below...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002613
The applicant provides a copy of the contested OER; a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 4 February 2009; his OER appeal memorandum, dated 13 January 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from his former senior rater, dated 24 November 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from a former senior rater, dated 12 January 2009; and an OER appeal supporting statement from his current battalion commander, dated 13 January 2008 [sic], in support of his request. He provided the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011201
On the OER located in his official military personnel file (OMPF), the senior rater checked the "fully qualified" block in Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) and not the "best qualified" block as he intended to do. The applicant provides the second page to the contested OER wherein it shows that none of the blocks in Part VIIa of the OER were checked. After reviewing the contested OER, his copy of the OER, and the applicant's follow-on OER...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711770
APPLICANT STATES : That he appealed to have these two reports removed from his file in 1987 because (1) his signature had been forged on the report ending 12 September 1981, (2) both reports incorrectly asserted that he had been given the opportunity to submit an OER support form, and (3) both the rater and senior rater marked his reports down due to a misunderstanding of Army policy, which required them to show due regard of an officer’s current grade, experience, and military schooling. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610422C070209
The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 1 October 1991 through 1 September 1992, by deleting Part VIIa (Senior Rater (SR) profile); removal from his records of the documents prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denying his appeal of the OER; and promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by all boards that nonselected him. A review of the subsequent OER received by the applicant from the same SR shows that...