APPLICANT REQUESTS: Removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 11 May 1985 through 10 May 1986 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That he witnessed the unit administrator prepare the contested report and sign the raters signature. At that time, he questioned the unit administrator and was informed that as the unit administrator it was necessary for him to sign OERs in order to meet suspenses. The applicant further states, that as a second lieutenant, he was not comfortable with pursuing the issue because he was afraid of the repercussions, and he did not want to be perceived as a troublemaker; especially since this was a common practice within the unit and no one else would provide a statement, essentially for the same reasons. He goes on to state that he has obtained a copy of the unit administrators signature and a comparison of his signature clearly shows that the rater (unit commander) did not sign the report; however, after contacting the rater, he was unable to get the unit commander to verify that his signature had been forged. In support of his application, he submits statements from other members of the unit who were present during the period of the contested report.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 11 May 1985.
The contested OER is an annual report covering the period 11 May 1985 through 10 May 1986, evaluating him as a technical supply platoon leader of a USAR unit in San Antonio, Texas. The report was not an adverse report and as such was not referred to him. The applicant signed the report on 20 May 1986.
On 9 January 1989 the applicant was ordered to active duty in the rank of first lieutenant. He has remained on active duty and was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 June 1991.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).
The two supporting statements submitted by the applicant indicate that the two individuals were assigned to the same unit as the applicant during the contested period and that they were aware that the unit administrator routinely signed documents using the commanders signature.
In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted the rater of the contested report regarding the applicants contention that his signature had been forged. The rater indicated that the applicant had provided him a copy of the report and after reviewing the report, he could not say with any certainty that he did or did not sign the contested report. He also indicated that he barely remembered the applicant.
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. Notwithstanding the applicants contention that the raters signature was forged on the contested OER, he has failed to show that the ratings and comments on the OER were unwarranted.
2. Inasmuch as the rater cannot confirm that that he did not sign the contested report and the applicant has not provided evidence to repudiate the contents of the report, there is no basis to remove the report from his records.
3. While the third party statements support the applicants contentions that the unit administrator was known to sign the unit commanders signature in his absence, they do not address the specific issue at hand, that being that the unit administrator signed the contested report without the commanders knowledge or permission, and that the contents of the report were in error or were inaccurate.
4. His contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently supported by the evidence of his application. He has not shown that he was not rated properly or that the rating procedures were violated. He has failed to overcome the presumption that the contested OER is administratively correct, that it was prepared by the properly designated officials, and that it represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.
5. 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 | CY2014 | 20140001638
The applicant provides: * an OER for the period 3 Jun 2003 to 2 June 2004 * an OER for the period 3 June 2004 to 31 December 2004 * the contested OER * an incomplete copy of the contested OER * email dated from 20 September to 18 December 2005 * a memorandum, dated 30 January 2006, from the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Jackson SC * a memorandum, dated 28 February 2006, requesting a commander's inquiry CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The contested OER was completed on 13 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018317
The applicant requests removal of his DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Reports (OER)) for the periods 7 September 2006 through 30 April 2007 and 1 May 2007 through 14 January 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the OER for the period ending 30 April 2007 from his records and replacing it with a nonrated statement. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074934C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In Part Vd (Potential for Promotion), the rater placed the applicant in the second block (Promote With Contemporaries) and provided the comment that the applicant performed adequately in his position, he should be considered for promotion to colonel with his contemporaries, and he could command any other detachment in the rater’s command. Chapter 4 contained guidance on...
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 | CY2009 | 20090020166
A copy of an undated letter, from the CG, Fort Jackson, SC to the Commander, 1st Basic Training Brigade, wherein the CG states that a commander's inquiry was conducted to investigate alleged errors in the relief for cause OER he received and that the report of investigation and findings were attached for the brigade commander's review to take corrective action of the procedural errors or remove the OER and restore the applicant to command. c. An endorsement, dated 20 December 1985, from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088659C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In a four page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), in effect, that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) does not have the authority to void his JAGC appointment. In Part IVa, the applicant received 4 ratings of "1", 7 ratings of "2" and 3 ratings of "3". Paragraph 4-27 of Army Regulation 623-105 requires that certain types of Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment before they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605620C070209
In part IVb, performance and potential evaluation, his performance during the rated period was rated by his rater as having Usually exceeded requirements. 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. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014241
In a Memorandum for Record, dated 10 July 2014, the applicant's senior rater for the subject OER requests the Board correct the OER because of administrative errors. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by either removing, in part or in whole, the subject OER, or by changing the senior rater's evaluation of "Fully Qualified" to "Best Qualified." However, there is no convincing documentary evidence showing that the senior rater's evaluation as "Fully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005269
The applicant requests that an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 15 June 1994 through 9 March 1995 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states that the OER is not administratively correct. However, evidence of record shows that the OER was referred to him and the first endorsement, where the applicant was to have acknowledge that he received the OER, was dated 23 June 1995.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011181
In his 2 March 2009 appeal to the Commander, HRC, St. Louis, Missouri, the applicant states that there is an administrative discrepancy on the second contested OER, Lieutenant Colonel M appears as Colonel M. He contends that he was still a Lieutenant Colonel during his 15 months with the 399th Combat Support Hospital. A DA Form 67-9 (OER) for the period 24 February 2004 through 11 July 2004 shows the applicant was rated Outstanding Performance, Must Promote in Part Va (Evaluate the Rated...