APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That two Officer Evaluation Reports (OER’s) for the rating periods 31 July 1989 through 30 July 1990 and 31 July 1990 through 30 July 1991 be removed from her official file and that she be given promotion reconsideration to the grade of major.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the OER’s in question should be removed from her file based on substantial error and rater prejudice.  She contends that the rater’s subjective view of her performance and potential was wrong.  She was subsequently evaluated by two other officers resulting in very favorable OER’s.  She further contends that the two OER’s in question were directly related to her not being selected for promotion to major.  In support of her request, she has submitted letters from other officers who have knowledge of her performance, as well as a letter of appreciation that she received during the same time period as her adverse OER’s.

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

She was commissioned a second lieutenant ARNG on 18 October 1979 and promoted to her current grade in the USAR on 14 October 1986.  She has been twice nonselected for promotion to the grade of major.

The contested OER’s are both annual reports while she was assigned as a military occupational (MOS) instructor with a US Army Reserve Forces School.  Both reports were referred to her for comment and she provided written comments in response to the referrals.

Both reports were written by the same rater but each had a different senior rater.  On both reports the senior rater placed her in the number 4 block of his rating profile.

In the first report (covering the period 31 July 1989 through 30 July 1990) her rater indicated that she had failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APRT) for which he gave her a “3” in the “maintains appropriate level of                                                                                                                                                                                     physical fitness” category of the professional competence portion of the report.  The rater’s narrative comments on her performance and potential were complimentary and he placed her in the “usually exceeded requirements” block (the second highest rating).  Her potential was rated in the “promote with contemporaries” block (the second highest rating in this category).

The senior rater’s comments were also laudatory and he placed her in the fourth block of his profile, for potential.  (The senior rater potential evaluation portion of an OER contains nine blocks.  A rated officer’s placement in the top block indicates she possesses greater potential than officers placed in the second through the ninth blocks.)  She was the only officer evaluated by the senior rater.

The report was referred to her for comment. In reply, she acknowledged that she had failed the 2 mile run event of the APFT but had passed the sit-up and the push-up portion of the test.  She indicated that although a makeup test had been rescheduled it was canceled due to weather conditions. In the meantime, she was injured and was unable to take the next scheduled retest.  She stated, however, that she intended to pass the next test.

The second OER (covering the period 31 July 1990 through 30 July 1991) was prepared by the same rater.  Again, the rater indicated that she had failed the APFT.  She received a “3” in the “maintains appropriate level of physical fitness” block together with a comment that she had not made satisfactory progress toward passing the APFT since this was the second year in a row that she has failed.  The rater’s narrative portion of the report says that she accomplished her duties in a superior manner and he placed her in the “usually exceeds requirement block” (again the second highest rating).  Her potential was rated as “promote with contemporaries”.

She was evaluated by a different senior rater on the second report.  In his comments, the rater indicated that she was 


an asset as an instructor and he, like his predecessor, placed her in the fourth block of his profile.  Once again she was the only officer in the senior rater’s profile.

The supporting documents provided by the applicant are from superiors, contemporaries and others who observed her performance of duty.  All of these statements are laudatory and, she believes, that since they were prepared by officers who had a better opportunity to observe her actual duty performance than did her rater, their comments are more representative of her actual performance and abilities than those prepared by the rater.

On 20 January 1995 the applicant submitted an appeal of the two OER’s to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) citing substantive inaccuracy.  The OSRB denied the appeal.  Details concerning the contested OER’s, her unsuccessful appeal and the rationale for denying it are set forth in the OSRB case summary (COPY ATTACHED).

Army Regulation 623-105, Officer Evaluation Reporting System, 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, and 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.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn or replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when information that 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.






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 applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or through the evidence of record that there is sufficient justification to warrant removing the two OER’s in question.

2.  Her contentions and the complimentary supporting statements provided in her behalf have been noted.  However, she has not shown that she was not properly rated or that the rating officials were improperly designated.  Rather, she claims that others were in a better position than her rating officials to observe and evaluate her performance.  While such a situation may be true, it does not establish that the contested evaluations were unfair, incorrect or otherwise improper.  Moreover, the “other observers”, whatever their association with the applicant, were not in her rating chain, a fact that she does not dispute.

3.  Her ratings on the contested reports, appear on balance, to be honest and fair appraisals of her performance.  The rater, for example, credits her for her superb abilities as an instructor while at the same time noting her inability to successfully complete the APRT.  The Board believes that the appraisals of her performance during the rating periods in question represents the considered opinions and objective judgments of the properly designated rating officials at the time.

4.  The applicant has not established a basis for removal of the contested OER’s nor has she shown that her case merits reconsideration for promotion to the grade of major.

5.  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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director