2. The applicant requests that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 900929-910302 be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that he be given immediate reconsideration for promotion to the rank of colonel. He states that the OER was rendered in reprisal for a letter he had written to Congressman Les Aspin complaining of mismanagement and professional improprieties by his rating chain.
3. The applicant is a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate Generals Corps. In 1990, he was the commander of the 173rd Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) Detachment (USAR) when he was called to active duty on 20 September 1990 for Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He was deployed to Saudi Arabia and assigned duties as Chief, Administrative Law Division, Office of the SJA, U.S. Army Forces Central Command (USARCENT). The contested OER, which was not completed by the senior rater until 26 June 1991 when it was referred to the applicant in accordance with Army Regulation 623-105, was rendered as a change of rater report.
4. On 27 June 1991, the applicant, claiming the report was replete with errors, injustices, and illegalities, requested a commanders inquiry be conducted into the facts and circumstances surrounding the contested OER. An inquiry was conducted at the direction of the Commanding General, Third U.S. Army and concluded on 10 February 1992. It found the OER to be both administratively and substantively accurate. Subsequent to this act, the applicant was passed over for promotion to the rank of colonel.
5. On 10 June 1992, the applicant filed a written complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector Generals Office (DoD IG) alleging that he was reprised against in violation of DoD Directive 7050.6, Military Whistleblower Protection. The complaint was referred to the Department of the Army IG (DAIG) for investigation.
6. The DAIG investigation was finished on 5 April 1993 and concluded that the applicant was the victim of reprisal for his whistleblower activities and recommended that the contested OER be expunged from his OMPF.
7. The applicant next submitted a request to this Board on 9 May 1996 asking for expungement of the contested OER and citing the DAIG and DoD IG reports in support thereof. On 11 June 1996, after obtaining the necessary information from the DAIG and DoD IG, the Board requested an advisory opinion from the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. The OSRB concurred with the IG reports and took administrative action to expunge the contested OER from the applicants OMPF. Because promotion reconsideration is outside the purview of their responsibilities, the OSRB recommended that the Board approve that portion of the applicants request.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was reprised against for his whistleblower activities while a member of the USARCENT SJA Office during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The reprisal took the form of a referred OER. This conclusion is supported by the DAIG investigation of 5 April 1993.
2. Agreeing with the DAIG investigation results, the OSRB, on 12 July 1996, took administrative action to expunge the contested OER from the applicants OMPF and recommended that the Board direct promotion reconsideration.
3. The applicant was nonselected for promotion to the rank of colonel based on an OMPF which contained the improper OER.
4. In the interest of justice, it would be fair and equitable to afford the applicant immediate promotion reconsideration to the rank of colonel based on his corrected OMPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by submitting the military records of the individual concerned to a duly constituted Special Selection Board for consideration for promotion to the rank of colonel.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005798C070208
Robert Duecaster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DAIG Report of Investigation noted that the applicant testified he did not believe his rater reprised against him. There is insufficient compelling evidence that the lack of counselings and lack of the rating official's support forms were the sole reasons behind the rater rating the applicant's performance as he did.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001565
(3) At page 17 of the redacted IG report, the IG pointedly redacted from its report that on 25 July 2012, well before her decision to revoke her recommendation of an extension for LTC F, the applicant received a detailed, factual IG complaint from CPT C detailing alleged specific acts of misconduct by LTC F. Additionally, the applicant was provided a copy of the matters submitted by CPT C in response to the professional responsibility inquiry. The directing authority or command or State IG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012937C070206
Her non-selection for continuation in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program by the 12 January 2004 Active Federal Continuation Board (AFSTCB) be set-aside; c. Her 30 September 2004 release from active duty (REFRAD) be set-aside and she be reinstated to active duty in the AGR with all back pay and allowances due; d. The 7 February 2003 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) that was transferred to the restricted (R-Fiche) portion of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on 8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011464
The CIG, 79th SSC testified that the email sent by the complainant detailed systemic issues between USARC and the JAG officer. The allegation that the applicant improperly denied the complainant's request for extension of IG duty and deployment, in reprisal for making a protected communication, in violation of DOD Directive 7050.06 was substantiated. The allegation that the applicant had improperly denied the complainant's request for extension of IG duty and deployment, in reprisal for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010350C071029
In regard to the OER for the period ending 29 October 2002, the applicant states his rater and SR were aware of the IG report during this rating period. On 17 March 2003, the applicant appealed the two contested OERs with the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM). However, it appears it was done for his benefit, pending the conclusion of the 99th RSC IG investigation concerning allegations he made against his chain of command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507982C070209
On 14 January 1993, the Commander, HSC, advised the applicant that he was relieving him of command of the MEDDAC, Redstone Arsenal; that, from 5-7 January 1993, the IG, HSC, conducted a visit to Redstone Arsenal to assess the command climate of his organization; that the report concluded that the applicant's leadership and command style were incompatible with the standards established by the Army; that the applicant's lack of a clear cut and realistic vision of his organizational goals as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607230C070209
The applicant pointed out to the battalion commander that the project was not in compliance with legal requirements and further pointed out that it was illegal to assign her to it as a full-time project officer [implied was the notion that she could continue to serve as the XO while doing Operation Santa Claus part-time]. The applicant appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). As a result of her IGAR on 6 August 1992, a DoDIG investigation was conducted which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090200C070212
The applicant's OER for the period 5 June 1995 through 4 October 1995, was a change of rater report which covered 4 months of rated time and it was rendered on 29 July 1999. The applicant's records contain a memorandum, dated 9 May 1997, signed by the 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) Commanding General (CG), which designated the applicant's Battalion Commander as his senior rater (SR) for the period 20 June 1996 through 19 June 1997. Army Regulation 623-105 paragraph 4-27 requires that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007915C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of her request that her Officer Evaluation Report (OER) covering the period 21 October 2002 through 17 April 2003 be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that no substitution memorandum be filed in its place. However, there is insufficient evidence to support removal of the contested OER from the applicant's record, or to support relief beyond that recommended by the Board during its original review of the case. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051753C070420
The applicant states, in effect, that the derogatory ratings and comments contained throughout the contested OER are the result of reprisal against him for a third party protected communication made by his wife to a Member of Congress (MOC). The directive also provides that a member or former member of the Armed Forces who has filed an application for the correction of military records alleging reprisal for making or preparing a protected disclosure may request review by the Secretary of...