2. The applicant requests correction of his military records by removing the entire senior rater portion (Part VII (Senior Rater)) of his officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 9 July 1993 through 7 July 1994. Also, he requests that his records be reconsidered for promotion to the rank of colonel (O-6).
3. On 5 June 1974, he accepted an appointment in the Regular Army, in the rank of second lieutenant, after graduating from West Point Military Academy.
4. The applicant was serving, in the rank of lieutenant colonel, as a battalion commander at Fort Knox, Kentucky, during the period covered by the contested OER (change of rater).
5. He completed the Armor Officer Basic course during the period 5 June through 7 November 1974. He completed the Armor Officer Advanced Course during the period 19 June 1978 through 15 March 1979. He completed and exceeded the course standards, was an Honor Graduate, and placed on the Commandants List for the Supply Management Officer Course during the period 15 March through 20 July 1979. He completed the Air Command and Staff College Course as a Top 1/3d Graduate during the period 3 June 1985 through 6 June 1986. He attended and completed the U.S. Army War College during the period 8 July 1994 through 10 June 1995.
6. Through the periods 8 November 1974 through 24 September 1979, the applicant received the following OER scores (maximum score was 200): 184, 186, 190, 192, 198, 199, 198, and 200. The following is the remainder of the applicants OER history. The rating system depicted below has six entries: the first two entries are derived from the rater performance and potential blocks, expressed in Roman numerals, with I the highest and V the lowest; the last four entries are derived from the senior rater potential evaluation (senior rater profile), with the third entry reflecting the applicant's standing in a bell-shaped distribution pattern of 100 officers of the same grade (i.e.
top, top two through eight, and bottom), and the fourth through sixth entries portraying, respectively, the number of officers ranked above, equal to, and below the applicant.
Period Duty Position Rating
25 Sep 79-30 May 80 Battalion S-4 I/I/Top/0/1/0
30 May 80-17 Oct 80 I/I/Top/0/5/0
16 Oct 80-13 Mar 81 I/I/Top/0/6/1
14 Mar 81-15 Oct 81 Company Commander I/I/Top/0/26/26
16 Oct 81- 2 Jun 82 I/I/Top/0/4/38
3 Jun 82- 2 Jun 83 Assistant I/I/Top/0/2/6
Professor of
Military Science
3 Jun 83- 2 Jun 84 I/I/Top2/1/1/0
3 Jun 84- 2 Jun 85 I/I/Top2/9/14/8
7 Jun 86- 6 Jun 87 Support Operations I/I/Top/0/1/5
Officer
7 Jun 87-10 Dec 87 I/I/Top/0/7/7
11 Dec 87-10 Dec 88 Battalion I/I/Top/0/6/20
Executive Officer
11 Dec 88-10 Dec 89 I/I/Top/0/18/32
11 Dec 89-14 Jun 90 ACofS, G3 I/I/Top/0/4/3
Operations Officer
15 Jun 90-13 Jun 91 Operations Officer I/I/Top2/1/3/1
14 Jun 91-31 Oct 91 HQDA System I/I/Top/0/35/109
Itegrator
1 Nov 91-31 Jan 92 I/I/Top/0/42/104
1 Feb 92-29 Jun 92 HQDA Staff Officer I/I/Top/0/28/12
30 Jun 92-14 Jan 93 Squadron Commander I/I/Top/0/5/2*
15 Jan 93- 8 Jul 93 Battalion I/I/Top/0/26/4
Commander
9 Jul 93- 7 Jul 94 I/I/Top2/21/15/1**
_________
*The senior rater on the contested OER was the intermediate rater on this OER.
**The contested OER.
7. During his military career, the applicant has received the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (Third Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Achievement Medal (Second Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Expert (Pistol).
8. On 11 August 1995, the applicants initial appeal of 25 June 1995 of his contested OER, in which he requested removal of the senior rater profile, was reviewed by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB)in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Personnel (DCSPER). The OSRB determined that there was not sufficiently convincing evidence that Part VIIa of the contested OER was inaccurate and did not adequately reflect the applicants potential, and that the report should not be amended. Denial of the appeal was recommended.
9. On 18 August 1995, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) advised the applicant that the information that he submitted and his official records were reviewed by that headquarters and referred to the OSRB; that the OSRB determined that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the report; that a request for reconsideration was authorized only upon presentation of new substantive evidence; and that he could apply to this Board.
10. On 16 January 1996, the applicant submitted his second appeal of the contested OER indicating that he was discriminated against on the basis of race.
11. On 9 February 1996, the PERSCOM advised the applicant that his appeal correspondence was Previewed to the DCSPER OSRB to determine if there was sufficient evidence to warrant review by that board; that his appeal was returned by that board as unacceptable indicating that the burden of proof was upon the applicant not the OSRB to prove that an evaluation report was unjust; that his claim of racial discrimination was not supported with convincing evidence, only his self-authorized statement; and for that reason his appeal was returned without action. He was advised that he could apply to this Board.
12. A staff member of the Board was informally advised by the authorities at the Department of Defense Inspector Generals Office that the applicant has made a senior rater official allegation against a general officer, which is being processed. Since the applicant made no protected disclosures, he does not qualify under the Military Whistleblower Protection provisions. Upon completion of their action, the applicant may apply under the Freedom of Information Act for release of the information.
CONCLUSIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064525C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 970514-970930 be corrected by deleting the senior rater (SR) comment “Promote when eligible . In formulating an appeal of the subject OER to the OSRB, the applicant contacted the SR and stated that his “Promote when eligible” comment was viewed as negative and had caused his failure to be promoted. He strongly supported the applicant’s appeal and recommended that his words be changed to “Promote to LTC and select...
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 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
a [ 4 a b Q o His Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) , rendered for the period 26 Sep 85 through 25 Sep 86, be declared void or void the ratings and comments of the indorser. The other statements the applicant provides support his appeal, but they are not from rating chain members, nor do they prove the contested report is inaccurate. Hammond Myers, 111, Panel Chairman Scott W. Stucky, Member Joseph T. Wagner, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072408C070403
As division administrative and leadership issues emerged through this rating period, it became apparent that this officer placed his well being ahead of that of his subordinates. This relief for cause report was directed based on [applicant's] inability to meet accepted professional officer standards as outlined in this report. In Part Ve, Comment on Potential, the rater stated that the applicant would best serve the Army Medical Department in positions not requiring management or...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03771 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NEIL B. KABATCHNICK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Dec 91, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing an Overall Recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03771 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NEIL B. KABATCHNICK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Dec 91, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing an Overall Recommendation of...
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the contested report and supporting statements from the evaluators. DPPPA noted that the letters of support from the rating chain on the contested OER are dated some 15 years after the report became a matter of record. He stated that the statement from his rater is not simply a letter of support, but evidence for appeal - it states the situation, why the OER was marked incorrectly, and his (the rater’s) recommendation for its resolution.
By letter of amendment, dated 1 July 1994, applicant requested that the Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) closing 2 August 1975, 29 February 1976, and 28 February 1977, be removed from his records and that he be given consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board. We found no basis to recommend that applicant be reconsidered for promotion based on the issues cited in his requests pertaining to the OERs closing 2 August 1975 and 29 February...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...