APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 29 May 1993 through 28 May 1994 by removing remarks by the rater in part Ve and remarks by the senior rater (SR) in part VIIb and by granting her promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel. As an alternative, she requests that the report be removed from her records in its entirety. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That the comments by the rater in part Ve, “[Applicant] is an aggressive, extremely self-assertive officer, whose personality, management and leadership style polarizes subordinates” and comments by the SR in part VIIb “Her hardcharging attitude produces both results and friction.  Leadership skills should be tempered with further assignments in staff positions at installation and higher level.  After more experience as a field grade officer. . .” are inaccurate and unjust and should be removed from the contested report.  She further states that she was never counseled regarding her shortcomings and that the contested comments are not supported by the ratings she received from her rating chain and contends that her rating officials were not objective, fair, or straightforward in evaluating her performance.  In support of her application, she submits statements from her subordinates during the time of the contested report.   

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

The applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant upon graduation from OCS on 29 February 1980 with a concurrent call to active duty.  She was promoted to the rank of major on 1 January 1992.

The contested OER covered the period 29 May 1993 through 28 May 1994 and evaluated her as a battalion executive officer of a transportation battalion (terminal) in Korea.  In part IVa of the OER, professional competence (where on a scale of one to five, one is a high degree and five is a low degree), her rater assigned one’s in all of the 14 blocks. The rater also rated her performance as having always exceeded requirements and recommended that she be promoted ahead of her contemporaries.  In part Ve, comments on potential, the rater indicated that the applicant is an aggressive, extremely self-assertive officer, whose personality, management and leadership style polarizes subordinates. 

The SR (a colonel) placed the applicant in the second block of part VIIa, the potential evaluation portion of the OER.  This placed the applicant in the COM on the SR’s profile (three officers were in the second block, of which the applicant was one, and one officer, was in the fourth block).  (The SR potential evaluation portion of an OER contains nine blocks.  A rated officer’s placement in the top block determines that he possesses greater potential than an officer placed in the second through ninth blocks.) The comments in part VIIb indicated that the applicant’s hardcharging attitude produced both results and friction.  Her leadership skills should be tempered with further assignments in staff positions at installation and higher levels.  The report was not considered adverse and as such was not referred to her.  

The applicant has twice appealed this OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) contending that the OER was inaccurate and did not properly reflect her performance.  In support of her appeal, she submitted statements from her subordinates that supported her appeal initially and then in subsequent statements attempted to dispute the comments of the rater to the OSRB.  The OSRB denied both appeals.

Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide than 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 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 which 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.

Paragraph 4-16, of the cited regulation discusses part VII of the OER, and explains how the SR profile is established and underscores its effect on the rated officer. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officer’s evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officer’s 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 SR’s history (profile).  This profile contains all OER’s rendered by the SR and accepted as correct by the Department for the rated officer’s grade or grade grouping.  The purpose of the profile is to place a rated officer’s OER in perspective by revealing the SR’s general rating tendency.  Part VIIb will contain the SR’s comments and will address the potential evaluation and the rated officer’s performance.

Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation also 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 error or inaccuracy is warranted.

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 contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of her demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for altering the report.

2.  The applicant’s contentions as well as the supporting statements have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently supported by the evidence of her application.  She has not shown that she was not rated properly or that the rating procedures were violated.  She 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.

3.  While the supporting statements in regards to the contested OER are complimentary of the applicant’s performance, the Board feels that none were in a better position to appraise the applicant’s performance than her rating chain.

4. In the narrative section of the SR’s portion of the OER, the SR comments on and evaluates an officer’s performance and potential, as he or she stands alone, without comparing him or her to other officers.  In the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER, the officer is compared to all officers previously evaluated by the SR.  Hence, the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER may often diverge from the narrative comments made by the SR.

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