2. The applicant requests that he be awarded USAR pay, retirement points and a military award for the period September 1992 through May 1993 that were denied him because of harassment which led to his premature transfer to the USAR Control Group.
3. He states that his rater and senior rater conspired to lower the ratings on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period April 1991 to April 1992. That through a pattern of retaliation and harassment he was unable to obtain an assignment within reasonable commuting distance of his home which forced him out of the active reserve thereby causing him to lose pay and retirement points and possibly a military award. He contends that his commander deliberately canceled all alternative drilling methods for him because he was a black officer while at the same time allowing white officers to attend such alternate drills. He says that he submitted an Inspector General (IG) and an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaints regarding his treatment but his higher headquarters refused to intervene. He believes that his commanders actions were an effort to destroy his USAR military career.
4. His military records shows that he was appointed a first lieutenant, Judge Advocate General Corps, USAR, on 11 September 1984. He was initially assigned to the Pennsylvania Army National Guard then later reassigned to a Military Law Center (MLC) of the 79th USAR Command in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. He was reassigned to the individual ready reserve (IRR) in August 1992 and remained there until May 1993 when he accepted another active Troop Program Unit (TPU) assignment.
5. On 23 June 1992 he received an OER (for the period 26 April 1991 through 25 April 1992) which he challenged on the grounds that it contained incomplete and misleading statements, inappropriate information relating to his illness, unproved derogatory information and was based upon racial prejudice and retaliation.
6. The applicant submitted a request for a commanders inquiry of the OER to his major USAR commander. That commander subsequently determined that both the rater and senior rater had made inaccurate statements on the OER that resulted in an unfair rating. The commander recommended that the OER be removed from his file and the period of time it covered be considered non-rated time. He also appealed the OER to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Special Review Board (OSRB). The appeal was approved (COPY ATTACHED) citing the findings of the commanders inquiry as the basis for approval. The rating period was officially declared non-rated.
7. A member of the staff of the Board contacted the DAIG requesting records of the applicants IG inquiry. The DAIG replied that no records could be found regarding the applicant.
8. A request for the EO inquiry into his case produced only a portion of the inquiry report. In it the investigating officer indicates that he found that the complainant had established a prima facia case of race discrimination. However, a substantial portion of the inquiry report, to include the recommendations and the action taken by the appointing authority, could not be located.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants complaint regarding his OER was addressed by proper authorities and resolved in his favor. The OER was declared void and removed from his record.
2. While only an incomplete copy of the OE inquiry into his case can be located (and no evidence of the IG inquiry can be found), it still appears that his allegation of unfair treatment in the TPU have been substantiated through the abbreviated portion of the EO report that is available and the findings of the commanders inquiry into his OER. In the absence of any official records to refute the findings of the aforementioned reports, the Board believes that the preponderance of the evidence supports the applicants contentions in this case.
3. There is no available evidence that the applicant was recommended for a military award while he was a TPU member. Inasmuch a military award is a subjective determination of the commander, in the absence of substantial evidence that he was or should have been recommended for an award there is no basis to conclude that an injustice has occurred. The fact that he had an OER removed from his file covering the same period he was in the unit does not imply then that his performance must have been worthy of recognition by an award.
4. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
Recommendation:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by showing that the individual concerned remained assigned to his TPU and attended all regularly scheduled unit training assembilies and annual training, and was awarded retirement points for the period 1 September 1992 through 31 May 1993, to include points for annual training, if appropriate; and
b. by showing that he is entitled to any pay due as a result of the above correction.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012380C070206
In the memorandum dated 20 November 2001, the applicant informed the Commander, III Corps, that an AR 15-6 investigation had been initiated on 2 August 2001, and that an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to investigate the individuals involved for potential fraud. On 11 March 2002, a Command Climate investigation was conducted in the 15th Finance Battalion and the 13th Finance Group and the IO's overall assessment for the 15th Finance Battalion was that morale was very low based on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069153C070402
DAIG records state essentially that a request, dated 4 August 1998, was submitted to First United States Army [hereafter referred to as First Army] to review the case of the applicant to "determine whether [the applicant] should undergo a withdrawal of federal recognition board as contemplated by the regulation. The purpose of the withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board as stated in the board transcript was to consider whether or not to recommend withdrawal of the applicant's Federal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607286C070209
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. 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. Agreeing with the DAIG investigation results, the OSRB, on 12 July 1996, took...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021631
The applicant requests her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rated period 19 December 2010 through 16 June 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be removed from her records. The applicant states the contested OER was an act of reprisal as a result of a Sexual Harassment and Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint she filed against her senior rater and brigade commander. The applicant provides: * an extract from Army Regulation 600-20 * Memorandum, Time Line...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014882
Counsel requests: a. removal of the applicant's general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 3 November 2011, from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) or transfer to the restricted folder of her AMHRR; and b. removal of all related documents to the GOMOR, dated 3 November 2011, from the restricted folder of the applicant's AMHRR. A memorandum from Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 8th U.S. Army, dated 20...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002833
Even the Army Regulation 15-6 investigating officer (IO) recommended that he be promoted based on his record of performance. (5) Allegation: The chain of command's decision not to recommend the applicant for promotion to the rank of CW2. Completed IG and Army Regulation 15-6 investigations unsubstantiated his allegations that his denial of promotion to CW2 was a based on reprisal or racism.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017281
The applicant states, in a 29-page brief, that: a. He was a senior officer in the NYARNG as the Commander, 10th Brigade, from May 1993 to October 1996. Furthermore, although the CI determined that this OER contained administrative and substantive errors and recommended its removal from his records, and although it is noted that the rating officials did not complete the contested OER in a timely manner, that an OER support form was submitted with this report, and that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008284
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. In a continuation of a response to a counseling received on 10 September 2012, recorded on a DA Form 4856, the applicant describes a conversation between him and the new DCO, occurring on or about 23 August 2012, which began with a discussion of the senior NCO's email, and went on to general review of the applicant's leadership style, as described by the two previous DCO's and informal interviews of team members done by the new DCO. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019839
The applicant requests the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the rating period 20090716 through 20100715, that rated her as an Inspector General (IG), be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and be replaced with another OER rating her as an Operations Officer. For the rating period of 20090716 - 20100715 she was incorrectly rated as an IG when she was actually performing duties as an Operations Officer (S-3) in the 338th Military Intelligence (MI) Battalion. Upon...
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.