APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 4 January 1993 through 25 June 1993 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reconsideration for attendance at the Command and General Staff College (CGSC).  As an alternative, he request that part VIIa of the contested OER be corrected to reflect a top block rating. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had previously received a top block rating from his senior rater (SR) and that the SR unjustly rated him on a subsequent report (the contested OER) by placing him in the second block of part VIIa without an explanation of why his potential had taken a downturn.  He further states that his SR placed him in the second block because he confused him with another officer at a different university and it was at a time when the SR was overwhelmed with overdue reports.  In addition, the SR was experiencing a series of personal problems which prevented him from providing an objective evaluation.  He goes on to state that a comparison of the narrative comments in part VIIb will show that they do not support the rating he received in part VIIa.  In support of his application he submits statements from his SR, his region commander at the time of the OER, and the officer serving as the inspector general of his region at the time.

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

He was commissioned as a Regular Army second lieutenant on 9 June 1983 upon graduation from the ROTC at Eastern Washington University.  

He was initially assigned as an armor officer at Fort Carson, Colorado and subsequently branch transferred to the Quartermaster Corps on 30 May 1986.  He was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 June 1987.

The contested OER was a permanent change of station OER evaluating him as a captain while performing as an assistant professor of military sciences at Eastern Washington University.  The report was not considered adverse and was not referred to him. 

The SR placed the applicant in the second block for potential evaluation in part VIIa.  This placed the applicant in the center of mass (COM) on the SR’s profile. (of 45 officers rated, 17 were in the top block, 26 were in the second block, of which the applicant was one, and three were in the third block.  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.) Part VIIb contained nothing but favorable comments including the applicant “is an exceptional officer . . . worthy of emulation by all . . . select for major at first opportunity and send to CGSC . . . continue to groom for positions of greater responsibility.”

The same SR rendered a previous report on the applicant covering the period 1 July 1992 through 3 January 1993 (6 months) evaluating him in the same position and placed him in the top block (of 12 officers rated, four officers were in the top block, of which the applicant was one, five officers were in the second block, and three officers were in the third block).  He indicated in his comments that the applicant was by any standard of measure the vanguard of all captains he (the SR) had known in 27 years of service and that he had earned his strongest recommendation for below the zone promotion to major and first year selection to CGSC.

The applicant was promoted to the rank of major on 1 February 1995.

The applicant appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) on 27 June 1995.  He cited as the reasons for that appeal that the SR’s rating was arbitrary and that the SR abused his discretion by indicating a decrease in his career potential.  The OSRB opined that the SR after being confronted by the rater on the issue, refused to change the rating indicated that he had made a conscious decision and was deliberate in his thought process when evaluating the applicant.  The OSRB denied his application.

The applicant again appealed the OER to the OSRB on 3 January 1996 and contended at that time that the SR had confused him with another officer who he associated with adultery and lying.  The OSRB contacted the SR to ascertain why the SR had placed the applicant in the second block and to determine if he had mistaken the applicant for someone else.  The SR indicated that he knew who the applicant was and that he stood by his rating.  The OSRB again denied his appeal.

The statement of support from the SR (now retired) indicates that based on the information he has received, he failed to reflect an accurate representation of the applicant’s potential.  He supports removing the contested report from the applicant’s OMPF.

The statement from the investigating inspector general indicates that the SR would not change his rating and after consulting with the region commander, the action was closed.

The supporting statement from the region commander (a retired brigadier general) indicates that in his professional opinion the SR’s judgment was clouded by his personal state of affairs at the time and that he had spoken to the SR regarding the rating.  However; the SR held to his position not to amend the rating.  The region commander recommended that the contested OER be removed from the applicant’s records.

Army Regulation 623-105 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 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 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 rating 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.

Army Regulation 623-105 also states, in pertinent part, that statements from rating officials often reflect retrospective thinking, or second thoughts.  As a result, claims by rating officials that they did not intend to evaluate as they did will not, alone, serve as the basis for altering or withdrawing a report.

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 the evidence of record sufficient justification to warrant removing or altering the contested OER.

2.  In the narrative section of the SR’s portion of the OER, the SR’s 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 in that particular rank.  Hence, the SR potential evaluation portion of the OER may often diverge from the narrative comments made by the SR.

3.  Notwithstanding the SR’s current declaration that based on the information he has been provided at this time that he may have made an error, the Board is convinced, especially since the SR was made aware that the applicant was unhappy with his rating and made a conscious decision not to change it, that the appraisal of the applicant’s potential during the rating period represents the considered opinion and objective judgement of the SR at the time of preparation.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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