2.  The applicant requests that the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 23 November 1994 through 9 August 1995 be corrected to reflect a “top block” rating in part VIIa, potential evaluation, instead of the “second block” rating he received.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his senior rater (SR) inadvertently checked the second block instead of the top block and that the administrative error has resulted in his being portrayed as a below center of mass (COM) officer. In support of his application he submits letters of recommendations from his rater, SR, and the post commander during the time of the contested OER.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he received the contested OER while serving his initial assignment on active duty as a USAR Medical Corps captain in Korea.

5.  The contested OER is a change of rater OER covering the period 23 November 1994 through 9 August 1995 evaluating the applicant as an officer-in-charge and flight surgeon of a medical detachment at Camp Page, South Korea.  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 below the COM on the SR’s profile (fifteen officers were in the top block, nine officers were in the second block (of which the applicant was one), two officers were in the third block, 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 were very favorable and recommended him for further schooling and promotion ahead of his peers.  

6.  The applicant appealed the contested OER to the OSRB on 19 November 1991 contending that the OER was inaccurate and did not properly reflect the intent of his SR regarding his potential.  In support of his application, he submitted the same supporting letters he has submitted to this Board. 
7.  The letter from his SR is a letter of recommendation (dated 17 October 1995) supporting the applicant’s application for the Orthopaedic Graduate Medical Education Residency Training Program and indicates not only that the applicant is a truly outstanding officer that should be afforded every opportunity to grow professionally, but also that he (the SR) mistakenly placed the applicant in the second block under potential evaluation.  He also indicated that he was submitting paperwork to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to correct the error.

8.  The letters of recommendation from the applicant’s rater and post commander at the time serve to not only endorse the applicant’s request to attend training, but also serve to praise the applicant’s abilities and performance as an officer and physician.

9.  The OSRB contacted officials at the PERSCOM to determine if the SR had submitted a request to correct the contested OER and was informed that there was no record of such a request.  The OSRB opined that because there was no record of the SR requesting a change to the contested OER, there may not have been an error as claimed and that the SR may have written the letter of recommendation only to enhance the applicant’s chances at further education.  The OSRB also implied that the SR may have been engaging in retrospective thinking.  The OSRB concluded that the remaining two letters did not address the applicant’s appeal of the contested OER and elected to deny his appeal.

10.  A review of the applicant’s previous and subsequent OER’s reveals that the applicant has always been rated as a COM officer with unlimited potential.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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.

14.  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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the SR’s statement that he mistakenly placed the applicant in the second block which resulted in the applicant being portrayed below COM on his profile, the Board is convinced that either the SR did not keep track of his profile or that he simply failed in his responsibilities as a SR, in that he failed to ensure that the rating he gave the applicant was the one he intended.  Consequently, the applicant was penalized for the shortcomings of the SR.

2.  Although the Board cannot say with certainty that the SR intended to place the applicant in the top block, given the circumstances in this case and the favorable comments by the SR in the contested OER, it is not apparent that the SR intended to portray the applicant as a below COM officer.

3.  Although the SR evaluation in part VIIa is an evaluation of an officer’s potential, such an evaluation should be supported by comments which support not only the SR’s evaluation of the rated officer’s performance but his potential for further service as well.  In this case the SR clearly indicates that the applicant should be selected for further training and promoted ahead of his peers.  Such comments are not indicative of a below COM officer which is contrary to the rating the applicant received on the contested OER and has resulted in an injustice to the applicant. 

4.  Unlike the OSRB, the Board is not convinced that the SR is engaging in retrospective thinking or attempting to enhance the applicant’s chances for further education.  The Board finds no evident reason or ulterior motive on the part of the SR for admitting his mistake, especially since he admitted that he made the statement 2 months after completing the contested OER.  The Board finds the SR’s letter of recommendation as well as the other letters, further support for his argument regarding his potential for further service and justification to have the contested OER corrected.

5.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.




RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.   by changing the SR evaluation in part VIIa on the OER ending 9 August 1995 of the individual concerned to reflect a top block rating instead of a two block rating; and

	b.  by removing from his records the PERSCOM memorandum dated 31 January 1996, indicating the denial of his appeal of the contested OER.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON