| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ernest W. Willcher | Member | |
| Mr. Robert W. Garrett | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application for reconsideration for promotion to major.
APPLICANT STATES: He contends that there are significant discrepancies between the ratings and comments of his raters and senior raters and his senior raters’ profiles on his officer efficiency reports (OER’s). He also contends that he was fully qualified for promotion and that he received no support in preparing his appeal, that, in fact he was directed not to appeal.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum which was prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his case on 15 October 1997.
He submits new evidence in the form letters of support from officers in the Wyoming Army National Guard. These include a former commander, a colonel, who remembers his very first encounter with the applicant, he describes the applicant as a successful dedicated, imaginative officer, an unconventional thinker. He strongly recommends that the applicant be retained and promoted.
A lieutenant colonel, the applicant’s instructor at the Command and General Staff course, states that the applicant posses innovative ideas, leadership skills and experience and could serve among the best in any field grade position.
Another former commander, a major, states that the applicant demonstrates initiative dedication and a willingness to go beyond the mere requirements. He relates that the applicant preformed successfully as the acting detachment commander while the writer was attending the advanced course. He states the applicant’s knowledge, skills, abilities, dedication and loyalties are needed
The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate of the Wyoming Army National Guard concurs with the applicant’s contentious that he was given no help and discouraged from appealing and that the OER comments are disparate from the senior rater profiles
The applicant’s record shows he had eight profiled OER’s as a captain. No senior rater marked him above the center of mass and on four of those profiles he was marked below the center of mass. There is no available evidence that the applicant appealed any of the OER’s.
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’s contentions and the letters of support are noted but neither demonstrates an error or an injustice in this case. There is no evidence of a material error in the applicant’s records when they were reviewed by the Reserve Components Selection Boards. If the applicant thought that there was a discrepancy between the ranking and remarks of his rater on and the ranking of his senior raters on any given OER he could have appealed that OER, but he presents no evidence here to substantiate that opinion or to show that he should be reconsidered for promotion.
2. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
3. 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
__EWM__ _RWG__ __JNS___ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705212AC070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. These include a former...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707428
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:While a major serving on active duty as an assistant staff judge advocate of the XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the applicant was given a change of rater OER for the period covering 1 November 1990 to 22 April 1991. In the senior rater’s profile, the applicant was placed in the second block of a 3-3 profile, a rating which is considered the bottom half of a dual center of mass profile. DISCUSSION : Considering...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707428C070209
He had completed three more OERs a week after he signed the applicants report and placed those officers in his top block, those officers being far more senior and experienced than [the applicant]. He directed that those three OERs be held for a month to insure that the applicants OER was recorded first so that his placement would be in the center of mass of his profile. The applicants rater stated in that report that the applicant had been promoted to major during that rating period....
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068555C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his below center-of-mass Officer Evaluation Report (OER), DA Form 67-9, for the period 16 May 1998 through 18 March 1999, be removed from his military record. On 30 January 2002, the senior rater provided a letter in support of the applicant's OER appeal. The OSRB states, in pertinent part, "The SR (senior rater) in this letter does not claim he erred when authoring the OER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064328C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 5 December 1985 through 4 December 1986 be corrected by deleting the senior rater portion, that he be reconsidered for promotion under the appropriate criteria for captain and subsequent promotions through lieutenant colonel, and that he be authorized back pay. The regulation requires that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054570C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board is provided evidence and argument which shows that the applicant’s senior rater placed the applicant in the COM block based on erroneous information he was given by the applicant’s rater; that it was the SR’s desire to place the applicant ACOM. In this case the applicant’s record shows consistently above center of mass ratings prior to the disputed rating, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104838C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the senior rater's (SR) comments and rating from the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 4 June 1998 through 3 June 1999 [hereafter referred to as the contested OER]. The applicant contends that the contested OER contains the following significant errors: a) the SR on the contested report was also a rating official for the OER of the applicant's rater; b) the SR refused to counsel him during the rating period; c)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090234C070212
The comments by the SR indicate that the applicant is a capable officer who has performed reasonably well throughout the rating period. Additionally, the Board notes that in separate inquiries by the OSRB, both the rater and the SR were consistent in their assertion that the applicant had been counseled by the rater and that the rater had requested that the SR counsel the applicant, in hopes that he would accept guidance from the SR more readily and demonstrate what both the rater and SR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074072C070403
The applicant argues that administrative error occurred when the senior rater (SR) was advised: 1) that he should adhere to the Officer Evaluation Guide published by the Evaluation Systems Office of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, 2) that a center of mass (COM) block rating by the SR with a credible profile was an evaluation worthy of promotion, 3) that there was only "some" inflation in the OER system; but 4) that there were no consequences if the SR failed to comply with the...