Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707428
Original file (9707428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 7 October 1998
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07428


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Loren G. Harrell Director
Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler Chairperson
Mr. James E. Vick Member
Mr. Luther L. Santiful Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his placement on his senior rater’s profile be corrected from the second block to the first block. In the alternative he requests that the senior rater profile be deleted from his officer evaluation report (OER). In addition, the applicant requests that he be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel.


 APPLICANT STATES : That his senior rater had intended him to be placed in the top block of a restarted profile. Also, the rating profile does not accurately portray his placement on the date his senior rater signed his rating. In addition, his senior rater’s profile violates Army policy in that no officer could have been evaluated as above center of mass and any second block evaluation in his dual center of mass profile will be viewed as below center of mass.

In support of his request the applicant submits a letter from his senior rater in which he states that he had intended the applicant’s placement in the second block to reflect him as being center of mass. He had restarted his profile and when he rated the applicant his profile should have been 0-3-0 (first, second and third blocks). He had completed three more OER’s a week after he signed the applicant’s 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 OER’s be held for a month to insure that the applicant’s OER was recorded first so that his placement would be in the center of mass of his profile. However, the other three officer’s OER’s were inexplicably recorded first. The applicant’s senior rater portrays the applicant as a superb officer who should have been promoted to lieutenant colonel.

The applicant also submits letters in his behalf from the Staff Judge Advocates of Fort Lewis, Washington, and the 108 th Division, Charlotte, North Carolina.

 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. That report painted a word picture of the applicant as a highly motivated officer, an officer who accepted and overcame all challenges, and an officer with exceptional organizational and managerial skills. The applicant’s rater stated in that report that the applicant had been promoted to major during that rating period. His senior rater stated that the applicant should be selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel. 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.

On the date the applicant submitted his request to the Board he was receiving retired pay in the rank of major, having retired on 1 September 1996.

Facts relating to the applicant's contentions concerning the contested OER are contained in an OSRB case summary, which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated. The OSRB opined that the applicant had failed to submit clear and convincing evidence that would warrant alteration of the contested OER.

 DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. While it may have been the intention of the applicant’s senior rater to place him in a stand-alone center of mass rating, as pointed out by the OSRB he would not have achieved that even if the OER’s of the three other officers had been processed after the applicant’s OER. His profile for majors at that time had been 1-1-0, not 0-2-0.

2. The Board also agrees with the OSRB that the bell-shaped curve desired in a senior rater profile was hard to achieve with such a small population to rate. As such, the Board does not consider that issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant altering or deleting the applicant’s senior rater profile.

3. The Board notes that the applicant had just been promoted to major during the rating period in question. While he was undoubtedly a superb junior field grade officer, he did not have the experience of the more senior majors his senior rater had in his profile.

4. 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 :
JAV LLS GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 SAC DENY APPLICATION
Edmund P. Mercanti
Loren G. Harrell
Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707428C070209

    Original file (9707428C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had completed three more OER’s a week after he signed the applicant’s 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 OER’s be held for a month to insure that the applicant’s OER was recorded first so that his placement would be in the center of mass of his profile. The applicant’s rater stated in that report that the applicant had been promoted to major during that rating period....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605929aC070209

    Original file (9605929aC070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 18 June 1991 through 17 June 1992, by deleting the senior rater (SR) profile in part VIIa, removal from his records of the document prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denying his appeal of the OER, and promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) beginning in 1993. The supportive statement submitted by the applicant's former commanding general indicates that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610443C070209

    Original file (9610443C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The OSRB further indicated that the SR had rendered 18 ratings of colonels and restarted his profile twice. The Board also notes that the explanation by the OSRB indicating that the SR had given 18 ratings of colonels and that the applicant was the only officer who had received two two-block ratings of the five officers who had received two block ratings during the SR’s two restarts, fails to mention the status (COM, below COM, etc.) Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511419C070209

    Original file (9511419C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that Part VIIa, the senior rater profile, be deleted from the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) which he received for the period 910510 through 910901. is a must for battalion command.” He placed him in Block #1 of his senior rater profile with none above him, 3 with him, and 6 below him. The senior rater clearly recalled the applicant and his manner of performance and stated that the placement of the applicant in Block #2 of his senior rater profile was based on a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610422C070209

    Original file (9610422C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 1 October 1991 through 1 September 1992, by deleting Part VIIa (Senior Rater (SR) profile); removal from his records of the documents prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denying his appeal of the OER; and promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by all boards that nonselected him. A review of the subsequent OER received by the applicant from the same SR shows that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005553C070208

    Original file (20040005553C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    This request for reconsideration was made after he successfully appealed, in his counsel's words, "two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), with non-credible senior rater (SR) profiles, after his separation from the Army." When the Board considered the applicant's case in February 2004, the OER that the applicant had successfully appealed contained the following senior rater profiles and senior rater comments: a. (On 9 September 1992, after the Reduction in Force Board had considered this...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608475C070209

    Original file (9608475C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    This placed the applicant below the COM on the SR’s profile. Consequently, by maintaining his profile in the manner in which he did, he could not render a rating that would accurately portray a rated officer’s demonstrated performance and potential any higher than COM. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the contested OER by deleting the SR profile from the contested OER.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511834C070209

    Original file (9511834C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that the OER in question is in error because his SR at the time, indicated that he was restarting his profile with a “2” block COM and that he would be the first officer rated under the new profile. The two officers also indicated that the applicant’s performance was outstanding and that the applicant was favored by the SR. One of the officers indicated that he witnessed the applicant going in to inform the SR of the problem with his SR profile and was informed by the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607830C070209

    Original file (9607830C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant also submitted a statement from the SR of the contested report which indicates that he (the SR) made a serious administrative error by placing the applicant in the third block instead of the second block. The SR rated the applicant as a top block COM officer both prior to and subsequent to the contested report. 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 on 22...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064525C070421

    Original file (2001064525C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 970514-970930 be corrected by deleting the senior rater (SR) comment “Promote when eligible . In formulating an appeal of the subject OER to the OSRB, the applicant contacted the SR and stated that his “Promote when eligible” comment was viewed as negative and had caused his failure to be promoted. He strongly supported the applicant’s appeal and recommended that his words be changed to “Promote to LTC and select...