| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of his military records by removing his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) covering the rating period 4 April to 9 July 1998.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes that the OER was in error because of substantial flaws in the supervision process. For example, the rater Major N____ was not his true supervisor and rater. Major G____, the Executive Officer was supposed to be his rater. The command climate for supervision was such that several Army Regulations (AR) in AR 623-105, the OER system, were not followed. There was not a published rating chain for OERs and NCOERs. The OER support forms 67-9-1 were initiated at the end of the assignment. The intermediate rater signed the OER without ensuring that the rater was correct. He further states that he attempted to contact all three of his raters, however he was only able to reach the intermediate rater. The intermediate rater wrote a supporting statement of facts. The applicant appealed to the DCSPER Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). The OSRB did not adjudicate his appeal in the applicant’s favor. The intensity of the deployment which led to the lack of supervision, the following of Army procedures for supervision, writing OERs and ensuring fairness to the officers that were being supervised. The applicant believes that the OER dated (4 April - 9 July 1998), end his career as an active duty Army chaplain. The applicant includes as supporting documentation a statement of the events leading to his unjust and inaccurate OER and supporting statements from his intermediate rater, another officer and a noncommissioned officer.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military record shows that he was appointed as First Lieutenant, Chaplain Corps, U. S. Army Reserve in 1989. He entered active duty as a Captain in 1993.
The applicant’s OER history prior to the contested report shows that he was rated as a center of mass officer from 1989 to 1998, in most instances.
The contested OER (4 April to 9 July 1998) is a change of rater evaluation report for a 3-month period. Part V – Performance and Potential Evaluation, the rater gives the applicant a “2” block for performance and potential and a rating of “Satisfactory Performance, Promote.” Part VII the senior rater gives him a “2” block performance and potential evaluation rating of “Fully Qualified.” (It should note that this makes it a “center of mass” rating). Neither the rater nor the senior rater makes any negative comments.
The applicant’s last two OER shows that he was rated center of mass for the period ending 24 February 1999. His OER ending 4 February 2000 shows a rating of above center of mass.
The applicant submitted an OER appeal in February 2000. The basis of this appeal was substantial errors and flaws in the supervision process for performance related counseling. On 21 March 2000, the Special Review Board (OSRB) reviewed the applicant’s appeal. After reviewing the applicant’s appeal, the OSRB returned the appeal as unacceptable for adjudication. The OSRB endorsement stated in effect, that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature to warrant consideration. A favorable decision could not be rendered based upon the evidence submitted. An entry of an appeal denial would only serve to highlight further reports in the applicant’s OMPF. (An extract of the OSRB comments is enclosed).
Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for preparing, processing and using the OER. The regulation also provided that an OER accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. The burden of proof in appealing an OER rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly nullifies the presumption of regularity. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.
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 is not entitled to removal of the contested OER. The applicant has not convinced this Board that any corrective action is necessary in this case.
2. All of his contentions have been considered; however, they are not sufficiently supported by his application or the evidence of record. It is concluded the contested OER represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of the applicant’s demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. The applicant has not convinced this Board that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.
3. The contested OER is a “center of mass” OER, just as all but one of the OERs shown above are, even though he may have been given a top block rating on some of his ratings. The senior rater’s comments are all positive, but they are not so superlative as to support anything other than a “center of mass” rating. Notwithstanding the letters of supports, there is insufficient evidence to show that the rating on the contested report was unfair.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. 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
__fne___ __mhm___ __bje___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052118 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011018 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2002 | 2002082502C070215
The OSRB reviewed an 18 October 1999, supporting statement provided by the Company Aviation Safety Officer. c. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board determined that the ratings on the contested report were the objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation of the contested report. The Board noted that the SR stated he was a new SR and that the contested report was only the second report that the he had prepared.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063444C070421
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051134C070420
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103201C070208
21 Under Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation), three of the raters placed the applicant in the first block (Outstanding Performance, Must Promote), except for the contested OER, with positive comments on specific aspects of the applicant's performance except for the contested OER. If the rated officer's potential is below the majority of officers in the senior rater's population for that grade and the senior rater believes the rated officer should be retained for further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101192C070208
It is noted that the applicant received a center of mass rating during his first rating period as a recruiting battalion commander. The applicant's contentions concerning his performance as a recruiting battalion commander as compared to the other battalion commanders rated by his SR are noted. The SR had to evaluate the applicant against all those 35 officers, not just the other battalion commanders.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003545C070208
The applicant states, in effect, that rater evaluations in Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Performance During the Rating Period and his/her Potential for Promotion) and the senior rater (SR) evaluations in Part VIIa (Senior Rater-Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) of both reports in question are not consistent with the comments by the rating officials. The applicant also provided three other third-party statements from senior officials who were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021373
The applicant requests the removal of Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) covering the periods 20050617 20051115, 20070416 20080331, and 20080401 20090206 from his official records. Counsel requests that the three contested OERs be removed from the applicants official records. The applicant also received a relief for cause OER ending on 15 November 2005 (first contested OER) in which he received a NO rating in Part IV Performance Evaluation Professionalism under Duty. 5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079390C070215
The applicant requests correction of his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 990509-991224 to show that his senior rater, in Part VIIa, marked the block "Best Qualified" (BQ) and that the "Fully Qualified" (FQ) block mark be deleted. His senior rater indicated in Part VIIa that the applicant was best qualified. It goes on to state, "The senior rater's evaluation is made by comparing the rated officer's performance and potential with all other officers of the same grade the...
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.