| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the paperwork regarding his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) referral and appeal be transferred from the performance fiche to the restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: That the presence of this additional paperwork with the OER on his performance fiche puts him at a further disadvantage and a higher likelihood of getting passed over for promotion by drawing attention to a bad OER that reflects on a very small portion of his military career. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty as a second lieutenant on 25 February 1991. He was promoted to captain on 20 April 1995.
The applicant received an 8-rated month annual OER for the period 27 April 1994 through 26 April 1995. Part IVa shows that he received a 2 rating (with a 1 being to the highest degree and a 5 to the lowest degree) in the area of displays sound judgment. A related comment, “Exercised bad judgment and discretion in one incident which resulted in a reprimand by the Commanding General…,” is entered in Part IVb. His performance was rated as “always exceeded requirements” in Part Vb. His promotion potential was rated as “promote with contemporaries” in Part Vd. His senior rater (SR) gave him a 2 block rating (3/2/0/0/0/0/0/0/0) in Part VIIa. In Part VIIb, his SR made mostly commendatory comments except for the comment “…however, he carelessly allowed himself to become involved in an embarrassing situation that showed poor discipline and judgment.” On 26 May 1995, this OER was referred to him as the SR determined it could have a negative impact on his career. On 13 June 1995, the applicant provided rebuttal comments to the OER. The referral letter and his comments are filed on his performance fiche.
The applicant received a 4-rated month permanent change of station OER for the period 27 April 1995 through 29 August 1995. He received all 1 ratings in Part IV. His performance was rated as “always exceeded requirements” in Part Vb. His promotion potential was rated as “promote ahead of contemporaries” in Part Vd. He received all commendatory comments by his rater and SR; however, his SR gave him a 2 block, below center of mass rating (3/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0) in Part VIIa. He appealed this OER, contending that his SR intended to place him at least center of mass; however, because of visibility over his profile the SR inadvertently rated him below center of mass. His appeal is filed on his restricted fiche. An 8 June 1999 memorandum from the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to him stating the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the OER is filed on his performance fiche.
Army Regulation 600-8-104 prescribes the policies for the Military Personnel Information Management/Records Program of the Military Personnel System.
Table 2-1 describes the composition of the OMPF. In pertinent part, it states that OERs will be filed on the officer’s performance fiche with any authorized enclosures. It also states that the document that announces the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Special Review Board or Commander PERSCOM decision that denies or partially denies an evaluation report appeal will be filed on the performance fiche. Allied documents in an evaluation report appeal will be filed on the restricted fiche when a memorandum for record is filed on the performance fiche.
Army Regulation 623-105 prescribes the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 5-37 states that no enclosures other than those specifically listed will be attached to the original OER when forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army. The SR’s letter of referral and the rated officer’s acknowledgment and comments regarding a referred report are authorized enclosures. Paragraph 9-5(e) states that the appeal reviewing agency notifies each appellant by letter of the decision on his or her appeal. When an appeal is denied, a copy of the letter or memorandum of notification is filed in the performance portion of the OMPF.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB). The DASEB opined that the documents were properly filed and recommended denial of the applicant’s request.
A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. He did not respond within the given time frame.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1. 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.
2. The referral memorandum dated 26 May 1995 and the applicant’s response dated 13 June 1995 are properly filed with his OER for the period ending 26 April 1995. The 8 June 1999 notification memorandum that his appeal of his OER for the period ending 29 August 1995 was disapproved is properly filed. The applicant should have been aware when he prepared his appeal that the memorandum would be filed on his performance fiche if his OER appeal were denied. It would be inequitable to remove the applicant’s referral memoranda or the OER appeal denial memorandum as all other individuals who receive referred OERs or submit OER appeals which are subsequently denied also have the related memoranda filed on their performance fiche.
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
__mdm___ __le____ __gjw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053679 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010719 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089376C070403
In addition to addressing the applicant's other contentions, the OSRB noted that, although the rating period of the first contested OER was under 90 days, Military Personnel Message 97-099 waived the minimum rating period time requirements for transitioning to the new OER system and the closeout OER. Army Regulation 623-105, the version in effect at the time of the applicant's first contested OER, also stated that an OER would be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgment and comment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005637
According to Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 3-24b, rating officials may not comment on an NJP that a Soldier receives when the NJP is filed in the restricted section of the OMPF. At the time the OER was completed, the applicant had received the NJP and it was filed in the performance section of this OMPF. The applicant has not provided convincing evidence to have the OER moved to the restricted section of his OMPF or to have the NJP, OER, or referral...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074934C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In Part Vd (Potential for Promotion), the rater placed the applicant in the second block (Promote With Contemporaries) and provided the comment that the applicant performed adequately in his position, he should be considered for promotion to colonel with his contemporaries, and he could command any other detachment in the rater’s command. Chapter 4 contained guidance on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080171C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In a three page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), that the OER for the period 13 July 1996 to 5 May 1997 [hereafter referred to as the contested OER], is substantively inaccurate and an unjust evaluation of his performance and potential. The Board determined that there is no evidence and the applicant has failed to provide evidence to support his contention that he received "diminished" ratings based on the Report of Survey. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002510C070208
The contested OER was reviewed by the personnel officer on 11 March 1991 and he prepared a memorandum for the SR. Army Regulation 623-105, in pertinent part, stated that, among other mandatory reasons, an OER with a SR potential evaluation in one of the bottom three blocks in Part VIIa or any report with ratings or comments that, in the opinion of the SR, were so derogatory that the report could have an adverse impact on the rated officer's career would be referred to the rated officer for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086180C070212
The applicant requests that the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 5 February 1997 and the negative comments on the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 13 September 1996 through 4 May 1997 [herein referred to as the contested OER] be expunged from his record. The V Corps SJA continued that the responsibility for the weapon was CPT G's and that CPT G was the only one without dispute that deceived the investigating officer. k. The applicant stated that an Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072408C070403
As division administrative and leadership issues emerged through this rating period, it became apparent that this officer placed his well being ahead of that of his subordinates. This relief for cause report was directed based on [applicant's] inability to meet accepted professional officer standards as outlined in this report. In Part Ve, Comment on Potential, the rater stated that the applicant would best serve the Army Medical Department in positions not requiring management or...
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 | CY2005 | 20050003737C070206
Counsel states, regarding the applicant's OER for the period ending 17 April 2003, her SR purports to be Doctor K___. Counsel provides the applicant's OER for the period ending 12 April 1996 with her SR's referral letter and her acknowledgement of receipt; her Officer Record Brief; OERs for the periods ending 23 June 1992, 23 June 1993, 31 May 1994, 9 November 1994, and 14 September 1995; her 3 June 1997 appeal of the 12 April 1996 OER with supporting statements; U. S. Army Human Resource...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086044C070212
By memorandum dated 31 July 1996, the Commander of the 561st CSG (the SR on the two contested OERs) sent his OER support form, along with OER and rating guidance, to his commanders and staff. The following were means that could be used: (1) personal contact; (2) records and reports; (3) the rater's evaluations of the rated officer as given on the OER; and (4) information given by the rated officer and the rater on the support form. The Board concludes that the two-sentence SR narrative...