| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 2 December 1981 through 1 December 1982 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or moved to the restricted portion of his OMPF.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was never counseled on his substandard performance and he had no idea that his rater thought so poorly of him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time of the contested OER the applicant was serving on active duty as a communications platoon leader in the rank of first lieutenant. It was the first OER of his active duty career and was a 12-month, annual report. The rater was the applicant’s company commander and the senior rater (SR) was the battalion commander.
In Part IV, Professionalism, the rater provided six “3” ratings, two “2” ratings, and six “1” ratings for professional competence. The rater noted in his narrative comments that the applicant did not seek responsibility, required detailed guidance and supervision, must set higher standards for his platoon, and needed to improve his self discipline to become a more effective leader.
In the rater’s performance block of Part V, he marked the box for “Met Requirements.” In the narrative portion for performance, the rater noted that the applicant had been mostly ineffective in providing leadership and had failed to plan and direct an effective training program for his platoon. The rater also mentioned that he had counseled the applicant on numerous occasions concerning his shortcomings. In the potential for promotion section, the rater checked the box for “Do Not Promote.” The rater noted the applicant had limited potential for increased responsibility.
Comments provided by the SR on the applicant’s potential noted that he had not satisfactorily progressed and required extraordinary supervision. The SR placed him in the fifth block of his profile with 50 other lieutenant ratings ranked above him and one below him in the seventh block. The SR also noted that he reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal comments prior to forwarding the OER.
The report was referred to the applicant for possible comment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the adverse OER and provided a rebuttal for consideration. The applicant’s rebuttal addressed each low rated area in detail, providing an example of his duty performance to show that the low ratings were not accurate. He believed that his rater was providing little or no guidance and then, only at the last minute. He also noted that he had never received even one counseling statement from his rater and his rater did not recommend that his promotion to first lieutenant be delayed even though he spent the majority of his platoon leader time as a second lieutenant.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever requested a commander’s inquiry or appealed the contested OER to the Department. He was promoted to the rank of captain effective 1 June 1985. He was voluntarily separated from active duty in the rank of captain effective 31 July 1992 under a special separation program with monetary incentives.
Effective 1 August 1992 he accepted an Army Reserve appointment in the rank of captain. He was promoted to the rank of major in the Army Reserve effective 1 April 1994. Effective 6 July 1995 the applicant was voluntarily assigned to a Reserve unit. He was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1999 and 2000 Reserve Component Selection Board. He was discharged effective 1 September 2001 based on his two nonselections for promotion and having completed 20 years of commissioned service.
Army Regulation 623-105, in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for the OER system. Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provided that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation stated 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 material error or inaccuracy is warranted.
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 has submitted no evidence of substantive inaccuracy of the contested report from anyone in a vantage point equivalent to that of members of the rating chain.
2. The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.
3. The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from his OMPF.
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
__rw___ ___pm___ ___kl__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058059 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010920 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.0005 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008650C071108
Rea M. Nuppenau | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Part IIe (Signature of Rated Officer) of the contested report shows the applicant authenticated the report. Notwithstanding the applicant's affidavit, the applicant has not provided clear and compelling evidence which shows that the ratings on the contested report were in error or that they were not considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013933
The applicant requests: a. his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 1 July 2011 through 15 December 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); and b. the period covered by the contested OER be recorded as nonrated time in his AMHRR; or c. the rater and senior rater's (SR) block checks be masked and their comments regarding the property loss be masked with an un-prejudicial explanation inserted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005319
In Part IV (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism) of the OER, the rater, a CPT, evaluated the applicant as indicated: a. However, there is insufficient evidence to support removal of the two OERs in question. The evidence of record in this case fails to show the applicant requested a commander's inquiry or appealed these reports to the OSRB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007181
The applicant requests: * amendment of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 8 April through 8 September 2006 to reflect his senior rater rated him as "best qualified" vice "fully qualified" (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) * consideration by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to major (MAJ) in the primary zone 2. Although in the written commentary, OER counseling at the time, subsequent promotion to troop executive officer (XO)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012833
The applicant requests correction of Part VIIa (Senior Rater (SR) Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 1 November 2011 through 7 February 2012 (henceforth referred to as the subject OER) to show the SR marked the "Best Qualified" box rather than the "Fully Qualified" box. "; h. in Part VIIa, the SR rated the applicant's promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Fully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011201
On the OER located in his official military personnel file (OMPF), the senior rater checked the "fully qualified" block in Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) and not the "best qualified" block as he intended to do. The applicant provides the second page to the contested OER wherein it shows that none of the blocks in Part VIIa of the OER were checked. After reviewing the contested OER, his copy of the OER, and the applicant's follow-on OER...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008856
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 30 July 2008 to 5 February 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). However, it states if he did not appeal within 3 years that it was untimely and he must address the situation to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). In Part VIIc, the senior rater...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003597
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 30 July 2008 to 5 February 2009 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). b. Paragraph 2-18 states when an officer is officially relieved of duties and a "Relief for Cause" OER is subsequently prepared, the evaluation report requires referral to the rated officer. Reviewers of "Relief for Cause" OERs will * ensure that the narrative portions of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019495
Counsel requests: a. removal of the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 1 July 2008 through 30 November 2008 (hereafter referred to as the referred OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and b. restoration of all pay, allowances, entitlements, rights, and privileges, which were affected by the referred OER and led to his discharge from the U.S. Army on 1 November 2011 (in effect, reinstatement of his commission that was lost when he was discharged from the Regular...
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.