| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul A. Petty | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 950603 – 960414 be removed from his record or that the rater’s section on the OER Part Vd (This Officer’s Potential for Promotion to the Next Higher Grade) be changed from “Promote with Contemporaries” to “Promote Ahead of Contemporaries.”
3. The applicant states, in effect, that during the rating period 950603 – 960414, for which he received a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) OER as the Assistant V Corps Chaplain in Heidelberg, Germany, he had a change of duty from 17 December 1995 through 28 March 1996 when he was reassigned as United States Army Europe (USAREUR) Forward Chaplain in Taszar, Hungary. He states that he should have been given a change of duty OER but was not, which constitutes a substantive error in the 950603 – 960414 OER. He further states that the rater selected “Promote with Contemporaries” without justification, as a result of conflict with the applicant, presenting an unjust and inaccurate representation of his performance and demonstrated potential. He provides a copy of an OER appeal with supporting documentation to include supporting statements from two general officers, two colonels, a lieutenant colonel, a sergeant major, and a sergeant first class, and an award of a Meritorious Service Medal for the period in question.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he, a lieutenant colonel chaplain, was assigned to Headquarters, V Corps, in Heidelberg, Germany, on 27 June 1995, as the Assistant Corps Chaplain. His rater was the Deputy Corps Chaplain and his senior rater was the Corps Chaplain. According to his Officer Record Brief, he was reassigned as USAREUR Forward Chaplain in Kaposvar, Hungary, on 30 November 1995. The USAREUR Forward was deployed in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. He returned to Heidleberg and his Assistant Corps Chaplain job on or about 28 March 1996. On 15 April 1996, he was reassigned through a PCS move to the 100th Area Support Group, Grafenwoehr, Germany, as the Deputy Chaplain.
5. He received a PCS OER for the period 950603 – 960414, which included a period 950603 – 950626 for PCS leave and travel. He received from his rater, “1” ratings in professional competence (Part IIIa), complimentary comments in professional ethics (Part IIIb), performance rated as “Always Exceeded Requirements” with complimentary comments (Part Vb&c), and promotion potential rated as “Promote with Contemporaries” (Part Vd). His senior rater rated the applicant’s potential in the second block, center-of-mass, with complimentary comments (Part VII).
6. The applicant appealed the OER to the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) on three successive occasions between 30 September 2000 and
approximately 15 March 2001. The first two appeals were based on a claim of injustice in the rater’s potential rating of “Promote with Contemporaries” which the applicant contended was the result of a personality conflict with the rater and not a true measure of his potential. On both appeals, the President of the OSRB returned the appeals without action, finding insufficient evidence to support the contention. The applicant’s third appeal include new evidence, additional statements of support, and a new issue, substantive error concerning the change of duty that occurred during the rating period. The President of the OSRB again returned the appeal without action indicating that the new evidence did not warrant accepting the appeal for adjudication. The applicant was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
7. The Chief of the Appeals and Corrections Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), provided an advisory opinion that the OER for the period 950603 – 960414 should be removed from the official record and the period declared nonrated. The opinion is given that a change of duty OER should have been given to the applicant when his duties changed from V Corps Assistant Corps Chaplain to USAREUR Forward Chaplain, in accordance with Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 5-4a. This constitutes a substantive error in the OER in question. Correction of the ratings by obtaining the change of duty OER is not now possible as it is over the 2 1/2 year time limit established by PERSCOM to prepare new OERs. The applicant concurs with this opinion.
8. According to Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 5-4a, a report is mandatory when the rated officer has a change of principal duty, even though the rater remains the same.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s OER for the period 950603 – 960414 contains a substantive error in that he was given a change of duty during the period but not given the required change of duty OER. As such, the OER for the period 950603 – 960414 is invalid and should be removed from the record and the period declared nonrated time.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned by:
a. removing from the record the OER for the period 950603 – 960414; and
b. showing that the rating period 950603 – 960414 is nonrated time; and
c. placing an adequate explanation in his Official Military Personnel File to show that this nonrated period was not caused by any fault on his part, to ensure that he will not be prejudiced thereby in any future personnel actions or board selection considerations.
BOARD VOTE:
__js___ ___dh___ __rd____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___John N. Slone___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001058644 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010828 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111 – Efficiency Reporting System |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001057524C070420
The Inquiry Officer (IO) recommended a memorandum be prepared and sent to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting that the OER be returned to the rater for correction of Part Vd, promotion potential. He did so, but the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) returned the appeal without action. To present the whole truth, the comment should have been expanded to explain what he stole and why (“he took the company’s guidon to present to the former commander”).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017622
g. Paragraph 3-17 states that comments must pertain exclusively to the rating period of the report; comments related to nonrated periods will not be included (that is, schooling, duties performed while suspended, and so forth). i. Paragraph 3-33 states the rated Soldier will always be the last individual to sign the evaluation report. With respect to the rating chain, the applicant, as the rated Soldier, was the last individual to sign the evaluation report.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052095C070420
In addition, counsel indicated that a review of the applicant’s OERs as a first lieutenant (1LT), from 1983 to 1988, provides no evaluation or information that would serve to deny her promotion. It states, in pertinent part, in paragraph 4-27g and h, that any report with a SR potential evaluation in one of the bottom three blocks in Part VIIa; and any report with ratings or comments that, in the opinion of the SR, is so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the rated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606059C070209
The contested report was a change of rater OER evaluating him as a captain while performing as the chief, soldier family assistance branch, at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. The SR opines that the applicant always exceeded performance standards and showed potential for promotion ahead of his peers. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that an error or injustice exists in his case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606408C070209
The raters narrative comments on her performance and potential were complimentary and he placed her in the usually exceeded requirements block (the second highest rating). (The senior rater potential evaluation portion of an OER contains nine blocks. The applicant has not established a basis for removal of the contested OERs nor has she shown that her case merits reconsideration for promotion to the grade of major.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008103
The applicant states that he believes that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) did not thoroughly examine his appeal. He based his appeal on his improper placement as COM in his SR's profile and the fact that another OER considered by the promotion board which had a stamp on it which stated "FY01 Promotion." As for the applicant's promotion, the only other contention made by the applicant was the fact that an OER considered by the promotion board had a stamp on it which stated "FY01...
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 | CY2003 | 2003090200C070212
The applicant's OER for the period 5 June 1995 through 4 October 1995, was a change of rater report which covered 4 months of rated time and it was rendered on 29 July 1999. The applicant's records contain a memorandum, dated 9 May 1997, signed by the 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) Commanding General (CG), which designated the applicant's Battalion Commander as his senior rater (SR) for the period 20 June 1996 through 19 June 1997. Army Regulation 623-105 paragraph 4-27 requires that...
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...