| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 13 August – 14 December 1988 be amended to delete all references to his need for alcohol abuse rehabilitation and that he be given the notes and documents utilized to determine that he had an alcohol problem and needed rehabilitation.
3. The applicant states that the senior rater made comments regarding a drinking problem which were never founded and in fact were repudiated by both Army and civilian alcohol and drug counselors. A one-time incident does not constitute a drinking problem.
4. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 5 October 1994 (docket number AC 93-08983). The DD Form 149 and supporting documents for this case are not available.
5. The applicant’s OER for the period ending 14 December 1988, Part IVb, contains the comment that his lack of judgment led to his responsibility for an incident which involved a failure of the senior-subordinate relationship…and a one-time subversion of the personal values incumbent to officership. Part Vc contains the comment that a single incident in which he became intoxicated and made… totally inappropriate comments to a female cadet...reflected a failure in moral judgment inconsistent with the values he was to teach as well as exhibit. A further comment stated that the investigation into that incident led to his being relieved of his duties in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. Part Ve contained the comment that his potential as an officer following counseling and rehabilitation was without question. Part VIIb contained the comment that his potential depended upon successful rehabilitation from a drinking problem he had yet to acknowledge and his adopting behaviors that manifested the primacy of professional interest in his subordinates.
6. The applicant had provided two documents with his unsuccessful OER appeal. One was a letter dated 23 January 1989 from an Employee Assistance Program Counselor at Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, NY. That letter indicated the applicant had completed an assessment for an alcohol problem on 19 December 1988 and the counselor could find nothing in his past which would indicate a present problem with alcohol. The counselor referred him to a civilian organization for a more in-depth assessment. The 13 February 1989 letter from the civilian organization indicated that, due to a lack of Army cooperation to get further information about the applicant’s situation, their finding was based solely on the interviewing of him and his wife. It was their finding that he did not appear to suffer from alcohol dependence or abuse and the incident at the party represented an isolated episode of intoxication.
7. Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 4-21, states that no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning an officer. This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant did have an alcohol abuse assessment by a military facility the date after the ending date of the contested OER in addition to a later, more in-depth assessment by a civilian organization. There is no evidence to show he had prior alcohol-related problems. The Board concludes that it was premature at best for the raters to state he had a drinking problem that needed rehabilitation rather than one, isolated drinking incident.
2. The contested OER should be amended to remove the references in Parts Ve and VIIb concerning rehabilitation. However, the investigation concluded that the incident did occur and the Board sees no problem with the OER as a whole.
3. There appears to be no further need to respond to the applicant’s request to provide the notes and documents utilized to determine that he had an alcohol problem and needed rehabilitation. In any case, such “notes and documents” would have been in his raters’ possession, not the Board’s.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the applicant’s OER for the period ending 14 December 1988 be amended to delete, in Part Ve, the phrase “and rehabilitation” and, in Part VIIb, the phrase “successful rehabilitation from a drinking problem he has yet to acknowledge and.”
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__aao___ __mhm___ __kah__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Arthur A. Omartian
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001061236 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005492
The Board considered the following evidence: While the fact that an officer is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an OER until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain’s use of verified derogatory information. The comment on his use of alcohol is authorized since it is verified derogatory information (he was arrested for DUI on 8 September 1991).
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003084710C070212
The applicant provided a 20 December 2001 supporting statement from Major H___, the applicant's previous rater who became his senior rater when Major B___ was assigned and took over the Occupational Medicine Service of the PMD. It states that, at the beginning of the rating period, the support form is used to enhance planning and relate performance to mission through joint rater and rated officer discussion of the duty description and major performance objectives. DISCUSSION : Considering...
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 | CY1996 | 9608566C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 29 May 1993 through 28 May 1994 by removing remarks by the rater in part Ve and remarks by the senior rater (SR) in part VIIb and by granting her promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officers potential with all other officers of the same grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077461C070215
The office did not have then nor did it later have any rating scheme indicating that COL B___ was the applicant's rater or that COL W___ was the applicant's senior rater. The Board notes that AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant's OER appeal in part because he did not provide original or certified copies of his published rating scheme. That the contested OER for the period 7 July 1993 - 31 January 1994, wherein COL B___ was the applicant's rater and COL W___ was the senior rater, be removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007720
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 15 February 2010 through 14 February 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from her official military personnel file, now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). d. Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block and a second "X" in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009639C070205
With his OER appeal, the applicant provided a record of proceedings of the DWI charge which showed he was found not guilty of driving while impaired. It appears the comments made by the applicant’s rater on the contested OER were based on facts, not on an incomplete investigation. Therefore, it appears his relief for cause was based upon the considered judgment of his senior rater that, as a company commander, the applicant should not have placed himself in the position of driving after drinking.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004394C070206
The rater on the predecessor’s report, whom the allegations were made against, was a colonel who was not in the applicant’s rating chain on the contested report. The applicant’s most recent OER, and promotion recommendation from the rater on the contested report, were also carefully considered. The supporting third-party statements provided by the applicant were also carefully considered.