| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his DA Form 67-8, Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period from 1 August 1992 through 1 November 1992 be corrected by allowing his senior rater (SR) to amend Part VIIa by checking the top block of the SR profile (Part VIIa).
3. The applicant states that until recently he was unaware that the contested OER was considered a derogatory report because he was placed below center-of-mass (COM) in the SR profile. While investigating why he was not selected for lieutenant colonel, the applicant “discovered” that the senior rating on his OER was considered below COM and portrayed him as a substandard officer. The applicant states that the SR evaluated his performance using incomplete information and rated his performance using unsound guidance from his superior officers resulting in an OER that does not accurately reflect his performance during the rated period and that this evaluation is currently being misunderstood by the Army Boards reviewing it.
4. In support of his application, the applicant submitted a letter in his own behalf; a copy of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) findings; a memorandum of support of the OER appeal from a General Officer; a note from his former SR, dated 30 November 1992; a letter from his former SR to correct OER; and the subject OER.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 21 December 1984 and subsequently entered active duty. He was promoted to the grade of captain on 1 May 1989.
6. In November 1992, the applicant received the report in question. It was a change of rater performance evaluation report covering a total of 4 rated months. His SR placed him in the third block along with ten other officers. He had rated three officers in the top block and eight officers in the second block. The SR comments were generally positive, noting that the applicant was “an outstanding officer, a future MI battalion commander and Division G-2, and that he should be schooled and promoted accordingly.” The OER was not considered an adverse OER and therefore, was not referred to the applicant.
7. On 30 November 1992, the SR provided the applicant a copy of his OER with an attached note stating, “You are doing an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. I only regret that I have been unable to get to know you and the company better. My COM is block 3 and below.”
8. The applicant was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 2001 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.
9. On 28 June 2001, the SR, in a letter of support of the applicant’s appeal, stated, in effect, that he was unaware that placing the applicant in the third block would put him below the SR’s COM and that he would like to change it from “3” to “1” if possible, otherwise he asked that the report be removed completely. He added that in his second opportunity to evaluate the applicant in the same capacity as a MI company commander for an 8-month period of time, he tried to rectify the original OER. He concludes by saying the applicant was one of the best company commanders he has ever worked with, a true professional, and that he is requesting help in righting a wrong and correcting a mistake of the past.
2. The SR’s narrative comments called the applicant “outstanding” and a “future MI battalion commander and Division G-2.” These comments were not consistent with his placement of the applicant in Block #3 of the SR profile. It is inconceivable that the SR would recommend a below COM officer for battalion command and duty as a Division G-2.
10. On 30 July 2001, the applicant appealed the contested OER to the OSRB. The OSRB conducted a preliminary review of the OER and returned it without action due to it being more than 5 years since the OER completion date.
11. The applicant’s complete OMPF through 18 June 2000 was reviewed to determine whether the contested OER reflected his standard duty performance. The applicant’s duty performance has been consistently above COM with the exception of the contested OER. His duty performance before and after the contested OER has been exemplary. Of the 19 ratings received, the applicant was placed in the top block 13 times, in the second block 5 times, and in the third block 1 time. In all of those ratings, his performance was rated as “always exceeded requirements,” his potential for promotion to the next higher grade was rated as “promote ahead of contemporaries, and his professional competence and ethics was always annotated as “1” (high degree).
12. Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system. It notes that it is the responsibility of the SR to evaluate a rated officer’s potential relative to his or her contemporaries. His or her evaluation is based on the premise that in a representative sample of 100 officers of the same grade or grade grouping (Army-wide), the relative potential of such a sample will approximate a bell-shaped normal distribution pattern. At the time, the regulation also provided the opportunity for SRs to refer adverse reports to rated officers when, in the opinion of the SR, the report contained ratings or comments which were so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the rated officer’s career.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant is a career soldier with an exceptionally strong OMPF consisting of solid, slightly above center of mass OER ratings with the exception of the contested report that is below COM.
3. Given the inconsistencies between the SR’s below COM block check, his narrative comments on potential, and the ratings and comments by the rater, the Board concurs with the SR that his profile failed to convey his intent to rate the applicant COM and that the applicant should not be penalized for the SR’s mistake.
4. Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the SR in this case clearly intended to rate the applicant in the third block; however, it is also just as clear that the SR did not intend for that third block rating to put the applicant below COM.
5. The Board determined that the block check in Part VIIa of the contested OER is inconsistent with the SR’s narrative comments, the same type comments used by the SR when placing the applicant in block #1 on the next OER. Therefore, the Board concludes that a more equitable resolution would be to amend the contested OER by removing the SR’s profile in Part VIIa.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. deleting the SR profile in part VIIa of the contested OER covering the period 1 July 1992 through 1 November 1992, of the individual concerned;
b. that an appropriate nonprejudicial statement explaining the absence of the senior rater profile in part VIIa of the contested OER be placed in his records;
c. removing from his OMPF all documents related to his appeal of the contested OER;
d. following administrative implementation of the foregoing, submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel using the criteria of the 2001 Lieutenant Colonel promotion Board;
e. if he is selected for promotion, promoting him and assigning him an appropriate date of rank; and
f. by notifying him if he is not selected for promotion.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
_AAO____ _KYF___ __RWA__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_Arthur A. Omartian _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001062176 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020404 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DASA |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.1000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607830C070209
The applicant also submitted a statement from the SR of the contested report which indicates that he (the SR) made a serious administrative error by placing the applicant in the third block instead of the second block. The SR rated the applicant as a top block COM officer both prior to and subsequent to the contested report. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by changing the SR evaluation in part VIIa on the OER ending on 22...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608153C070209
The applicant states that the SR rendered the SR option (contested report) OER with the intent of showing that he was one of the best company commanders in the brigade. Although the Board cannot ascertain that the contested report has prevented the applicant from being selected for promotion, schooling, or command selection, it would be appropriate to correct the contested OER to reflect a top block rating and by deleting the SR profile from the contested OER. That all of the Department of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608475C070209
This placed the applicant below the COM on the SRs profile. Consequently, by maintaining his profile in the manner in which he did, he could not render a rating that would accurately portray a rated officers demonstrated performance and potential any higher than COM. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the contested OER by deleting the SR profile from the contested OER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605929aC070209
The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 18 June 1991 through 17 June 1992, by deleting the senior rater (SR) profile in part VIIa, removal from his records of the document prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denying his appeal of the OER, and promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) beginning in 1993. The supportive statement submitted by the applicant's former commanding general indicates that the...
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 | CY1996 | 9610422C070209
The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 1 October 1991 through 1 September 1992, by deleting Part VIIa (Senior Rater (SR) profile); removal from his records of the documents prepared by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denying his appeal of the OER; and promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by all boards that nonselected him. A review of the subsequent OER received by the applicant from the same SR shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605620aC070209
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request that the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 1 May 1990 through 5 November 1990 be corrected to reflect a top block rating in part VIIa, potential evaluation, instead of the second block rating he received. Although it is apparent to the Board that the SR intended to place the applicant in the second block, given the circumstances in this case and the favorable comments by the SR in the contested OER, it is not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610252C070209
The OSRB contacted officials at the PERSCOM to determine if the SR had submitted a request to correct the contested OER and was informed that there was no record of such a request. 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 rated by the SR. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610443C070209
The OSRB further indicated that the SR had rendered 18 ratings of colonels and restarted his profile twice. The Board also notes that the explanation by the OSRB indicating that the SR had given 18 ratings of colonels and that the applicant was the only officer who had received two two-block ratings of the five officers who had received two block ratings during the SRs two restarts, fails to mention the status (COM, below COM, etc.) Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606358C070209
The applicant requests correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 25 November 1993 through 26 May 1994 by changing the senior rater (SR) potential evaluation in part VIIa from a second block rating to a top block rating. This placed the applicant in the COM on the SRs profile (18 officers were in the top block, 26 officers were in the second block, of which the applicant was one), and one officer was in the third block. The Board is convinced that the SR believed...