| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 4 July 1985 through 3 July 1986 be moved to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File. He requests that once this is done that his file be sent to a Special Selection Board (SSB).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was placed at a disadvantage in selection for promotion because his first OER was as a first lieutenant (1LT) and that, unlike those of his counterparts, it was not transferred to his restricted fiche. He states that the Army’s policy of moving only second lieutenant’s (2LT) OERs to their restricted fiche after they are promoted to captain is arbitrary in nature. He also states that the OER in question covered was primarily for service as a 2LT but that since he was a 1LT at the time it was written it was not moved to his restricted fiche, as were those of his contemporaries. He states that by not having his first OER masked, as were those of his contemporaries, he was passed over for attendance in the residency portion of the Command and General Staff College (Phase II) and for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was commissioned a Reserve 2LT in May of 1983. He received an educational delay in reporting to complete his degree and entered active duty in March of 1985. He was promoted to first lieutenant on 13 May 1986 and subsequently promoted to captain and major.
The applicant completed Combined Arms and Services Staff School in May 1992 and Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Phase 1 in May 1998.
His first annual OER (4 July 1985 through 3 July 1986) shows the applicant was evaluated as a 1LT. He received maximum ratings from his rater, however the senior rater ranked him in the third block, which was the center of mass. The applicant’s records contain 19 evaluations. He was rated at above the center of mass on 4 and at the center of mass on 15. Six of these were top block center of mass ratings.
There is no documentation of the applicant’s reported denial of the attendance at the residency portion of the CGSC (Phase II) or his being non-selected for promotion to LTC.
Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system. It provides the opportunity to request a Commander’s Inquiry or to appeal disputed reports. Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed 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 states 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.
An advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command that opined that it would be impossible to make an exception to established policy without jeopardizing consistency in the board process.
A copy of this opinion was forwarded to the applicant and he rebutted the opinion by indicating that without relocating his first OER he was not given the same “fair and level playing field” than officers whose first OERS were relocated.
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), currently in effect, prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers on active duty. Paragraph 7-11 specifies that officers who discover a material error existed in their file at the time they were non-selected for promotion may request reconsideration by a special selection board. The regulation also states requests for reconsideration will be forwarded to the Commander of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) and reconsideration will normally not be granted when the error is minor or when the officer, by exercising reasonable care, could have detected and corrected the error. Further, officers being reconsidered are not afforded the opportunity to correspond with the special selection board and their file will be reconstructed as it should have appeared on the convening date of the promotion board that failed to select the officer for promotion.
Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 97-149, in pertinent part, directs that the first OERs of 2LTs be relocated to their restricted fiche after their promotion to captain. It states that this action is done to remove information from an officer’s performance file, which may simply be a reflection of an initial learning curve, and thereby preclude its use for personnel management decisions later in an officer’s career. Personnel Command (PERSCOM) was to begin masking the reports effective 1 October 1997 with a masking of 2LT reports for those officers eligible for consideration by the fiscal year 1998 resident CGSC selection board.
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(s), it is concluded:
1. MILPER Message NR 97-149 provides for the masking of OER for a 2LT only.
2. Given the applicant’s overall record, the Board concludes that he has not shown that this first OER should be removed or that the removal of this OER would affect his selection for further education or consideration for promotion.
3. The applicant did not exercise reasonable care in this matter as is required by Army Regulation 600-8-29. He is not entitled to a reconsideration for promotion.
4. 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
__JH____ __KAK__ ___RWA_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064814 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020205 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.00 |
| 2. | 131.09 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071768C070403
It was noted that promotion reconsideration is approved only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. The evidence of record shows the applicant's 2LT OERs were in his file when he was promoted to first lieutenant, captain, and major; however, there is no evidence that the 2LT OERs impacted negatively on those promotions. After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board concluded that there was no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711770
APPLICANT STATES : That he appealed to have these two reports removed from his file in 1987 because (1) his signature had been forged on the report ending 12 September 1981, (2) both reports incorrectly asserted that he had been given the opportunity to submit an OER support form, and (3) both the rater and senior rater marked his reports down due to a misunderstanding of Army policy, which required them to show due regard of an officer’s current grade, experience, and military schooling. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053664C070420
Therefore, since the contested OER was properly filed at the time, there was no error in his record when reviewed for promotion to major by the fiscal year FY99 selection board. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below, to show there is no longer a basis for the granting of his request. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by rescinding the Board’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013215
The file contained a memorandum for record (MFR) relating to a successful Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) appeal of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) as a first lieutenant (1LT). She provides: * A self-authored statement * An IG letter, dated 2 July 2013 * Numerous email * Memorandum, Subject: SSB Validation Panel Results FY12, LTC Army OS, dated 10 December 2012 * Promotion board files for FY11, FY12, and FY13 * Officer Record Brief (ORB) CONSIDERATION OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002074434C070403
He also states that not one signal officer was selected for battalion command last year without having attended resident CGSC. The OSRB concluded that the advice the SR most likely received from PERSCOM was that Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-22c (2)(a) required the ACOM ratings to be less than 50 percent of his profiled reports. Selection Board but was not because of administrative error; and (2) When a CSC Selection Board considered and did not recommend for selection an officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058641C070421
In the alternate, he requests that he be considered for promotion by a special selection board, with instructions to that board that no adverse implication was to be construed by his having only two years of service in the rank of major or the number of officer evaluation reports (OERs) or types of duty assignments to date, and instructions to the board reflecting that in the absence of officer evaluation reports (OERs) during the period 1996-1998 while he was waiting for a decision on his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064935C070421
APPLICANT STATES : There is no way to compete for COL due to no fault of his own. OER Ending Period Senior Rater Block Rating (* indicates his rating) The Board concluded that it would be unjust to involuntarily separate her again and voided her previous nonselections to MAJ and showed that she was selected for promotion to major by the SSB which considered her for promotion to MAJ under the first year of her eligibility.