PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 27 June 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064926


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests that his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report - OER) for the period of 1 October 1997 through 1 May 1998, part VII (Senior Rater), box a (Promotion Potential) be changed from "Fully Qualified" to "Best Qualified."

3. The applicant states, in effect, that the senior rater stated in a letter, dated
2 September 1998, that she had made an error in checking the "Fully Qualified" block on the new OER form due to a misunderstanding of guidance on completing the new OER. The senior rater wrote, "Based on my understanding of the new OER, I checked the 'Fully Qualified' box as I believed, in the new system, it was to correlate to the 'center of mass' rating. I have been called by both branches telling me I have rendered a report that has made these officers non-competitive for promotion since the majority of all reports are showing up with a 'Best Qualified' block checked. It was never my intent to make these officers non-competitive. I now realize my lack of understanding of the new OER caused me to render reports that were unjust. I request that both OER's in question be changed to reflect an 'X' in the 'Best Qualified' block in Section VII, Part A, of their Officer Efficiency Report."

4. The applicant’s military records show that he was an Aviation Branch major (MAJ) serving as the executive officer of a recruiting battalion in Alabama and Northwest Florida when he received the OER in question. It was the first OER he had received with the then new DA Form 67-9 under the new OER system. He received all "Yes" entries in Part IV (Performance Evaluation - Professionalism), "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), and "Center of Mass" in Part VII b (Senior Rater – Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated by Same Grade). In Part VII a (Senior Rater – Rated Officer's Promotion Potential), he received a check in the second block, "Fully Qualified," the first block being labeled "Best Qualified." The Rater evaluated the applicant's performance with superlative phrases such as, "dramatically improved, increased administrative and logistical support, completely revamped, enhanced assistance and training, makes common sense (and) rational command decisions, molded the battalion staff into an effective can-do team, instituted a prompt efficient system, dramatic decline in the number of vehicle accidents, diligence in improving all aspects, does all things professionally, top notch in all areas, outstanding ability." The Senior Rater commented on the applicant's performance and potential stating, "(The applicant) has performed his duties as a battalion executive officer in excellent fashion. He has mentored his staff and managed them toward totally supporting the recruiters in the field. He has shown himself to be an excellent team builder in effectively building a solid performing staff. (The applicant) has placed priorities in the right areas, thus greatly assisting the command in accomplishing its mission. (The applicant) is fully qualified for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel."


5. The applicant appealed the OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) with a letter of support from the Senior Rater. The OSRB found that the Chief, Management Support Division, the Total U. S. Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), had published a memorandum, subject: New OER (DA Form 67-9) Part VII a and b Disconnect, dated 16 October 1998, stating, "analysis (of the first 1000 new OERs) indicated an apparent disconnect between the block checks in Parts VII a and b of the Senior Rater portion of the OER … in many cases, Senior Rates were under the mistaken belief that there was a required link between the two block checks. In other words, a 'Center of Mass' block check in Part VII b required a 'Fully Qualified' block check in Part VII a. … However, these terms … are not explicitly defined … thereby possibly contributing to confusion on the part of the Senior Raters.' As a result, 'the Evaluation Systems Office took immediate action to properly educate the field on the design/intent of this portion of the OER … efforts have had an immediate positive impact on reducing the incidence of 'Fully Qualified' OERs. … It is clear this situation has resulted in some officers receiving unjust ratings based on their Senior Rater not being thoroughly informed and educated on ... the new system … they were inadvertently mis-rated." The memorandum informed officers who found that they had received unjust ratings as a result of this "apparent disconnect" should seek correction of the OERs.

6. On 21 August 2000, the OSRB denied the appeal based on: 1) a finding that the Senior Rater had rated 9 MAJs within the same timeframe as the appellant, rating 4 as "Center of Mass – Best Qualified" and 5 as "Center of Mass – Fully Qualified;" and 2) the opinion that the Senior Rater's request for the change of the rating was retrospective thinking.

7. The applicant was considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel below the zone by the 2000 promotion board and not selected, in the zone by the 2001 promotion board and not selected, and above the zone by the 2002 promotion board whose decisions have not yet been released. As a MAJ, the applicant has received, in addition to the OER in question, 3 "Above Center of Mass – Best Qualified" OERs, 2 "Center of Mass – Best Qualified" OERs, and 2 top-man block "Center of Mass – Promote Ahead of Contemporaries (top block)" OERs. He served successfully as a platoon commander and received an "Above Center of Mass - Promote Ahead of Contemporaries" evaluation as a company commander. He satisfactorily completed the Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the Command and General Staff College. He has been awarded
3 Meritorious Service Medals, 2 Army Commendation Medals, 1 Joint Service Commendation Medal, 3 Army Achievement Medals, 1 Joint Meritorious Unit Award, and several service awards. He is a rotary wing qualified aviator and qualified in air traffic control.



CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant's OER in question is erroneous and unjust. The Senior Rater stated that she was under the misunderstanding that there was an acceptable link between "Center of Mass" and "Fully Qualified" on the new OER. The fact that she had rated 4 MAJs as "Center of Mass – Best Qualified" and 5 as "Center of Mass – Fully Qualified" does not disprove that she was functioning under a misunderstanding, as the OSRB opined, but in fact shows that she gave the majority what she thought was an acceptable center of mass evaluation believing that there was an acceptable correlation between "Center of Mass" and "Fully Qualified." The PERSCOM memorandum on the subject substantiates that this misunderstanding by Senior Raters existed which, "resulted in some officers receiving unjust ratings based on their Senior Rater not being thoroughly informed and educated ... the new system … they were inadvertently mis-rated." With such new understanding, the Senior Rater requested that the applicant's rating be changed to "Best Qualified." This does not constitute unacceptable retrospective thinking under the circumstances. The applicant's OER in question should be so corrected and reference to his OER appeal moved to his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) restricted microfiche along with the record of these proceedings.

2. As a result of being considered for promotion with a file containing this erroneous and unjust OER, record of his non-selection for promotion by those boards should be removed from his record and he should be reconsidered for promotion under the criteria of the 2000 and 2001 boards. Should he not be selected for promotion by those boards and not selected by the 2002 board whose decisions have not yet been released, he should also be considered under the 2002 criteria.

3. 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. changing his DA Form 67-9 (OER) for the period of 1 October 1997 through 1 May 1998, Part VII (Senior Rater), box a (Promotion Potential) to show a check mark in the box for "Best Qualified;"

b. removing the reference to his OER appeal from his OMPF performance microfiche and placing it with the proceedings of this Board in his OMPF restricted microfiche; and

c. reconsidering him for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the 2000, 2001, and as necessary, the 2002 promotion criteria.

BOARD VOTE:

__iw___ ___rd___ ___kn___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ____Irene N. Wheelwright__
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064926
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020627
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	111 – Efficiency/Effectiveness Reporting System
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.