MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 05 SEPTEMBER 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002068521

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

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

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

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her records be corrected to include a "complete-the-record" evaluation report.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that proper procedures were not followed and as a result a "complete-the-record" evaluation report was not prepared on her prior to her being considered by the FY01 LTC (lieutenant colonel) promotion selection board. She states that Table 3-7, of Army Regulation 623-105 states that the servicing administrative office will "provide administrative data for board OERs [officer evaluation reports] by preparing a shell of [a] DA Form 67-9 [Officer Evaluation Report]." She notes that this did not occur in her case. She states that an OER shell was not prepared on her "even though the board message he [the G1] received gave zones of eligibility and OER requirements." She states that the G1 [battalion administrative officer] provided her name to her rater with a list "of the officers eligible for promotion consideration, with no mention of the requirements or type of report the officer may have been eligible for." She also states, in effect, that the same regulation requires that the evaluation section of the servicing administrative office notify appropriate individuals (commanders/Battalion S1's) of the requirements for mandatory and optional evaluation reports for officers being considered for promotion. She notes that she spoke with an NCO (noncommissioned officer) in her servicing personnel office that confirmed that no such procedures existed at Fort Sill.

The applicant maintains that as a result of the fact that regulatory requirements were not followed her rater was "unsure that [she] was eligible for a complete-the-record report, and therefore he did not submit one." She states that during "conversations with him in late August and again in early September" that had he known she was eligible for a "complete-the-record" evaluation report he would have submitted one. She states that her rater attempted to rectify the situation by preparing a report, having it hand carried to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Appeals and Correction Branch. She notes that her appeal was denied because the evaluation report was not received by the "Board cut-off date of 20 Feb 01."

The applicant states that the absence of the report "left a significant void in [her] performance record and rendered the members of the [promotion] board unable to holistically evaluate [her] performance and potential." She maintains that by having the report in her file the board would have had a "complete picture of [her] performance and given [her] a fair opportunity to compete against [her] contemporaries for selection to lieutenant colonel."

In support of her request she submits a self-authored statement, a copy of her evaluation report appeal to the PERSCOM, and a copy of a letter from an official at the PERSCOM denying her appeal to have the "complete-the-record" evaluation report included in her file and "subsequent promotion reconsideration."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1982 and subsequently ordered to active duty.

Performance evaluation reports, contained in the applicant's file, indicate that while serving in the rank of first lieutenant, she performed duties as a battalion adjutant. Her principal duties included "management and administrative actions for officer and enlisted personnel…." While serving in the rank of captain she performed duties as "Chief of the Board Operations Branch" in St. Louis. Her duties included "ensuring that timely and complete support is provided to selection boards in the form of evaluation reports…."

In July 1995 the applicant was promoted to the rank of major.

In February 2000 the applicant was considered, but not selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In preparation for that promotion selection board, a "complete-the-record" evaluation report was prepared by the applicant's rating officials in January 2000. The applicant was serving as a battalion executive officer at Fort Sill, Oklahoma at the time. While the report was highly complimentary of the applicant it was, nonetheless a center of mass evaluation report.

In the fall of 2000, Military Personnel Message Number 01-046, issued by the PERSCOM, announced the zones of consideration for the FY01 lieutenant colonel promotion selection board. The message noted that "complete-the-record" evaluation reports were optional for officers who met requirements outlined in paragraph 3-53, Army Regulation 623-105. It indicated that "complete-the-record" evaluation reports would have a "thru date" of
22 December 2000 and were to arrive at the Evaluation Reports Branch "error free" not later than 20 February 2001.

The FY01 lieutenant colonel promotion selection board convened on 27 February 2001. The results of the Board were announced on 12 June 2001. The applicant was not selected for promotion.

On 6 July 2001 the applicant submitted an appeal requesting that a "complete-the-record" evaluation report for the period 4 May 2000 through 22 December 2000, which was authenticated by the applicant and members of her rating chain on 9 July 2001, be inserted in her records and that she be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Included with her appeal was a statement from her rater. Her rater, a colonel, indicated in his statement that "failure to submit the report was no fault of [the applicant], rather an oversight by the chain of command." The applicant's appeal was denied.

In a 17 July 2001 memorandum the applicant was notified that she had been selectively continued on active duty "until reaching 24 years of Active Commissioned Service."

Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and provisions for the preparation and submission of officer evaluations report. It specifically notes that "the rated officer is the subject of the evaluation. He or she has considerable responsibility in the evaluation process."

Paragraph 3-53 of that regulation states that "at the option of the rater, a report may be submitted on a rated officer who is about to be considered by a DA selection board for promotion…. However, the rated officer must have served for a minimum of 90 calendar days…in the same position under the same rater as of the date announced in the DA message announcing the zones of consideration." Reports submitted under this provision of the regulation are known as "complete-the-record" evaluation reports.

Step 3, in Table 3-7 of Army 623-105 states that the "EVAL" [evaluation] section will "notify unit commanders/BN S1 of mandatory Promotion…and optional Complete-the-Record…reports for officers being considered by HQDA selection boards." Step 4, of that same table, indicates that the "BN S1" will "provide administrative data…by preparing a shell of DA Form 67-9."

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. Although the applicant is correct in her statement that her servicing administrative office was required, by regulation, to accomplish certain steps related to the notification and preparation of "complete-the-record" evaluation reports, the Board notes that the regulation also states that "the rated officer is the subject of the evaluation. He or she has considerable responsibility in the evaluation process." Not only had the applicant worked in the administrative arena at one point in her career she was also "Chief of the Board Operations Branch" in St. Louis and her duties included "ensuring that timely and complete support is provided to selection boards in the form of evaluation reports…." Additionally, the Board notes, that the applicant had previously had a "complete-the-record" evaluation report submitted when she was considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel during FY00. Clearly the evidence shows that the applicant was, or should have been, intimately familiar with the requirements for "complete-the-record" evaluation reports. The fact that her "rater" may have been unsure of her eligibility, or that her administrative office failed to notify her rater, or prepare the OER shell, does not exempt the applicant from her own responsibilities as an officer to manage her own career. Based on available evidence, the Board concludes that the applicant should have been aware of her eligibility for a "complete-the-record" evaluation report and when the report was not forthcoming via "regulatory requirements" she, in the interest of her own career, had a responsibility to raise the issue.

2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

3. 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

__CLA __ __MHM__ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068521
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020905
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	111.01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.