| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that a corrected Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 22 May 1999 to 21 May 2000 and signed by the applicant , the rater and the senior rater on 10 July 2000 be substituted for the OER currently in his record.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that, because he was forward deployed to Okinawa, Japan and the group headquarters is Fort Lewis, Washington, he signed a blank OER form so that it could be submitted on time. His rater and senior rater's drafts got inadvertently signed and submitted. After they visited him on Okinawa they finalized the OER. The error was discovered when he reviewed his microfiche in December 2000. In support of his request he submits memoranda from the Group executive officer, the rater and senior rater.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was a Special Forces major and company commander at the time of the OER in question. He was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the Fiscal Year 2001 Promotion Board and promoted to LTC on 1 April 2002.
5. The applicant's rater marked all "Yes's" in Part IV (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism) and checked the "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" block in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation). His senior rater checked the "Best Qualified" block and indicated that he was in the center of mass (COM) of 37 senior rated officers of that grade.
6. The applicant appealed to the Officer Special review Board (OSRB) in January 2001. The OSRB contacted the following individuals who all agreed to the release of the information:
•
The group military personnel technician reported that he was instructed to process all COM reports and this included the applicant's. He was not aware that the applicant's OER was supposed to be processed as an above center of mass (ACOM) report. The Group commander had room in his profile to give the applicant an ACOM rating.
•
The group personnel officer (S1) reported that he was aware of the circumstances surrounding the contested OER. The commander had directed that all OER be processed when signed, which led to the problem. The commander may have inadvertently signed the applicant's COM rating or he may have changed his mind. The fact that the company was deployed so far from the group made everything more difficult.
•
The Group executive officer was contacted and he confirmed that an administrative error had occurred, that the Group S1 had fouled up by not processing the applicant's OER properly.
•
The rater affirmed that an administrative error had occurred. He had conferred with the senior rater and they had agreed that an ACOM rating was appropriate. The rater had had previous problems with the Group S1 over the evaluation reports for two command sergeants major.
•
The senior rater was aware or the situation. He stated that an administrative error had occurred. The COM report was a draft that was inadvertently submitted. He intended to submit an ACOM report. He confirmed what the Group executive officer had reported, that the admin officer had been directed to destroy the draft COM report and submit a ACOM report on the applicant.
7. The OSRB reviewed the available evidence, including the words that the senior rater had previously used in COM and ACOM reports and the regulatory requirements and concluded that that applicant had not overcome the presumption of regularity. His request was denied.
8. A second appeal was rejected on 2 October 2001 for lack of new evidence.
9. The supporting memoranda from the Group executive officer, the rater and the senior rater confirm their assertions that an administrative error occurred when the COM report was submitted.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Notwithstanding the decision by the OSRB, this Board concludes that there is a preponderance of clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity and that an error has occurred.
2. The OER currently filed in the applicant's records should be replaced with the one for the same period signed by the applicant, the rater and the senior rater on 10 July 2000. The documentation relating to his appeals to the OSRB should be expunged from his records.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below will rectify an error.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by expunging the OER for the period 22 May 1999 to 21 May 2000 from the records of the individual concerned and by substituting the one for the same period signed on 10 July 2000.
BOARD VOTE:
__jlp____ ___aao_____ _rks__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_ _Jennifer L. Prater_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002070876 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020604 |
| 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 | CY2001 | 2001054570C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board is provided evidence and argument which shows that the applicant’s senior rater placed the applicant in the COM block based on erroneous information he was given by the applicant’s rater; that it was the SR’s desire to place the applicant ACOM. In this case the applicant’s record shows consistently above center of mass ratings prior to the disputed rating, and...
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 | 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 | CY2005 | 20050009225C070206
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. The Officer Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 noted that the EO language in the FY02 LTC Army promotion selection board was not ruled unconstitutional. Prior to 2000, selection boards were required to conduct a review of files for the effects of past discrimination in any case in which the selection rate for a minority or gender group was less than the selection rate for all officers in the promotions zone...
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 | 2001059261C070421
The applicant provides a letter of support from his senior rater, the Major General (now a Lieutenant General) Commander of the United States Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood. The promotion board did not see the applicant’s That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected as an exception to policy, for the individual concerned, by reconsidering him for promotion selection under the FY00 Colonel Army Competitive Category (ACC) Promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064525C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 970514-970930 be corrected by deleting the senior rater (SR) comment “Promote when eligible . In formulating an appeal of the subject OER to the OSRB, the applicant contacted the SR and stated that his “Promote when eligible” comment was viewed as negative and had caused his failure to be promoted. He strongly supported the applicant’s appeal and recommended that his words be changed to “Promote to LTC and select...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021473
In July 2007, the applicant received the contested report, a change of rater OER which covered 5 months of rated time from 14 December 2006 through 3 May 2007, for the applicant's duties serving as the "Assistant Army Attaché" while assigned to the United States Defense Attaché Office, Bogota, Columbia. He states, in his request, that the CI should investigate the supposed lack of objectivity or fairness by rating officials under Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090470C070212
The applicant states, in effect, that she should receive promotion reconsideration to the rank of LTC because at the time the promotion selection board convened, the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period from 21 January 2001 through 16 August 2001 was not in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) at the time the Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02) promotion selection board convened on 26 February 2002. The evidence of record shows that she had already received two COM reports in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017000
The senior rater rated the applicant's potential as COM. The senior rater again rated the applicant's potential as COM. The applicant's contentions that the OER in question is unjust; that the senior rater's rating should be changed from a center of mass OER to an above center of mass OER; that the wording in the beginning of the first sentence should be changed to include the words, "LTC J___ D___ is one of the top five Lieutenant Colonels I senior rate"; and, in effect, that his senior...