| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given promotion reconsideration to lieutenant colonel (LTC).
APPLICANT STATES: His annual Officer Evaluation Report (OER), a mandatory report, was not forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), in time to be included in the file given to the promotion board. The applicant states that his rater and senior rater both agree that the delay in processing his OER was not his fault, and recommend that he be reconsidered for promotion with the missing report. He contends that without this OER, his file was incomplete and failed to provide the board members a fair and honest assessment of his performance and potential.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a memorandum from his Division Commander and his Division Chief of Staff. Both of these officers are laudatory of the applicant’s performance and potential and recommend that he be promoted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 8 April 2002, the applicant was given an OER covering the period 4 January 2001 to 3 January 2002. The OER was an annual report for the applicant’s performance of duties as the Deputy Division G-1 (Personnel). The report was extremely laudatory, rating the applicant as having outstanding performance, assessing that he was best qualified for promotion to lieutenant colonel and opining that he must be promoted. The applicant’s senior rater placed him above his center of mass on his senior rater profile.
On 9 September 2002, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) sent the applicant a memorandum informing him that his request for promotion reconsideration to LTC was disapproved. The PERSCOM explained that promotion reconsideration is only authorized for officers nonselected for promotion whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. The PERSCOM defined a material error in its memorandum as something that, had it been corrected at the time the individual was considered by the board that failed to recommend him for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the individual would have been selected for promotion. The PERSCOM then stated that OER’s were required to arrive at PERSCOM not later than 22 February 2002 to be included in the promotion packet, and his OER did not arrive until 10 April 2002. The PERSCOM continued that since his OER was not a mandatory report (Code 11 Promotion Report), its absence from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) did not constitute a basis for promotion reconsideration.
Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph 7-3, states that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion when letters of appreciation, commendation, or other commendatory data for awards below the Silver Star are missing from the officer's OMPF.
Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3.45, states that an officer who failed to be selected for promotion by an active-duty promotion board will receive an OER prior to the next promotion board. However, the following conditions must be satisfied:
a. The rated officer has not received an OER since the convene date of the board that did not select the officer for promotion;
b. The rating period must cover 90 or more calendar days as of the date in a HQDA message announcing the zone of consideration for the next board that will consider the rated officer. This date will be the same as the date used for a complete-the-record report; and
c. The minimum time requirements for the rater are satisfied.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s OER covered a period ending 3 January 2002, and had to be received at HQDA by 22 February 2002 to be included in his promotion file. Because of the limited time between the end of the applicant’s rating period and the suspense to receive OER’s by HQDA, it is not surprising that his OER was not considered by the promotion board.
2. Because of the nature of the Army Officer Evaluation System (the number of stops an OER must make for input), it would appear reasonable that it would be the rule, rather than the exception, that officers whose rating periods end near the HQDA suspense date to have such reports submitted would not have the last report included in the promotion packets. The officers constituting the promotion board would be well aware of this problem and would not hold such an omission against an officer.
3. While an annual OER is a mandatory report, it is not mandatory for promotion consideration unless the officer has already been passed over for promotion and is being considered for the second time.
4. The question then lies in whether the missing OER constituted a material error; that is, whether its inclusion in his promotion packet would have resulted in a reasonable chance that he would have been selected for promotion. In this regard, while the missing OER was highly laudatory, it did not contain any information which would have clearly swayed the promotion board such as a decoration for valor at or above the Silver Star level, combat duty, or command. As such, there is no indication that the inclusion of this OER would have resulted in his promotion.
5. 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
___mkp__ ____reb_ ____fcj____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002083406 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030624 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010479C070206
The applicant states, in effect, he was denied due course promotion to MAJ because his company command Officer Evaluation Report (OER) was not timely processed and he was not considered by the FY99 Major, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board. 99-068. e. His company command OER for the period 19980320 – 19990319, with DA Form 200 (Transmittal Record) showing the OER was shipped on 7 April 1999. f. DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 21 September 1999. g. A 10...
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 | CY2010 | 20100025274
The applicant requests: a. removal of her DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) for the periods 5 November 2003 through 4 June 2004 and 5 June 2004 through 25 February 2005 [herein referred to as the contested OERs] from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). She also states she/her: * has been in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for the past 26 years and performed excellent prior to working in an active duty unit * two contested OERs used for the LTC APL board were inaccurate, didnt...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009870
Counsel requests the applicant be considered for promotion to LTC/O-5 by an SSB and, if the applicant is selected, removal of the "non-selection for promotion" from his official military personnel file (OMPF), a retroactive promotion effective date to LTC, and continuation/reinstatement on active duty in the rank of LTC/O-5. d. Counsel cites: (1) Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), chapter 3 (Army Evaluation Principles), paragraph 3-60 (Complete-the-Record Reports), that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057834C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In item Vc of that form, her rater did state, “PROMOTE NOW and select for Battalion Command with follow-on assignments at DA level Staff.” The applicant’s senior rater stated that she was best qualified, that she “should be promoted to LTC now and given the opportunity to command at battalion level.” Her potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade, item...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091048C070212
Counsel states that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) corrected the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER); however, the Officer Special Review Board (ORSB) refused to submit his records before a SSB. In a 10 October 2002 letter to this Board, the applicant's former senior rater, Col Sh, stated that he had discussed the writing of the OER with his peers at Fort Drum and the Transportation Branch at PERSCOM, and that it was his intent to provide an OER that would support his...
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 | CY2009 | 20090002084
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 15 January 2004 through 14 January 2005 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his records and replacing it with a new OER that reflects the correct duty performance as a battalion commander instead of a training officer. He also attached two statements by his rater and senior rater and a corrected OER as follows: a. in a statement, dated 21 October 2008, the rater...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070491C070402
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. The applicant states, in effect, that the decision of the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), that the absence of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period 1 October 1997 through 13 February 1998, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), did not constitute a material error that warranted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085155C070212
The applicant was removed from the promotion list by the appropriate authority and the PERSCOM opined that his request should be denied. Paragraph 1-19 provides, in pertinent part, that an officer's promotion is automatically delayed (this is, the officer is not promoted in spite of the publication of promotion orders) when the officer is under investigation that may result in disciplinary action of any kind being taken against him or her, is under, or should be under, suspension of...