RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            29 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040003545


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his Officer Evaluation
Reports (OERs) ending on 12 June 1998 and 12 June 1999.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that rater evaluations in Part Va
(Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Performance During the Rating Period and
his/her Potential for Promotion) and the senior rater (SR) evaluations in
Part VIIa (Senior Rater-Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Promotion Potential to
the Next Higher Grade) of both reports in question are not consistent with
the comments by the rating officials.  Therefore, they should be changed to
“Outstanding Performance Must Promote” and “Best Qualified” respectively.
The applicant claims that his SR, a brigadier general, mentioned in the
1998 OER that he was a junior officer in a very senior community and a
spiritual leader of the community.  The SR also commented that the
applicant’s job performance was superb, in spite of the great challenges
caused by his junior rank.  The applicant further states that all the
rating officials comments on both reports attest to the superb job he
performed.  He also claims that the supporting statements he is providing
support the fact he is a “best qualified chaplain”.

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a memorandum of
appeal and four supporting third-party statements.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving on
active duty as a major (MAJ).

2.  On 23 June 1998, while serving on active duty as a captain (CPT)
assigned to the United States Army Europe (USAREUR), the applicant received
the first OER in question.  It was a SR option report that covered the
period 1 October 1997 through 12 June 1998.  This report evaluated the
applicant as the NATO Community Chaplain for the Brussels community.  In
Part Va, the rater placed the applicant in the two block (Satisfactory
Performance, Promote).  The rater’s comments in Part Vb were very favorable
and indicated the applicant’s performance was superb.  The rater also
recommended that the applicant be promoted to MAJ, that he be selected to
attend the Chaplain advance course, and stated that the applicant had
unlimited potential.

3.  In Part VIIa of the OER ending on 12 June 1998, the SR placed the
applicant in the two block (Fully Qualified).  The SR’s comments attest to
the applicant’s superb performance, and recommended the applicant be
promoted to MAJ and be selected to attend the Chaplain advance course.  The
evaluation the applicant received in this OER placed him in the Center of
Mass (COM) of the SR’s profile.

4.  The second contested OER was an annual report covering the period 13
June 1998 through 12 June 1999.  This report also evaluated the applicant
as a NATO community chaplain for the Brussels community.  In Part Va, the
rater placed the applicant in the two block (Satisfactory Performance,
Promote).  The rater’s comments in Part Vb were very favorable and
indicated the applicant’s performance was outstanding.  He also recommended
the applicant be promoted to MAJ, that he be selected to attend the
Chaplain advance course, and for advanced civil schooling in counseling.

5.  In Part VIIa of the OER ending on 12 June 1999, the SR placed the
applicant in the two block (Fully Qualified).  His comments indicted that
the applicant’s pastoral leadership had been an important asset in the
spiritual well-being of the community.  He also recommended the applicant
be promoted and selected to attend the Chaplain advance course.  This
evaluation also placed the applicant in the COM of the SR’s profile.

6.  On 14 February 2003, the applicant appealed the contested OERs to the
Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).  In his appeal, the applicant
contended that the Part Va and Part VIIa ratings on both reports were
inconsistent with the supporting comments provided by all three of the
rating officials involved.  The applicant provided supporting statements
from his intermediate rater and from three other individuals that attest to
his outstanding performance.

7.  On 20 March 2003, the President, Special Review Boards, Department of
the Army (DA), Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 denied the
applicant’s appeals.  The denial indicated that a preliminary review of the
applicant’s appeals of the OERs in question had been conducted.  It further
stated that the appeal did not provide sufficient evidence of a clear and
convincing manner that would allow for a review by the Officer Special
Review Board (OSRB).  It also indicated that while the supporting
statements provided by the applicant spoke favorably of him, they did not
provide substantive evidence that the chain of command erred in rendering
their evaluations.
8.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a statement from
his intermediate rater.  This statement indicates the applicant performed
his duties in an outstanding manner when he served in another position
under the direct supervision of the intermediate rater.  He also made
comments on the applicant’s accomplishments once he assumed the NATO
community chaplain position.  The intermediate rater provided no specific
comments on the validity of the rater and SR evaluations in question.

9.  The applicant also provided three other third-party statements from
senior officials who were assigned to Brussels during the period of reports
in question.  All these statements attest to his outstanding performance
and his accomplishments.

10.  Army Regulation 623-105 prescribes the policies and procedures
pertaining to the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer Evaluation
Reporting System (OERS).  It also provides guidance regarding redress
programs including commander inquiries and appeals.  Paragraph 3-57
provides the basic rule applicable to modifications of previously submitted
reports.  It states, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report accepted
by Headquarters, DA (HQDA) and included in the Official Military Personnel
File (OMPF) of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to
have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, to
represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating
officials at the time of preparation.  It also states that requests that a
report that has been accepted for filing in an officer’s record be altered,
withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.

11.  Chapter 6 contains the policies and procedures pertaining to managing
the OER redress program Section III contains guidance on OER appeals and
paragraph 6-10 outlines the burden of proof that must be met to support a
successful OER appeal.  It states that the burden of proof rests with the
appellant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the
appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly
that the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-57 should
not be applied to the report under consideration and that action is
warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and
convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely
proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the comments of rating officials on the
contested reports are not consistent with the evaluations rendered, and the
supporting statements he provided were carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support amendment or removal of OERs in
question based on this factor.

2.  The preliminary review of the applicant’s appeals conducted at DA
resulted in a determination that the applicant failed to satisfy the
regulatory burden of proof by providing the clear and convincing evidence
necessary to support a successful appeal of the OERs in question.

3.  The supporting third-party statements provided by the applicant were
carefully considered.  However, while these statements attest to the
applicant’s outstanding duty performance and unlimited potential, none make
comment on the validity of the evaluations given by rating officials.
Further, the individuals providing the statements were not in a position to
understand the perspective and expectations of the applicant’s rating
officials at the time.  Therefore, they do not provide a sufficient
evidentiary basis to conclude the OERs in question were not fair and
accurate.

4.  In view of the facts of this case and notwithstanding the applicant’s
claims to the contrary, the evaluations and comments contained in the
contested OERs are not adverse and appear to accurately represent the
considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials.  As a
result, it is concluded that the OERs in question was processed and
accepted for filing in the OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations,
and there is insufficient clear and compelling evidence to overcome the
regulatory presumption of regularity, and/or to modify or remove the
contested reports from the record at this time.

5.  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 and counsel
have failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MM__  __PM ___  ___SP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ____Melvin H. Meyer_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003545                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/03/29                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  193  |111.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]