RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010973


      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. Ronald DeNoia                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |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 the removal or permanent masking of his DA Form
67-8 (Officer Evaluation Report) for the period 25 November 1993 through 24
May 1994 and/or that all future promotion boards be prohibited from viewing
this report.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was denied promotion because
the senior rater checked the "3" box on his evaluation.  He states that a
"3" block is considered "below center of mass"

3.  The applicant provides an OER for the period 25 November 1993 through
24 May 1994; a self authored Memorandum of Record, dated 29 November 2004;
his Officer Record Brief; an OER for the period 30 June 1995 through 23 May
1996; a DD Form 2648 (Preseparation Counseling Checklist); a DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation
date of 1 April 1997; a promotion memorandum from the U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command (PERSCOM), dated 29 September 1998 and U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command Orders Number 250-006, dated 6 September 2000.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is an active duty Chief Warrant Officer 3 who was serving
with the 52nd Aviation in Korea at the time of his application to the
board.

2.  Item VIIa (Potential Evaluation) of the applicant's OER in question
contains the entry "(applicant's name omitted) performed in an excellent
manner", "this required superb pilot skills and a great amount of
diplomacy, both of which he possesses in abundance" and "has the potential
for advanced schooling and promotion. Select for the Warrant Officer
Advanced Course."

3.  The applicant's OER in question shows the senior rater marked the third
block from the top and indicated in his comments that "my intended senior
rater profile center of mass is the third block."

4.  Block VIIa of the DA Form 67-8, which was the current form at the time
the applicant's OER was rendered, contains ten possible blocks for the
senior rater to choose from.  These blocks are marked "hi" to "low" (from
top to bottom), top block being the best.

5.  The U.S. Total Army Human Resources Command (HRC) (formerly PERSCOM)
Officer Evaluation Reporting System, 1 November 2004 provides that Warrant
Officer One Reports will be masked after selection to CW3.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), in effect at the time,
provides that whenever the needs of the service require, selection boards
will be convened to recommend officers for promotion.  Selection boards, by
this regulation, are directed to keep confidential their reasons for
recommending or not recommending any officer considered.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant contends that he was not selected for promotion because
his OER contained a "3" block rating which as viewed by the selection board
as a negative rating.  Of the ten blocks the senior rater could have
chosen, the "3" block is at the higher end of the scale.  Notwithstanding
the "3" block rating; the senior rater painted a very positive word picture
of the applicant's potential and accomplishments.  Therefore, if the
promotion board considered the "3" block in its determination, the board
would have also considered the positive effect of the narrative provided by
the senior rater.  The senior rater clearly indicated he was rendering a
center of mass report.

3.  The senior rater completed his portion of the OER in accordance with
regulations in effect at the time.

4.  Regulatory guidelines prohibit the reason for nonselection of an
officer for promotion to be revealed.  To assume that one specific OER is
the reason for non selection is speculation and not based in fact.

5.  Considering all of the above, it is determined that there is
insufficient evidence to show that the applicant's non selection for
promotion was based on the senior rater's "3" block rating of his OER.

6.  There is no regulatory provision to mask or remove OERs that are not in
error and accurately portray an officer's performance and potential.
Additionally there is no provision to prevent promotion boards from viewing
these OERs.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant relief in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__kan___  __wdp___  __mjnt__  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.




                                        Kathleen A. Newman
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010973                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050823                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |134.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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