RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                                  20 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:                    AR20050005988


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 of an officer evaluation report
(OER) from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion
reconsideration by a Special Selection Board.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the OER covering the period from
2 September 1996 through 10 April 1997 should be removed from her OMPF and
that she should receive promotion reconsideration.  She further states that
the OER does not accurately reflect her performance and potential during
the rated period and served to cause her nonselection for promotion while
on active duty.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her report of separation (DD Form
214), a copy of her OERs, her notification of release from active duty
(REFRAD), her separation orders, her appointment memorandum, orders
promoting her to chief warrant officer two (CW2), her officer record brief
(ORB), the results of her appeal of three OERs to the Officer Special
Review Board (OSRB), the results of her request for promotion
reconsideration to the OSRB, and statements from three fellow warrant
officers who served with her during the period of the contested report, all
tabbed “A” through “N”.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant’s request be granted.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the OER is a disgrace and that she did
not deserve a below center of mass (BCOM) rating and that the contested
report does not accurately describe her performance.  He goes on to state
that the OER is a purposeful effort by the rater and senior rater (SR) to
devalue her and supports the statements made by her fellow warrant officers
that the SR padded his profile during the rating period for his permanently
assigned aviators.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documents with the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  She initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 5
October 1979 under the delayed entry program.  She enlisted in the Regular
Army on 7 November 1979 and served until she was released from active duty
under honorable conditions on 3 December 1980, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-21h(1) and the Expeditious Discharge
Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  She
was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).

2.  She remained in the USAR and on 30 April 1984, she entered active duty
in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program and remained there until
14 November 1989, when she again enlisted in the Regular Army.

3.  On 13 December 1990, upon completion of warrant officer flight
training, she was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one (WO1) with a
concurrent call to active duty.  She was promoted to the rank of chief
warrant officer two on 13 December 1992.

4.  On 30 April 1997, the applicant received a change of rater OER covering
the period from 2 September 1996 through 10 April 1997, evaluating her as
an aeromedical evacuation pilot in support of Operation Joint
Endeavor/Guard.  Her rater indicated that she always exceeded requirements
and should be promoted ahead of her contemporaries.  Her SR placed her in
the second block of his profile, which placed the applicant BCOM on his
profile and indicated that she should be promoted with her comtemporaries.
The SR’s profile indicates that he had rated 15 officers in that grade,
nine officers in the top block, four officers in the second block, one
officer in the fifth block and one officer in the sixth block.  The report
was not adverse and as such was not referred to her as such.

5.  On 5 February 1999, the applicant submitted an appeal to the OSRB
contending that the OERs covering the period from 29 August 1995 through
    1 April 1996, 2 September 1996 through 10 April 1997 (the contested
report) and 11 April 1997 through 30 September 1997 contained
administrative inaccuracies. The OSRB opined that the reports contained
inaccuracies regarding her height and weight, even though those listed
still placed her within standards and that the statement “Soldier not
available for signature” was required on the report in question.

6.  The applicant also requested that she receive promotion reconsideration
after her reports were corrected and the OSRB opined that the
administrative changes did not materially change the quality of the
applicant’s OMPF.  The OSRB denied her request for promotion
reconsideration.

7.  On 4 October 1999, The Adjutant General of the Army dispatched a
memorandum to the applicant informing her that she had been twice
nonselected for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3)
and was required to be released from active duty no later than 1 March
2000.
8.  Accordingly, she was honorably released from active duty in the rank of
CW2 on 1 March 2000, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24,
paragraph 2-41, due to non-selection for permanent promotion.  She had
served 17 years,  6 months and 4 days of total active service and was paid
$61,834.50 in involuntary separation pay benefits.  She was transferred to
the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

9.  The three email statements from her fellow warrant officers serve to
praise the applicant’s performance during the contested period and
recommended her for promotion and retention.  They also indicate that they
believe that the SR padded his profile with the temporary change of station
(TCS) pilots that were used as fillers of the unit in order to give the
permanently assigned officers better ratings because all of the TCS pilots
received lower ratings than the permanently assigned officers.

10.  At the time of her application to the Board she was serving on active
duty as a USAR Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3).

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that she
appealed the performance aspects or ratings of the contested report to the
OSRB.

12.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for
the OER system.  Paragraph 3-57 and 6-6 provide than an OER accepted by
Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record
of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been
prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of
preparation.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn or
replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when
information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is
brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it
would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at
the time the OER was prepared.  Paragraph 3-24 provides that each report
will be an independent evaluation of the rated officer for a specific
rating period and will not refer to prior or subsequent reports.  Each
report must stand alone.

13.  Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation also states that the burden of proof
in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify
deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must
produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions
referred to above and that action to correct an apparent error or
inaccuracy is warranted.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 serves as the authority for the conduct of
warrant officer selection boards.  It provides, in pertinent part, that
selection board members may not record their reasons nor give any reasons
for selection or nonselection.  Selections are based on the best qualified
to meet the projected needs of the Army.  A Soldier within an announced
zone of consideration may write to the President of the selection board
inviting attention to any matter he or she feels is important in
consideration of his or her records and are considered privileged
information and will not be filed in the OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid
appraisal of her demonstrated performance and potential during the period
in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from her
records.

2.  While the applicant has provided supporting statements from three
fellow warrant officers who served with her and believe that she deserved a
“top block” rating, they were not in a position to know the expectations of
the rating chain.

3.  It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to
CW3 while she was on active duty; however, it is a well known fact that not
everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is
selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are
promotion allocations.  Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with
choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the
time.

4.  The applicant’s contention that the contested OER served as the basis
for her nonselection is speculative at best.  It is a well known fact that
promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or nonselection.
Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the
records that were considered by those boards that did not select the
applicant, it must be presumed that she was not deemed the best qualified
to meet the needs of the Army, when compared to her peers.

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 has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____JM _  ____JG__  ___JM __  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.





            _____John Meixell_________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005988                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051020                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |N/A AD (AC) Soldier                     |
|ISSUES                  |221/VOID OER                            |
|1.111.0005              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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