RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 August 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050006928
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 |
| |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. William D. Powers | |Member |
| |Ms. Marla J. 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 reconsideration of her earlier request to remove
three Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), for the periods ending 30 November
1999, 15 January 2000, and 10 June 2001, from her Official Military
Personnel File and to reconsider her for promotion to captain.
2. The applicant states, in an 8 November 2004 letter to the President,
she has been fighting her case since November 2001. She should have been a
captain back then. She had done everything her superiors and supervisors
asked of her. Since receiving her positive OERs, she continuously is being
sent to schools to increase her knowledge base about logistics. She has
completed all her officer education schools and can go no further because
of her nonselection for captain. Her battalion commander wants her to stay
and be promoted to captain. She has 19 years in the Army, served her
country twice in Iraq, and could be sent to Iraq at any time.
3. The applicant provides an OER for the rating period 4 August 2003
through 3 August 2004 as supporting evidence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003095261 on 26 October 2004.
2. The OER for the period ending 3 August 2004 provided by the applicant
is new evidence which will be considered by the Board.
3. After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was commissioned
out of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) and appointed a second
lieutenant in the U. S. Army Reserve. She was promoted to first lieutenant
on 16 May 1998.
4. Apparently as a result of the adverse OERs, the applicant was
nonselected for promotion to captain.
5. The OER provided by the applicant with her current application is a 12-
rated month annual report for the period 4 August 2003 through 3 August
2004. The
applicant's rater rated her performance and potential as Outstanding
Performance, Must Promote. Her senior rater rated her promotion potential
as Best Qualified and gave her a center of mass comparison rating.
6. Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for
preparing, processing and using the OER. The regulation also provides that
an OER accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is
presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the
proper rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and
objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. The
burden of proof in appealing an OER rests with the applicant. Accordingly,
to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce
evidence that clearly and convincingly nullifies the presumption of
regularity. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and
compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative
error or factual inaccuracy.
7. Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 6-12a(1) states, before deciding
whether or not to appeal, the prospective appellant should note that pleas
for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future value to
the Army are rarely successful.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The applicant's OER for the period ending 3 August 2004 has been carefully
considered; however, it is insufficient evidence on to determine the
contested OERs did not represent the considered opinion and objective
judgment of the rating officials of those contested OERs.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__kan___ __wdp___ __mjt___ 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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2003095261 dated 26 October 2004.
___Kathleen A. Newman
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050006928 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20050823 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. |111.01 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003737C070206
Counsel states, regarding the applicant's OER for the period ending 17 April 2003, her SR purports to be Doctor K___. Counsel provides the applicant's OER for the period ending 12 April 1996 with her SR's referral letter and her acknowledgement of receipt; her Officer Record Brief; OERs for the periods ending 23 June 1992, 23 June 1993, 31 May 1994, 9 November 1994, and 14 September 1995; her 3 June 1997 appeal of the 12 April 1996 OER with supporting statements; U. S. Army Human Resource...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084710C070212
The applicant provided a 20 December 2001 supporting statement from Major H___, the applicant's previous rater who became his senior rater when Major B___ was assigned and took over the Occupational Medicine Service of the PMD. It states that, at the beginning of the rating period, the support form is used to enhance planning and relate performance to mission through joint rater and rated officer discussion of the duty description and major performance objectives. DISCUSSION : Considering...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010350C071029
In regard to the OER for the period ending 29 October 2002, the applicant states his rater and SR were aware of the IG report during this rating period. On 17 March 2003, the applicant appealed the two contested OERs with the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM). However, it appears it was done for his benefit, pending the conclusion of the 99th RSC IG investigation concerning allegations he made against his chain of command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003280
The applicant further states that had he been aware of all the facts at the time, he would have submitted a rebuttal to that OER and thus could have changed how that OER had been perceived by the promotion board; and c. that his June 2003 OER for the period 1 August 2002 through 6 June 2003 was not supposed to be part of his promotion packet during the 4 November 2002 promotion selection board since he had not completed and submitted his rebuttal until 19 January 2003. Absent such evidence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085716C070212
Counsel requests review of the applicant’s appeal by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). On 20 August 2003, the applicant’s counsel was advised of the administrative correction to her OER and provided a copy of the OSRB’s case summary. The applicant’s appeal of the OER to the OSRB was denied based on insufficient evidence to show the report in error or unjust, and based on the presumption of regularity that the report represents the considered opinion and objective...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064328C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 5 December 1985 through 4 December 1986 be corrected by deleting the senior rater portion, that he be reconsidered for promotion under the appropriate criteria for captain and subsequent promotions through lieutenant colonel, and that he be authorized back pay. The regulation requires that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060558C070421
APPLICANT STATES : Through her counsel that the contested OER is fatally flawed because it is a “below center of mass OER which pursuant to AR 623-105 should have been referred and was not, and therefore denied the applicant an opportunity for a commander’s inquiry.” Counsel presents the applicant’s request for reconsideration and new request for relief, evidence contentions, and conclusions in a ten-page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) with numbered...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060000048
The rating period is that period within the "Period Covered" during which the rated officer serves in the same position under the same rater who is writing the report. There were three distinct types of nonrated periods: (a) periods, regardless of the number of days, between the date an officer departs one duty position and begins performance in a new duty position; (b) periods, regardless of the number of days, spent performing in a duty position during which the rated officer or the rater...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082502C070215
The OSRB reviewed an 18 October 1999, supporting statement provided by the Company Aviation Safety Officer. c. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board determined that the ratings on the contested report were the objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation of the contested report. The Board noted that the SR stated he was a new SR and that the contested report was only the second report that the he had prepared.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606059C070209
The contested report was a change of rater OER evaluating him as a captain while performing as the chief, soldier family assistance branch, at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. The SR opines that the applicant always exceeded performance standards and showed potential for promotion ahead of his peers. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that an error or injustice exists in his case.