RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050012844


      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             |
|     |Ms. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Moeller                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Naomi Henderson               |     |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, his Officer Efficiency Report (OER)
for the period 12 July 1961 to 31 January 1962 be changed to reflect his
consistent excellent evaluations and commendation medal upon his
retirement.

2.  The applicant states that his rater scored him at 96.6 percent and his
indorser scored him at 73.8.  He maintains that the lowering of his
efficiency report by the indorser made no mention of the schooling needed
for weapons inspections and to become a technical proficiency inspector of
tactical nuclear weapons or his exemplary record of being a tactical
proficiency officer.  He said that his Army Commendation Medal was void of
his work with Nuclear Ready Tactical Proficiency Inspections.

3.  The applicant provides a contested OER, previous OERs, course
completion certificates, memorandum for G3, Army Commendation Medal
Citation, glossary of terms, several memorandums, and Congressional
inquiries.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 31 January 1962.  The application submitted in this case
is undated but, was received at this office on 2 September 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s records show he was commissioned as a United States
Army Reserve (USAR) Officer on 2 October 1942.  He was credited with 20
years,       1 month, and 14 days of active federal service and retired on
31 January 1962 in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

4.  The applicant provided a certificate from the Defense Atomic Support
Agency that shows he successfully completed the Ordnance Nuclear Weapons
Officer Course, which was conducted from 17 March 1960 to 19 April 1960.

5.  A certificate from the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project shows that
the applicant successfully completed the Weapons Redeployment Course.  The
course was conducted from 3 March 1958 through 4 April 1958.

6.  The citation provided by the applicant shows that he was awarded the
Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service while assigned as Assistant
and Chief, Artillery Unit, Combat Arms Branch, Training Division, G3
Section, Headquarters Third United States Army, Fort McPherson, Georgia,
from            26 January 1960 to 31 January 1962.  The citation expounds
on the applicant’s responsibilities and contributions while assigned in
this position.

7.  The memorandum for G3, dated 14 November 1960, highlights quoted
information from the Department of the Army Technical Bulletin “Inspector
General Technical Proficiency Inspection.”  This memo was authored by the
applicant and appears to offer guidance to his inspection team on
inspections objectives, technical standards, basis for evaluation, and
inspection ratings.  Additionally, he provides a listing of glossary terms
associated with atomic weapons guided missiles.

8.  The applicant provided several memorandums stressing the importance of
the assignment of a special weapons officer.  The memorandums indicate that
the absence of a weapons officer on the staff was a disadvantage and
ensured the commanding general that one would be obtained as soon as
possible.

9.  The applicant’s OER from 10 July 1960 to 30 April 1961 list his major
duties as Assistant Chief, Artillery Unit, Combat Arms Branch, Training
Division, G3 Section.  His major additional duties were listed as Chief of
the Technical Proficiency Inspection Team which conducted inspections on
all Third US Army nuclear capable units.  The applicant was assessed all “5-
Outstanding” and “4-Superior” ratings by both the rater and the indorser.
His “Performance of Present Duty” in Section VI was rated in block 5,
“Outstanding performance of this duty found in very few officers” by the
rater.  The indorser checked block 4 “Performed this duty in a superior
manner.”  Both the rater and indorser placed a check mark on the third line
in Section VII “Promotion Potential” indicating that the applicant “should
give a superior performance when promoted to the next higher grade.”  In
Section VIII “Overall Value to Service,” the rating officials checked block
4 “A superior officer of great value to the service.”

10.  The applicant’s OER for the period 1 May 1961 to 11 July 1961 was
rendered while he performed duties as an Action Officer, Training and
Evaluation Unit, Unit Readiness Branch Training Division, G3.  The indorser
stated that the
applicant “is especially qualified in conducting technical proficiency
inspections on atomic capable units.”  The rater and the indorser were the
same as listed on the previous report and rendered the exact same ratings
in Sections VI, VII, and VIII.  Both reports were submitted on DA Form 67-
4.

11.  The contested OER is from the period 12 July 1961 to 31 January 1962
while the applicant was assigned as Action Officer, Training and Evaluation
Unit, Unit Readiness Branch, Training Division, G3 Section.  The reason for
rendering the report is listed as “Retirement Rated Officer.”  The report
was submitted on DA Form 67-5 versus the DA Form 67-4 and represents a
significant change in the rating system.  In part IV “Personal Qualities”
the applicant received all “4-Above Average” and “5-Exemplary” ratings from
the rater for an average score of 8.6.  The indorser rendered ratings of 4,
5, and a few “3-Average” for an average score of 7.8.  In part VI “Overall
demonstrated performance” the rater assessed the applicant as 80 percent
whereas the indorser assessed his performance as 60 percent.  In “Estimated
potential” the applicant received an 8 from the rater and a 6 from the
indorser.  The rater’s numerical value in part VII was 96.9 and the
indoser’s was listed as 73.8 percent for a composite score of 170.4.  The
rater listed on this report was the indorser on the applicant’s two
previous reports.

12.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Efficiency Reports) in effect at the
time, states, in pertinent part, that each efficiency report is intended to
report the manner of performance of specific duties for specific periods.
The report will not contain remarks pertaining to prior or subsequent
manner of performance or incidents.  It is the policy of the Department of
the Army to accept an administratively correct efficiency report as
representing the considered judgment of the rating officials at time of
preparation.  However, an officer may appeal an efficiency report, should
he feel it violates the intent of the regulation.  An appeal is advisable
only if he can provide substantial evidence in support of his belief.  A
request that merely alleges an unjust rating is not substantial evidence.

13.  The same regulation states that each rating and indorsing officer will
take the same painstaking care in the completion of the efficiency report
on his subordinates as he expects in the preparation of his own efficiency
report.  The rated officer will be evaluated in comparison with others of
similar grade, branch, experience, military schooling, and time in grade.
Evaluations by rating and indorsing officer must be based upon observation
and/or information of the rated officer in a typical performance of duty
and should cover his failures as well as positive accomplishments.


14.  Additionally, the regulation expounds on the responsibilities of the
indorsing officer.  The regulation states that the indorsing officer
contributes to the report by supplying an independent evaluation of the
officer reported upon.  His evaluation should reflect his considered
opinion of the officer being rated and may or may not agree with the
opinion of the rating officer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was a highly skilled and
dedicated officer.  The citation for the award of the Army Commendation
Medal, attest to his outstanding performance of duty.  His previous OERs
and certificate of training verifies his qualifications in conducting
technical proficiency inspections.

2.  While the applicant may not agree with the ratings rendered by his
indorser, he has provided no evidence that the report was issued in error
or that it was unjust.  The fact that his rater on the contested report,
who was also listed as indorser or his two previous reports, assessed him
with a 96.6 percent and his indorser scored him at 73.8 percent is not a
sufficient basis to change his rating.  The indorser’s ratings and comments
are independent of those of the rater’s.

3.  Additionally, while the indorser did not mention his schooling on the
contested report, it was listed on his previous report.  Also, the
applicant attended school during March and April 1960 and therefore, in
accordance with the above cited regulation, since the schooling was outside
of the rating period, it was not required to be placed on the efficiency
report.

4.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid
appraisal of the applicant's demonstrated performance and potential during
the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis to change the
contested report.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 January 1962; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         30 January 1965.  The applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RO __  ___JM __  ___NH __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ____ _Robert Osborn_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050012844                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060713                                |
|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.       |111.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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