RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016636


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 that he be promoted to Chief Warrant Officer
Three (CW3) with his peers in 2000, which would enable him to be in the
primary zone for consideration to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) in 2005.

2.  The applicant states he believes he was passed over for promotion to
CW3 in 2000, while in the primary zone of consideration, not because of a
lack of performance but rather because of a change in the Army.  He states
he believes the situation will likely also result in his nonselection for
promotion to CW4 in 2006 when he enters the primary zone for promotion
consideration for CW4.

3.  The applicant states that when the Army implemented the new Officer
Evaluation Report form 67-9 and mandated that senior raters could not rate
more than 49 percent of the officers they rated as above center of mass it
created an unfair disadvantage for people working in low populations of
warrant officers.  He maintains the Army must have recognized this problem
because the senior rater block was subsequently removed from evaluation
reports for lieutenants and warrant officer twos (W2s).

4.  The applicant recounts his duties as a W-1 and W-2 and notes that he
was consistently recommended for promotion and increased responsibility on
his performance evaluation reports.  He states that with the inception of
the new form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) he began receiving “2” block
ratings from his senior raters and specifically cites one instance when his
senior rater could not give him a “1” block rating because he had just
given it to the person he replaced.  He notes that it was reported that
only two warrant officers in the Army were selected for promotion to CW3 in
2000 with “2” or less total “1” blocks in the last 5 ratings.”  He notes he
was not selected for promotion and immediately contacted his mentor who
thought he was going to be selected for promotion.  The applicant states
that his mentor told him that he had given him a job in the tank battalion
in anticipation of the promotion.

5.  The applicant states that one CW5 told him that a couple of sentences
in his evaluation reports could have been stronger and that if he were
assigned to a division he might have had a better chance.  He states he was
very disappointed at not being selected for promotion because he had done
everything within his control to be competitive.

6.  The applicant states he was selected for promotion to CW3, above the
zone, in 2001 and immediately took on the challenge to prepare for the next
promotion board.  He recites his accomplishments but notes he is in the
same position as previously because of the rating limitations placed on his
senior raters.  He notes he recently checked the evaluation statistics for
promotion to CW4 and discovered that only 0.5 percent of the officers
selected for promotion had a center of mass record like he does.  He stated
that next year (presumably meaning the 2006 selection board) there will be
even more people competing for promotion to CW4 in his specialty than have
competed for the last 3 years combined.  He states that even if the
promotion rate is as good as it was in 2005 he will be one of the least
competitive due to his ratings.

7.  The applicant provided no evidence in support of his request but noted
that all of his documents were in his military records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant served on active
duty as an enlisted Soldier between 1983 and 1994.  He was appointed as
warrant officer in August 1994 with concurrent call to active duty.  He was
promoted to W-2 in August 1996.

2.  Between 1994 and March 2000 the applicant received ten performance
evaluation reports, five utilizing form 67-8 and five utilizing form 67-9,
which replaced form 67-8 in October 1997.

3.  Army Regulation 623-105 has governed the preparation and submission of
Officer Evaluation Reports since the applicant has been on active duty as a
warrant officer.  The applicant’s initial performance evaluation reports
were prepared utilizing form 67-8.  Part VII (senior rater) provided for an
evaluation of the rated officer’s potential by the senior rater.  The
senior rater’s evaluation was made by comparing the rated officer’s
potential with all other officers of the same grade, or grade groupings, in
the case of lieutenants, W-1/W-2, and CW3/CW4.  The senior rater’s
evaluation was based on the premise that in a representative sample of 100
officers of the same grade or grade grouping, the relative potential of
such a sample would provide a bell-shaped normal distribution pattern.
This distribution pattern is shown in the senior rater’s portion of the
evaluation report.  The pattern means that in a representative sample of
100 officers of the same grade, or grade grouping, only one officer can
reasonably be expected to be placed in the top block.  The probability of
having an officer of such potential is 1 in 100.

4.  Of the five form 67-8s rendered on the applicant, and which would have
been seen by the 2000 CW3 promotion selection board, his senior raters
placed him in the top block on four of the five reports when rating his
potential.  On his initial report his senior rater placed him in the second
block.  On the initial report the applicant’s senior rater had placed all
three of the officers he had rated in the second block.  On his second
report his senior rater placed three officers, including the applicant, in
the top block and three officers in the second block.  On the applicant’s
last three evaluation reports, utilizing form 67-8, his senior raters
placed all of the officers they rated, including the applicant, in the top
block.

5.  In October 1997 the new form 67-9 became effective.  The new form
altered the senior rater evaluation to include two boxes to check and a
narrative focused on a rated officer’s potential.  The first box check is
an evaluation of the rated officer’s promotion potential compared to all
officers of the same grade.  The second box check is an evaluation of the
rated officer’s potential in comparison to a much narrower group, officers
of that grade the senior rater has senior rated or are currently in the
senior rater’s population.  As an evolutionary method of senior rater
accountability, less than 50 percent of rated officers can receive an above
center of mass rating.  The regulation notes that to ensure maximum rating
flexibility when rating populations as a “center of mass” rating, senior
raters need to maintain a “cushion” in their top box rather than simply
playing the line at less than 50 percent.  This is best accomplished by
limiting the top box to no more than one third of all ratings in that
grade.  The Department of the Army electronically generated label overlays
the senior rater potential box check in Part VIIb of the form 67-9.  It
compares the senior rater’s box check with the senior rater boxes in Part
VIIb and/or the senior rater profile at the time the evaluation report
processes at the Department of the Army.  This comparison generates a label
when the report processes.  The label contains one of the following
statements:  Above Center of Mass (number of ratings in the first box are
less than 50 percent of all ratings in the profile for that grade); Center
of Mass (a rating in the second box regardless of the profile or a rating
in the first box when 50 percent or more of all ratings in the profile for
that grade are in the first box); Below Center of Mass-Retain (a rating in
the third box regardless of the senior rater profile); Below Center of Mass-
Do Not Retain (rating in the fourth box regardless of the senior rater
profile); Not evaluated (senior rater does not meet rating qualifications);
or General Officer (rated officer is a general officer).

6.  The applicant received five evaluation reports utilizing the new form
67-9 prior to being considered for promotion to CW3 in 2000.  All of his
senior raters placed him in the “best qualified” block for promotion
potential to the next higher grade.  In that portion of the evaluation
report intended to rate the officer’s potential compared with officers
senior rated in the same grade, which contained an overprinted statement
inserted by the Department of the Army, the applicant’s overprint indicate
“center of mass” on all five reports.

7.  With the publication of a revision to Army Regulation 623-105 in
December 2004 the requirement to check a box in Part VIIb by the senior
rater for captains, lieutenants, W2 and W1s was eliminated.  The change,
effective 1 October 2004, was directed by the Acting Secretary of the Army
to focus on leader development at the company grade levels.

8.  The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to CW3 in
2000 when he was in the “promotion zone” which he refers to as the “primary
zone” of consideration.  He was, however, selected in 2001 and promoted to
CW3 on
1 October 2001.

9.  Department of the Army Memo 600-2 establishes the policies and
procedures for officer promotion selection boards.  The memo states that
board members will review an individual’s entire record and that no single
factor should be overriding. The decision of the selection board will be
weighed in terms of each officer’s demonstrated character and performance
and the potential of that officer for further outstanding service.  The
memo outlines a framework to evaluate each officer’s potential including
such issues as military bearing and physical fitness, military education
and training, civilian education and training, assignment history and
professional development, performance, professional attributes and ethics,
integrity and character, attitude, dedication, and service, concern for
Soldiers and families.

10.  Following the applicant’s promotion to CW3 in October 2001 his senior
raters continued to place him in the “best qualified” box in Part VIIa
(rated officer’s promotion potential to the next higher grade) and on all
but one report in VIIb his Department of the Army overprint label indicated
“center of mass.”  On one report, ending in February 2003, the label
indicated “above center of mass.”

11.  The CW4 FY (fiscal year) 05 promotion selection board convened in May
2005.  The promotion zone included CW3s with dates of rank between 1
October 2000 and 30 September 2001.  The applicant, who was promoted to CW3
on
1 October 2001 was considered below the zone and not selected for
promotion.

12.  The CW4 FY06 selection board convened on 31 January 2006.  The
applicant was in the promotion zone for this selection board and was
selected for promotion to CW4.  He was promoted on 1 July 2006.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been promoted to CW3 in
2000 and would have had it not been for the limitations placed on senior
raters is without foundation and purely speculative.  The applicant, and
every other officer being considered for promotion, competed under the same
limitation.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention the exclusion of the senior
rater entries in Part VIIb of evaluation reports for junior officers was
not in response to perceived inequities for low density specialties but
rather a decision to focus on leadership development at the company grade
level.

3.  The applicant argues that because of the limitation on senior raters
and an increase in the number of officers being considered in his specialty
he anticipated that he would continue to be noncompetitive for promotion to
CW4 when he entered the promotion zone in 2006, for the same reason he
maintains that he was not selected for CW3 in 2000.  However, it is noted
that in spite of continuing to receive “center of mass” labeling on all but
one of his evaluation reports, he was in fact selected for promotion to CW4
the first time he was in the promotion zone for CW4.  That selection should
be an indicator that his nonselection to CW3 in 2000 was not solely the
result of the senior rater portion of his evaluation reports.

4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___AR___  __LD ___  ___PT   _  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.


                                  ______ Allen Raub__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016636                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|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.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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