RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            03 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060009660


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald Purcell                |     |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 his officer evaluation report (OER)
covering the period from 26 November 2001 through 18 November 2002 be
corrected in Parts Vb. and VIIc. to reflect the comments “Promote Now”
instead of the comments “Promote with Peers” that is currently reflected on
that report and that he be granted promotion reconsideration to the rank of
colonel.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when he received his copy of the
contested  OER, the comments “Promote with Peers” was not on the OER;
however, he subsequently discovered that the comments had been added at a
later date.  He continues by stating that although his rater directed the
comments to be added, his rater now agrees that the comments “Promote with
Peers” are inconsistent with the ratings and narrative and should read
“Promote Now”.  He continues by stating that he believes that the comments
caused him to be non-selected for promotion and he desires to be
reconsidered for promotion to the rank of colonel.  He also states that he
was twice non-selected for promotion in November 2004.

3.  The applicant provides a three-page letter of explanation of his
application, three pages of electronic mail (email) traffic and copies of
the OER both before and after the comments were added.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 14 January 1949 and enlisted in the United
States Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 February 1969.  He remained in the USAR
and was commissioned as a USAR Medical Service second lieutenant on 22
November 1977.

2.  On 14 August 1990, while serving in the rank of captain, a Notification
of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year letter) was issued to the
applicant.

3.  He was promoted to the rank of major on 19 November 1991 and on 7 July
1997, he was notified that he had been selected for retention by a USAR
Command Selective Retention Board.  He was promoted to the rank of
lieutenant colonel on 15 August 1998.

4.  On 8 May 2003, while serving on active duty, the applicant received a
change of rater OER covering the period from 26 November 2001 through 18
November 2002.   In Part V, under Performance and Potential Evaluation, his
rater gave him a rating of “Outstanding Performance – Must Promote”.  In
the supporting comments, the last entry is “Promote with Peers”.

5.  In Part VII, his senior rater (SR) deemed him to be “Best Qualified”,
placed him center of mass on his SR profile and the last comment in his
supporting comments indicate “Promote with Peers”.  It is apparent that the
last comment of the rater and SR were added after the report had been
prepared.

6.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB)
within that board’s 3-year limit for appeal.

7.  A review of his OER history shows that since 1996, he has received at
least five OERs (including the contested report) that indicate that the
applicant should be promoted with his contemporaries/peers.  All of those
reports place the applicant in the SR’s second block and contain
essentially the same ratings as the contested report.

8.  The applicant is a Retiree Recall currently serving on active duty in
the rank of lieutenant colonel.

9.  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.

10.  Appendix F-2b (3) of that regulation addresses the issue of
retrospective thinking.  It provides, in pertinent part, that statements
from rating officials often reflect retrospective thinking, or second
thoughts, prompted by an appellant’s non-selection or other unfavorable
personnel action claimed to be the sole result of the contested report.  As
a result, claims by rating officials that they did not intend to evaluate
as they did, will not, alone, serve as the basis of altering or withdrawing
an evaluation report.  Rating officials may, however, provide statements of
support contending the discovery of new information that would have
resulted in an improved evaluation had it been known at the time of report
preparations.  Such statements must describe what the new information
consists of, when and how it was discovered, why it was reportedly unknown
at the time of the report preparation and the logical impact it may have
had on the contested report had it been known at the time the report was
originally prepared.

11.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides the policies and procedures for
convening standby advisory boards.  It provides, in pertinent part, that
standby boards are formed to prevent an injustice to an officer or former
officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records contained a
material error when reviewed by the selection board.  A material error is
defined in that regulation as one or more errors of such a nature that in
the judgment of the reviewing official or reviewing body, caused an
individual’s nonselection by a promotion board.  Had such errors been
corrected at the time the individual been considered, a reasonable chance
would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for
promotion.  Headquarters will normally not determine that a material error
existed if the administrative error was immaterial, if the officer
exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered the error or
omission, or if the officer could have taken timely corrective action by
notifying officials at the Department of the error and providing any
relevant documentation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid
appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period
in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for altering the report as he
requests.

2.  While the applicant has solicited the support of his rater, the rater
clearly is engaging in retrospective thinking, and has not provided any
substantive basis for his support.

3.  Of particular note to the Board is the fact that the applicant has not
provided supporting statements from his rater and SR, the persons most
familiar with his performance on a daily basis.  The evaluations rendered
by those officials were based on daily contact with the applicant and he
has failed to show through the evidence of record, or the evidence
submitted with his application, that the ratings rendered by those
officials were not a true depiction of his performance and potential during
the rated period.

4.  The applicant’s contention that the addition of the comment “Promote
with Peers” to the contested OER prevented him from being promoted has been
noted and appears to be without merit.  On at least five reports the
applicant received while serving in the field grade ranks, he has been
given the same ratings he received on the contested report.  He was
promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel with at least two of the same
ratings he now contends prevented his promotion to the rank of colonel.

5.  Inasmuch as promotion boards do not reveal their reasons for selection
or nonselection for promotion, the applicant’s contention is at best
speculative on his part.  Accordingly, there is no basis to grant him
promotion reconsideration.

6.  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

____MP _  ____MF _  ___GP __  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.





                                  _____Margaret Patterson_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060009660                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/08/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |NA RC Soldier on AD                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |NA RC Soldier on AD                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NA RC Soldier on AD                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |NA RC Soldier on AD                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |200/ALTER POTBLK                        |
|1.110.0100.0006         |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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