RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015712


      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. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Marla J.N.Troup               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 DA Form 67-9, Officer Evaluation Report
(OER) for the period 19980601-19990302 be removed from his Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the OER submitted for the rating
period 19980601-19990302 should be removed from his OMPF for the following
reasons:

      a.  The OER contains administrative errors and is inaccurate to the
point of being "damaging to his career."

      b.  He was not aware of the rating chain or counseled while assigned
to the unit.


      c.  The OER was not reviewed or signed by him prior to filing in his
OMPF.

      d.  The OER was completed almost a year after the thru date of the
report.

      e.  He was not aware of the report until the OER had been processed
with the annotation "officer failed to sign."

3.  The applicant also states that the OER was removed from his OMPF in
2002 and in 2006 when he reviewed his OMPF he discovered that it had been
returned.

4.  The applicant provides in support of his request:

      a.  OER for the period from 19980601-19990302.

     b. A memorandum written to the Finance Branch Company
Grade Assignments Officer, dated 17 December 2002 requesting that the above
OER be removed from his OMPF.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving on
active duty as a Major.  On 5 January 2000, the applicant received an OER
that covered the 9-month period from 19980601 through 19990302 while he was
assigned to the 475th Quartermaster Group (USAR), Farrell, PA.

2.  In Part IIIb (Position) of the contested OER, the rater (a MAJ)
annotated the applicant’s duty Position’s AOC/Br as 14A.

3.  In Part IVc (APFT/DATE), the applicant received a rating of "PASS/July
1998".  The rater entered (typed) “PASS” in the space after the word “date”
entered the month and 4-digit year of the APFT result.

4.  In Part Vc (Identify Any Unique Skills or Areas of Expertise of Value
to The Army That The Officer Possesses), The rater left this item blank.
Completion of this block concerning unique skills is optional.

5.  In Part V – Performance and Potential Evaluation, the rater rated the
applicant a “1” block for performance and potential and a rating of
“Outstanding Performance Must Promote.”

6.  In Part VII the senior rater rated him a “1” block performance and
potential evaluation rating of “Best Qualified.”  (It should be noted that
this makes it a “center of mass” rating).  Neither the rater nor the senior
rater makes any negative comments.

7.  On 5 January 2002, the OER was authenticated by both the rater and the
senior rater.  Part IId (Authentication) (Signature of Rated Officer) was
annotated Officer Not Available for Signature and the OER was submitted for
inclusion in the applicant’s OMPF.

8.  On 17 December 2002, the applicant drafted and signed a memorandum to
the Finance Branch Company Grade Assignments Officer, subject:  Removal of
Reserve Component Army Officer Evaluation Report From Official File for
applicant.

9.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the
OER system.  Paragraphs 3-57 and 6-6 provide that an OER accepted by
Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record
of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been
prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the
considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the
time of preparation.  Paragraph
6-10 of that regulation 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 material error or
inaccuracy is warranted.

10.  Paragraph 3-5, states in pertinent part, within the first 30 days of
the evaluation period, the rated officer will draft his/her support form,
normally using the rater/senior rater support forms provided as input.
Paragraph 3-5b states, in pertinent part, that the rated officer will
prepare the final support form at the end of the rating period.  Paragraph
3-5d (1) states in pertinent part, that the rated officer will enter the
duty title and position code in Part IVa that most accurately describes the
principal duty performed.

11.  Paragraph 3-17 (Part II, Authentication) states in pertinent part,
that if the rated officer is unavailable, unable, or fails to sign the DA
Form 67-9 for any reason, the senior rate will resolve the problem or
explain why in DA Form 67-9, part VIIc.  The report will not be delayed
because it lacks the rated officer’s signature.  Failure to comply with any
or all support form requirements will not constitute the sole grounds for
appeal of an OER.

12.  Chapter 3 of the regulation provides for the preparation of the DA
Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report), and states in pertinent part, "Part
VII of the DA Form 67-9 provides for the senior rater's evaluation of the
rated officer's performance and potential.

13.  Paragraph 2-7 (Part IVc APFT/DATE) states in pertinent part that these
entries reflected the officer’s status on the date of the most recent APFT
administered by the unit as of the thru date of the report.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  All of his contentions have been considered; however, they are not
sufficiently supported by his application or the evidence of record.  It is
concluded the contested OER represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal
of the applicant’s demonstrated performance and potential during the period
in question.  The applicant has not convinced this Board that the contested
report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared
in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

2.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Officer
Special Review Board (OSRB) to appeal the challenged OER.

3.  The contested OER appears to represent a fair, objective and valid
appraisal of the demonstrated performance and potential during the period
in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing the OER from his
OMPF.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MJNT__  ___JGH_  ___DLL _  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.




            ___Marla J.N.Troup_____
                    CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/02/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MR. CHUN                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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