RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  7 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003280 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Ernestine I. Fields

Member

Mr. Randolph J. Fleming

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:

	a.  reconsideration of his earlier request for reconsideration to captain under the Reserve Component Mandatory Selection Board 2002 criteria based on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 18 December 2003 through 17 December 2004; and

	b.  dismissal of the OER for the period 1 August 2002 through 6 June 2003 and promotion reconsideration to captain under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 criteria.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  that his 2004 and 2002 OERs contained similar comments; yet he was considered and selected for promotion to captain by a special promotion board based on his 2004 OER but not selected for promotion to captain in the Transportation Corps based on his 2002 OER;

	b.  that his 2003 OER received an unfavorable recommendation from the National Guard Bureau.  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.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page self-authored statement in support of his application.

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 AR20050009027, on 2 March 2005.

2.  The applicant provided new argument and evidence that was not previously considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant's records show that he received the following OERs:

	a)  15 November 2001 through 28 February 2002:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "satisfactory performance, promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "do not promote" (with a comment that the applicant needed to complete his bachelor's degree to be promoted).  The overall SR rating was "center of mass."

	b)  1 March 2002 through 31 July 2002:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "unsatisfactory performance, do not promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "do not promote" (with a comment that the applicant needs to complete his bachelor's degree to be promoted).  This OER was signed and dated by the rating officials in December 2002.  It was referred to the applicant on 8 December 2002.  The applicant provided his rebuttal comments in a memorandum dated 19 January 2002 (sic) [presumed to be 19 January 2003].  The overall SR rating was "center of mass."

	c)  1 August 2002 through 6 June 2003:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "satisfactory performance, promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "other" (with comments that the applicant was a 2-time nonselect for promotion to captain and might be best suited to further his military career in the Chaplain Corps in some capacity). The overall SR rating was "below center of mass-retain."

	d)  7 June 2003 through 17 December 2003:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "satisfactory performance, promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "fully qualified" (with a comment that the applicant's potential lies in the Chaplain Corps."  The overall SR rating was "center of mass."

	e)  18 December 2003 through 17 December 2004:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "satisfactory performance, promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "fully qualified" (with a comment that the applicant's potential for future service would be better served in the Chaplain Corps in some capacity).  The overall SR rating was not shown on the OER and the profile indicated "No Box Check."



	f)  18 December 2004 through 17 December 2005:  The applicant's rater rated his performance and potential as "satisfactory performance, promote."  The applicant's SR rated his promotion potential as "fully qualified" (with a comment that the applicant's potential for future service would be better served in the Chaplain Corps in some capacity).  The overall SR rating was not shown on the OER and the profile indicated "No Box Check."

4.  On 10 June 2006, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard in the rank of first lieutenant as a result of two time pass over.  He was further transferred to the Retired Reserve list.

5.  On 23 March 2007, the applicant was notified that he was selected for promotion to captain in the Transportation Corps by Special Selection Board 2006SS09R under the provisions of United States Code, Title 10, Section 14502.

6.  Paragraph 6-6a of Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) states, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. 

7.  Paragraph 3-2g of Army Regulation 623-105 states rating officials must prepare reports that are accurate and as complete as possible within the space limitations of the form.  This responsibility is vital to the long-range success of the Army's mission.  With due regard for the officer's current grade, experience, and military schooling, evaluations should cover failures as well as achievements.  

8.  Paragraph 3-17b(3) of Army Regulation 623-105 states that the rated officer's signature verifies the accuracy of the administrative data in Part I (except block m), the rating officials in Part II, the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and height and weight in Part IVc, and that the rated officer has seen the completed OER, Parts I through VII. 

9.  Paragraph 6-10 of Army Regulation 623-105 places the burden of proof on the applicant to provide clear and convincing evidence to justify deletion or amendment of an OER.

10.  Paragraph 3-33b of AR 623-105 states that the rated officer may comment if he or she believes that the rating or remarks are incorrect.  The comments must be factual, concise, and limited to matters directly related to the evaluation on the OER.

11  Paragraph 3-33e(1) of AR 623-105 states that the senior rater will refer, in writing, a copy of the completed report (e.g, a report that has been signed and dated by the senior rater) to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment. A reasonable suspense date should be given to the rated officer to complete this action.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his 2003 and 2004 OERs should be removed from his OMPF.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that these reports were not prepared in accordance with applicable regulations.

2.  Additionally, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the ratings rendered were not the considered opinions of the rating officials at the time of the evaluations.  Absent such evidence, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request for removal of the contested reports.

3.  Although there are no records that show the applicant was selected for promotion to captain in the Chaplain Corps, promotion selection of an officer within a particular branch is not necessarily a guarantee that the same officer will be selected in a different branch.  Each individual is selected or non-selected based on the merits of his or her records and within the guidance of the selection board.

4.  An appeal to remove an OER from the OMPF must be supported by substantiating evidence.  The 2003 OER that covers the period 1 August 2002 to 6 June 2003 was entered correctly into the applicant's official military records.  There is no evidence and the applicant did not provide any evidence to substantiate his request for dismissal of this OER.

5.  The applicant's OER for the period 1 March 2002 to 31 July 2002 was completed, signed, and dated in December 2002 by the rating officials and the applicant.  The FY2003 promotion selection board convened on 4 November 2002 and could not have considered the applicant's OER since it was not entered into the applicant's records by the time the board convened. 





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __eif___  __rjf___  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 AR20050009027, dated 2 March 2006.



							Linda D. Simmons
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070003280
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131.1100
2.
134.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.