BOARD DATE:	  10 June 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090015077 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report [OER]), for the period ending 15 February 2007, be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

* The evaluation did not accurately reflect her accomplishments and performance during the rating period
* Numerous comments were omitted from the OER
* She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal by her senior rater for the accomplishments that were omitted from her OER
* Prior to her permanent change of station (PCS) her senior rater typed a memorandum listing her significant contributions to the unit, which were omitted
* There was a personality conflict between her and her rater, which was discussed with her battalion commander on numerous occasions
* Based on the rating scheme the battalion commander was her senior rater and not the individual who senior rated her (the executive officer)
* She was never told that she needed to discuss her issues with her senior rater
* She was told who her senior rater was a couple of days before she received the OER
* She never had a conversation with her senior rater prior to receiving her evaluation

* She signed the evaluation because by that time she had been made aware of her senior rater along with being "cursed out," read her rights, and threatened with action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
* She did not know signing the OER would stop the Appeals Board from thoroughly researching her case
* A memorandum written by her senior rater was not in her appeals packet prior to the review by the Appeals Board

3.  The applicant provides:

* Her DA Form 67-9 for the period ending 15 February 2007
* A Memorandum from her senior rater, dated 25 June 2008
* A DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 16 March 2008, for award of the Meritorious Service Medal
* Permanent Orders 088-22, dated 28 March 2008, awarding her the Meritorious Service Medal
* A Battalion Staff listing as of 6 August 2007
* A memorandum for record from the Headquarters, Special Troops Battalion, Evaluation Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), dated 18 August 2007
* Electronic Mail (email) between herself and a Department of the Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, VA (AHRC-Alexandria) official
* A copy of her appeal to the Chief, Appeals and Corrections Office and the response to her appeal from AHRC-Alexandria, dated 22 August 2008

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With 9 years, 7 months, and 2 days of total prior active enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant accepted an appointment as a Warrant Officer One
(WO1) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 10 April 2003.  She was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) on 10 April 2005.

2.  On 24 July 2006, the applicant received her initial counseling as her organization's Human Resources Technician.  At that time she was furnished documentation listing her:

* Duty description
* Area of responsibilities
* Communicating
* Decision making
* 
Motivating
* Planning
* Executing
* Assessing
* Developing
* Building
* Learning

3.  On 31 July 2006, the applicant was counseled regarding her performance as a result of noncompliance with her initial counseling.  During the counseling, the importance of time management and opening the lines of communication between her and her rater were discussed.  She was told of the importance of being at her place of duty on time and that appointments would be handled on a case-by-case basis.  The DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling) that was prepared for this counseling shows she was told:

* to attend physical training every morning at 6:30
* work call was from 0900 hours to 1700 hours unless events or times were coordinated through him (her rater)
* to check out with her rater every day so events of the day could be discussed and loops could be closed on any possible issues
* to request permission to attend any scheduled appointments 24 hours in advance

4.  The applicant initialed and signed the DA Form 4856 showing that she agreed with the information contained therein.

5.  The applicant was again counseled on 21 September 2006 regarding her performance due to noncompliance with her initial counseling.  The key points of discussion were:

* Leave she took on 11 September 2006
* Failure to be at her place of duty on time on 21 September 2006
* Failure to render the proper courtesies while passing her rater to enter the battalion headquarters by not rendering a salute
* Accountability, motivation, responsibility of tasks, and setting the standard
* Productivity, inconsistency, and dependability

6.  During counseling, the applicant was told by her rater:

* To report to her (the rater) every morning at 0900 and check out with her every evening at 1700 hours
* Counseling statements addressing her job performance, both positive and negative, would continue to be written until expectations were met
* Suspenses were expected to be met unless a product had been turned in and was waiting for comments or corrections

7.  The applicant initialed the box on the DA Form 4856 and signed the form, showing she disagreed with the information contained therein.

8.  The DA Forms 4856, dated 31 July 2006 and 21 September 2006, show she was counseled by the same person who was then identified as her rater.

9.  On 29 June 2007, the applicant was furnished a change of rater OER for the period 7 July 2006 through 15 February 2007.  In Part V - Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater), her rater stated "CW2 W------- performed satisfactorily as a Human Resources Technician for the Special Troops Battalion. CW2 W------- arrived to the unit shortly after the unit's redeployment from Operation Iraqi Freedom III (OIF III) and helped the S1 shop transition to the Personnel Service Delivery Redesign concept.  CW2 W------- created several personnel tracking systems that accounted for every action that the S1 section processed, improving customer service to the Soldiers.  CW2 W------- executed a successful Soldier Readiness Check for the upcoming deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom V (OIF V).  She worked to provide accurate USR [Unit Status Report] data in a timely matter and to improve personnel strength reporting.  CW2 W------- has potential for future service."  The applicant was given a "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" rating by her rater and a "Promote when eligible and send her to the Warrant Officer Advance Course" in the block "Potential for promotion."

10.  In Part VII - Senior Rater on the OER in the block "Comment on Performance/Potential" the senior rater stated, "CW2 W------ is an average performer who has made improvements in the Battalion.  Under supervision, she accomplished all assigned tasks within her area of responsibility.  CW2 W------- continues to develop as an officer.  She has potential for future contributions to the Army.  Promote in due course and continue to assign to staff positions."  The applicant was given a "Fully Qualified" rating by her senior rater in the block "Evaluate the rated officer's promotion potential to the next higher grade."

11.  On 27 November 2007, the applicant submitted an appeal to her OER to the Chief, Appeal and Corrections Office, AHRC-Alexandria, citing the same contentions as those in her application to this Board.  Her appeal was referred to the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) for consideration.  The ASRB determined that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the report.  The ASRB denied her appeal on 17 July 2008.
12.  In a memorandum for the President, ASRB, dated 6 January 2009, the applicant requested reconsideration of her appeal for removal of the OER from her OMPF citing the absence of two documents from her appeal packet.  On 9 January 2009, the President, ASRB, notified her that in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), evaluation appeals must be submitted by the appellant via their appropriate AHRC.  She was told that the ASRB is precluded from accepting appeals directly from the appellant and as a member of the Regular Army her appeal should be submitted to AHRC-Alexandria.  Accordingly, her appeal was returned without action.

13.  Along with her application to this Board the applicant submits a memorandum, dated 25 June 2008, from the individual shown as her senior rater on the OER who states that the OER in question does not capture all of the applicant's significant accomplishments.  He states she:

* Performed satisfactorily as the Battalion S-1 Personnel Technician
* Managed the execution of 650 awards, personnel actions, and evaluations during the rating period
* Managed  to complete 3 months worth of backlogged awards to include awards from OIF III in a month's time
* Increased the overall rating of the 3rd ID [Infantry Division] Marne Assessment from 69 percent to 83 percent
* Wrote and established a detailed Awards Standing Operating Procedure (SOP)
* Managed the execution of SOP's for every section in the S-1 office
* Coordinated and conducted two Soldier Readiness Checks ensuring the battalion was prepared to deploy to OIF V
* Coordinated ACAP [Army Career and Alumni Program] Briefings
* Created tracking rosters for all areas within the S-1 office
* Served as the battalion postal officer
* Performed as the systems database manager for the battalion
* Has an approved Meritorious Service Medal for the period of service covering the OER

14.  She also submits a Memorandum for Record from the battalion's Evaluations NCO, dated 18 August 2007, stating that she has been the evaluations clerk since 21 July 2006, and that from 21 July 2006 to 31 July 2007, every working version of the battalion staff rating scheme involving the applicant lists a different individual as her (the applicant's) senior rater.  The Evaluations NCO also states as of 7 August 2007, the senior rater shown on the battalion staff rating scheme is the individual shown on the OER in question as her senior rater.

15.  The applicant submits a copy of her Recommendation for Award of the Meritorious Service Medal and Permanent Orders 088-22, dated 28 March 2008, awarding her the Meritorious Service Medal for the period 14 January 2005 to 1 July 2008.

16.  The Battalion Staff Listing the applicant submits, dated 6 August 2007, is after the date of the OER in question and it shows a different individual as her senior rater.

17.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  It provides that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed 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 9-7 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the OER in question does not list all of her contributions as stated in the memorandum from her senior rater, the applicant has not proven that the change of rater OER contains material error or inaccuracies.

2.  The memorandum submitted by the battalion's former Evaluations NCO has been considered.  However, the applicant signed the OER and if there was any question regarding her rating chain, the time to address her concerns should have been at the time she was presented the OER and prior to its signing.  The memorandum from the Evaluations NCO is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant removal of the OER from her OMPF.

3.  She submits a Battalion Staff listing, dated 6 August 2007, which was clearly posted after the rating period in question.  This information does not support her contentions of not being timely informed of who was in her rating chain.

4.  There is no evidence in the available record nor has she submitted any evidence that shows she was verbally mistreated and threatened as she suggests.  She was rated as a satisfactory Soldier and even in the memorandum from her senior rater, he states that she performed her duties satisfactorily.  She was rated accordingly.
5.  The fact that the awards that she received during the rating period are not listed in the OER does not constitute an invalid OER.  There may or may not have been a personality conflict between her and her rating official.  However, she has failed to present sufficient proof of this allegation.

6.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that the OER dated 15 February 2007 is accurate and properly filed in her OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__x_____  ____x____  ___x___  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.



      _____________x___________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090015077



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090015077



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1