BOARD DATE:	  29 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020818 


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 removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 18 April 2008, an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period 18 August 2007 through 5 May 2008, from his official military personnel file (OMPF).  

2.  The applicant states the above 2008 Article 15 was based on false and discredited information and his right to present mitigating or extenuating evidence was denied.  The hearing officer was not aware that a plaintiff could be found innocent at an Article 15 hearing.  His OER was based on the foregoing Article 15 and the local commander, Colonel Ha_ _ _ _, has provided evidence he was under tremendous command influence from his higher headquarters.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of two OERs for the periods ending 25 February and 5 May 2008; his response to the 5 May 2008 OER; and electronic mail (email) correspondence from Colonel Ha_ _ _ _, his rater. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the Board expunge the 2008 Article 15 and relevant OER permanently from the applicant’s OMPF.

2.  Counsel states that the declaration and memorandum for record (MFR) of Major G _ _ _ _ _, the applicant’s counsel during his Article 15 hearing, substantiate the injustices suffered by the applicant.  It appears the applicant was caught up in what can best be characterized as “office politics,” albeit in the setting of a combat trauma hospital in Iraq.  He was the “outsider” who was tasked, as Chief Surgeon, to make tough decisions where speed and blood determined whether someone might live or die.  As a result, he ruffled some feathers.  He also became an easy target of disgruntled subordinates who came from a home unit where they were not adequately trained for combat trauma duties and who often did not understand the “whys” or urgency of the applicant’s directives.  It is common knowledge that surgeons may not worry about hurting a subordinate doctor’s or nurse’s feeling when they are trying to save lives.

3.  Counsel also states once the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedure for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigation got underway, a “piling on” effect occurred that led to a series of actions which literally turned a teaching opportunity into overstated formal allegations of medical and criminal misconduct.  The ABCMR (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) exists as an independent body to act impartially and fairly by piercing clouds of confusion and recognizing political gamesmanship whenever and wherever if occurs.  They are simply asking the ABCMR to step back, read between the lines, recognize the injustice that occurred, and provide the relief that is due the applicant, a doctor and an officer who has given his best efforts while serving the United States in a combat environment.

4.  Counsel further states, with respect to the referred OER, which was based in part on the outcome of the Article 15 proceedings, it is clear that COL H _ _ _ _, the rater, was improperly influenced to downgrade his rating of the applicant.  No other conclusions can be drawn after reading the email messages.  It is also clear the intermediate and senior raters were influenced by the outcome of the Article 15 proceedings.  A fair and objective review of the foregoing Article 15 arguments, in conjunction with the evidence provided in relation to the referred OER, justify the conclusion that the applicant’s explanation of his actions and performance was not given due consideration.  When the applicant’s outstanding achievements as an Army doctor who saved Soldiers’ lives and the lives of Iraqi citizens in a combat environment are balanced against the allegations of minor misconduct that arose in the setting of a dysfunctional unit, the conclusion follows that he did not receive fair treatment during his last period of service in Iraq.  The ABCMR should, therefore, grant the relief requested.

5.  Counsel provides declarations from the applicant and Major G _ _ _ _ _ _, an MFR, and the applicant’s Article 15 rebuttal submission.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he was appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve, Medical Corps, as a lieutenant colonel, on 20 March 1989, with 16 years, 
8 months, and 26 days of constructive service credit.  He was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and entered active duty on 11 August 2007.

2.  On 22 December 2007, an AR 15-6 Investigation recommended that the applicant receive punitive action under Article 15 of the UCMJ for conduct unbecoming an officer and the following:  poor judgment by using his personally-owned Gerber Bark II survival knife to perform a surgical procedure, arrogance and harassment of subordinates, making a false statement, and inappropriate conduct during a limb amputation.  It was recommended he receive a relief-for-cause OER and be immediately released from active duty for the foregoing reasons.

3.  On 27 December 2007, the Command Judge Advocate found the investigation was legally sufficient and it met the procedures and substantive requirements of paragraph 2-3b, Army Regulation 15-6.  There were no substantive errors noted in the investigation.  The findings that the applicant directed the performance of an amputation on an Iraqi patient with a Gerber knife was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.  The findings the applicant ordered a photograph to be taken of him holding an amputated limb was supported by the preponderance of evidence.  The findings that Colonel 
H _ _ _ _ and Colonel C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ had knowledge of the amputation and the photograph incident and failed to report it to higher authorities was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.  Colonel H _ _ _ failed to follow the policy to pass this information higher within 24 hours.  The findings that the 325th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) had a significant pattern of not reporting significant, unusual, and adverse occurrences were not supported by the evidence in the investigation.  

4.  The Command Judge Advocate also stated the findings of a hostile work environment or hostile command climate at the 325th CSH were consistent with the findings and evidence.  The recommendation was that the Commander, 325th CSH, establish a separate command structure for the hospital at Tikrit, establish an integrated rating structure, reassign Colonel M _ _ _, issue him a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), and encourage him to seek counseling.  The recommendation for the issuance of a GOMOR to Colonel H _ _ _ _ and those recommendations concerning the applicant were consistent with the findings and the evidence.  

5.  On 13 March 2008, the brigade commander, after reviewing the material pertaining to the alleged misconduct, directed that the applicant be issued an Article 15.

6.  On 18 April 2008, the applicant accepted punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully ordering that his picture be taken with an amputated arm on 13 October 2007; falsely reporting to his supervisor that there were no very sharp amputation knives available and without being encouraged he used standard surgical equipment and wrongfully advised a subordinate surgeon to use the applicant's personally owned Gerber II survival knife to perform an amputation on an Iraqi national patient; wrongfully belittling, bullying, and intimidating his subordinate staff, particularly when they expressed dissent with his medical decisions; wrongfully, publicly questioning his subordinates' competence and calling them names, by publicly criticizing the operating room head nurse for being a terrible leader because she was unable to control her people in the wake of their questioning him about the use of a Gerber knife for an amputation; and falsely asserting to his subordinates he had been given the authority to conduct an Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation and/or initiate an Article 15 proceeding against them, when he possessed no such authority, on 1 September 2007.  The applicant was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer during UCMJ proceedings.

7.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and demand trial by court-martial.  He did not elect trial by court-martial.  He requested a closed hearing and elected a person to speak in his behalf.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $4,300.00 pay for 2 months.  His commander directed the DA Form 2627 be filed in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.  The applicant was also advised of his right to appeal the punishment, and he did not appeal the punishment.  

8.  In a memorandum dated 16 April 2008, applicant’s counsel (Major G_ _ _ _) submitted the following Article 15 Rebuttal Submission on behalf of the applicant. Counsel stated with regard to the first allegation, at no time did the applicant consider the photograph in questions to be a “trophy” photograph.  This was a subjective conclusion drawn by someone who did not understand the purpose for which the photograph was being taken.  Counsel recommended the specification pertaining to the photograph be dismissed.  With regard to the second allegation, no evidence has been provided that the applicant “falsely reported” to his supervisors “there were no very sharp amputation knives available.”  In fact, evidence to the contrary had been presented from both the applicant and Colonel M _ _ _.  In his AR 15-6 statement, the applicant stated he only saw one amputation knife which wasn’t suitable for use and he mentioned that to Colonel M _ _ _, the officer in charge, and a surgeon.  This was in agreement with Colonel M _ _ _ ‘s 5 December 2007 sworn statement, “the amputation knives in the operating room at that time were dull and burred.”  After this Colonel M _ _ _ authorized the applicant to use the Gerber knife which was used for 45 seconds out of a 90-minute operation.  The amputation was performed with a scalpel, surgical power saw, and the Gerber knife (which was used briefly to separate the muscle from the back of the bones).  Also, there had been insufficient evidence presented at the time the Gerber knife was used that the applicant was interested in “his own professional glory” or in collecting “a war story to brag about.”

9.  Counsel further stated with respect to the third allegation, the lack of command and control of the 325th CSH and lack of authority at COB (Contingency Operating Base) Speicher, were well established in the AR 15-6 investigation.  The applicant had to supervise life-threatening decisions in a situation without proper command and control or surgical expertise.  The applicant may have presented a strong and directive personality, but he was in the business of saving lives.  Unfortunately, it appeared that his success in saving multiple Iraqi lives may be lost in the detail of the complaints brought against him.  Furthermore, other medical personnel had glowing comments about the applicant and his abilities as a surgeon.  Counsel requested the applicant's contributions to the Army during his 23 years of service, his most recent OER, email correspondence telling the applicant he needed to counsel his subordinates, his retirement paperwork, and written assignment, be taken into consideration before any decision was made in his case.  

10.  In a MFR dated 21 April 2008, Major G _ _ _ _ _ _ stated he had represented the applicant during his Article 15 proceedings.  Prior to the formal hearing, he spoke with the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and advised him the applicant would exercise his right to remain silent during the hearing and would not be making a statement.  During the hearing, he explained the applicant was accepting the Article 15, but they did not agree on the wording of the charges.  At that point, the Multi-National Corps-Iraq SJA advised BG A _ _ _ _ he could not find the applicant not guilty of the charges at the hearing.  Counsel also states he finished his statement on behalf of the applicant.  BG A_ _ _ _ said there was no remorse in the Article 15 rebuttal and he wanted remorse.  BG A _ _ _ _ then wanted to ask the applicant some questions.  Counsel stated the applicant had a credentialing hearing and another hearing pending and he didn’t want to say something that would later be used against him.  BG A _ _ _ _ stated he wasn’t concerned with a credentialing hearing.  BG A _ _ _ _ asked him a couple of questions, one of which he didn’t answer.  The BG stared at the applicant waiting for a response and then the applicant answered the question.  At no time prior to the hearing did BG A _ _ _ _ read the applicant his Article 31b rights (the right to remain silent).  After he got his answers out, the witness was called and his testimony was taken over the phone.  The hearing was then closed.  It became clear to him during the hearing that BG A _ _ _ _ did not know you could plead or find someone not guilty at an Article 15 hearing.  His SJA had to remind him twice during the hearing that this was the case.  Nonetheless, he continued with the attitude of “accept the Article 15” or be court-martialed.  
11.  Counsel provided copies of the following documents that were submitted with the applicant’s Article 15 rebuttal submission:  his Curriculum Vitae; his 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 OERs; email correspondence between the applicant and Colonel M _ _ _ _; his retirement request; the 62nd Medical Brigade Clinical Practice Guideline Project; the Clinical Practice Guidelines and Implementation in Iraq; the 62nd Medical Brigade Joint Theater Trauma Surgeon Clinical Practice Guidelines; and the Brief Provider Guideline to Military – Medical Ethics and the Ethics Committee at Level II U.S. MTFs with Quality Metrics/A Companion Guide to Brief Provider Guidelines to Military – Medical Ethics, both prepared by the applicant. 

12.  The applicant submitted a copy of email correspondence, dated 18 and 20 May 2008, wherein Colonel H _ _ _ _ , his rater, provided him a copy of the original OER he submitted.  Colonel H _ _ _ _ advised the applicant, in effect, there had been overwhelming influence by the brigade in the final product of his OER and what he saw was not what was originally submitted.  He also advised the applicant to redress the GOMOR.

13.  The applicant also submitted a copy of an OER, marked “Original,” for the period 24 August 2007 through 25 February 2008.  The OER was a Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) OER.  He served as the Chief of Surgery for the 325th CSH at COB Speicher, Tikrit, Iraq.  The Hospital Commander (Colonel H _ _ _ _) served as his rater, the Commander of the Task Force (TF), 62nd Medical Brigade (MED BDE) as his intermediate rater, and a major general from Headquarters, MNC-I DCG as his senior rater. 

14.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), the rater marked “yes” for each block in part IVa (Army Values) and IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/
Actions.  In Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) the rater assessed the applicant’s performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote” with the following comments:  

		[applicant] served as a cardiothoracic surgeon and Chief of Surgery while deployed to a combat zone and attached to the 325th CSH, COB (Speicher, Iraq. He was vital component of the surgical section which performed over 75 major cases during his tour.  He engaged in both independent and team managed procedures, and consistently made critical contributions to the surgical mission of the hospital.  His clinical judgment and skillful interventions resulted in many wounded Soldiers [sic] lives being saved as bared [sic] out by outstanding surgical outcomes.  [applicant] practiced his profession with high standards, compassion, and concern for the well-being of US/coalition Soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi civilians equally.  

15.  The rater entered the comment "Promote when possible."  In Part VI the intermediate rater provided the following comments:

		[applicant] is performing his surgical duties flawlessly.  He worked closely with the surgical staff in order to ensure that the best surgical outcomes were obtained for all patients in all situations.  His desire for excellence in surgery was evident from the day of his arrival in theater.  His presence helped in the smooth transition from the previous CSH to the 325th.  To support the mission, he volunteered to serve an additional 90 days in theater and continue his duties as Chief of Surgery.  

16.  In Part VII, the senior rater did not mark any blocks in this section and provided the following comments:

		[applicant] is a skilled cardiothoracic surgeon whose clinical skills helped to save lives.  He possesses valued experience in trauma surgery from his many previous deployments.  He also shared his knowledge on trauma surgery by giving lectures to the nursing staff.  His actions during this deployment contributed greatly to the success of the mission for the 325th CSH/COB Speicher.  He should be encouraged to continue to develop his leadership style and skills as he possesses surgical skills critically needed by the Army in this time of need.

17.  This report was not signed by the rater, intermediate rater, and senior rater.  This report is also not filed in the applicant's OMPF.

18.  The applicant also submitted a copy of an OER, marked “Command Influenced OER,” for the period 18 August 2007 through 5 May 2008.  The OER was a REFRAD OER.  He served as the Chief of Surgery for the 325th CSH at COB Speicher, Tikrit, Iraq.  The Hospital Commander (Colonel H _ _ _ _) served as his rater, the Commander of the TF, 62nd MBD BDE as his intermediate rater, and a different major general from Headquarters, MNC-I DCG as his senior rater. 

19.  Part IVa, the rater marked “yes” for each block in part with the exception of the “Integrity” block which he marked “no.”  In Part IVb the rater marked “yes” in each block.  In Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) the rater assessed the applicant’s performance and potential as "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote” with the following comments:  

		[applicant] served as a cardiothoracic surgeon and Chief of Surgery while deployed to a combat zone and attached to the 325th CSH, COB Speicher, Iraq. He was vital component of the surgical section which performed over 75 major cases during his tour.  He engaged in both independent and team managed procedures, and consistently made critical contributions to the surgical mission of the hospital.  His skillful interventions resulted in many wounded Soldiers [sic] lives being saved as bared [sic] out by outstanding surgical outcomes.  Due to a lapse of clinical judgment, he [applicant] was suspended from his clinical duties and was subsequently found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer   during General Officer UCMJ proceedings.  He is exempt from the Army Physical Fitness Test requirement in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  

20.  The rater entered the comments "Do not promote.  This should be his culminating military assignment."   In Part VI the intermediate rater provided the following comments:

		[applicant] conducted numerous life saving surgeries in an austere environment during this deployment to Iraq.  He provided education and training guidance to medical personnel throughout the hospital which resulted in the prompt transition of a TDA-minded surgical staff to a combat medical team.  Despite being removed from his position, he co-authored multiple trauma and medical ethics documents to assist the command in codifying best practices in a combat environment.  He made some poor choices during his tour and his actions were diametrically opposed to the type of Army Soldier we want to retain; he has no potential for promotion or continued service.

21.  In Part VII, the senior rater marked the “Do Not Promote” block and in Part VII, he placed an "X" in the "Below Center of Mass, Do Not Retain” and provided the following comments:

		[applicant] is a skilled cardiothoracic surgeon who has performed his surgical duties in a satisfactory manner.  He participated in over 75 life saving thoracic and abdominal surgeries whereby he provided premier healthcare to the most critically injured US and Coalition Forces serving in the MND-North.  He was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer during UCMJ proceedings.  His actions are not in keeping with the Army Values and thus he does not have the potential for continued military services.  Do not promote.  

22.  This OER was signed by the rater, intermediate rater, and senior rater on 6 May 2008.  The OER was given to the applicant as a referred report on 18 May 2008.  This report is filed on the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

23.  The applicant further submitted a copy of his rebuttal to the OER, dated 14 May 2008, wherein he stated his version of the events had been consistent and unchanged since the 15-6 investigation.  He stated, in effect, the questioning of his integrity reflected command influence that wanted to do him harm.  The OER that he received was a hundred and eighty degrees out of synch with his previous 20 OERs which he believes represents that a decision was previously made about him and then facts and situations were developed to support that initial decision due to command influence.  There is no evidence he appealed this report with the DA Officer Special Review Board.  

24.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty as a colonel on 27 August 2008 and transferred to the Retired Reserve.

25.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 states that nonjudicial punishment is imposed to correct misconduct, as a result of intentional disregard of or failure to comply with prescribed standards of military conduct, in violation of the UCMJ.  Nonjudicial punishment may be set aside or removed upon a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, a clear injustice has resulted.  

26.  Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-37(1)(a) specifies the decision to file the original DA Form 2627 on the performance or restricted portions in the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment was imposed.  Paragraph 3-43 contains guidance on the transfer or removal of records of nonjudicial punishment (DA Form 2627) from the OMPF.  It states application for removal of a DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  It further states that there must be compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly completed, facially valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier’s record by the ABCMR.

27.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and the Army Personnel Qualification Record.  It also prescribes the composition of the OMPF.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation. 

28.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), establishes the policies and procedures for the Army’s Evaluation Reporting System.  It provides that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), 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.  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.  Paragraph 1-10 specifies except to comply with the regulation, no person may require changes be made to an individual’s OER.  Members of the rating chain, appropriate administrative personnel office, or HQDA will point out obvious inconsistencies or administrative errors to the appropriate rating officials.  The regulation also provides the opportunity to request a Commander's Inquiry or to appeal referred/disputed reports.  

29.  Army Regulation 623-3 defines a referred report, among other things, as any report with ratings or comments that, in the opinion of the senior rater, are so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the rated officer’s career.  It specifies that such a report will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before it is sent to HQDA.

30.  Additionally, paragraph 3-23 states that no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier.  References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting the evaluation to HQDA.  If the rated individual is absolved, comments about the incident will not be included in the evaluation.  This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports.  It will also prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently included in a Soldier's OMPF, such as charges that are later dropped or charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved. 

31.  The regulation further states that any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation.  This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial.  While the fact that a rated individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain's use of verified derogatory information.  For example, when an interim report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in an OER.  Reports will not be delayed to await the outcome of a trial or investigation.  Reports will be done when due and contain what information is verified at the time of preparation. 


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that based on the recommendations of an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation and at the direction of his brigade commander the applicant was administered an Article 15 for ordering his picture to be taken with an amputated arm, and making false reports pertaining to surgical equipment, wrongfully advising a subordinate surgeon to use the applicant's personally owned Gerber II survival knife to perform an amputation.  He was afforded the right to consult with counsel and elected not to have his case considered by a trial by court-martial.  He requested a closed hearing and was represented by counsel.  He did not appeal the punishment.

2.  Neither the applicant nor counsel have provided convincing evidence that the applicant's 2008 Article 15 was unjust, in whole or in part, to support removal from his OMPF.  They also submitted no evidence of substantive errors in the investigation which led to the Article 15.  By regulation, there must be compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly completed, facially valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier’s record.  Absent evidence meeting this regulatory standard there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support removal of the form from his OMPF.  

3.  The applicant also contends the OER for the period ending 5 May 2008 should be removed from his OMPF.  He submitted documentation from his former rater wherein the rater stated his rating was impacted by command influence and provided a copy of the original OER that corroborated this claim.  Regulatory guidance prohibits a senior rater or others in a chain of command from pressuring a rater to change or lower a rating.  A senior rater, if he/she disagrees with a rater’s assessment, is free to note the disagreement in the appropriate section of the OER.  

4.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant should be granted relief in the form of amending the rater portion of the OER for the period ending 5 May 2008 and showing he was rated as shown in the original OER for the period ending 25 February 2008.  

5.  The applicant’s and counsel’s contentions that the entire OER for the period ending 5 May 2008 should be removed from his OMPF have also been noted,  However, neither he nor counsel has shown the intermediate and senior rater’s portions contain any serious administrative deficiencies or that they were not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  Those portions of the report appear to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.  The evidence is unsubstantiated that the intermediate rater’s concurrence with the senior rater does not fulfill the intent of the regulation.   Also, there is no evidence and none has been provided to show that the comments rendered by his intermediate and senior raters on the contested OER are inaccurate or unjust. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s record should be corrected as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  amending Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), to show the rater marked “yes” for each block in parts IVa (Army Values) and IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions.

   b.  amending Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) to show the rater assessed the applicant’s performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote” with the following comments:  

		[applicant] served as a cardiothoracic surgeon and Chief of Surgery while deployed to a combat zone and attached to the 325th CSH, COB (Speicher, Iraq. He was vital component of the surgical section which performed over 75 major cases during his tour.  He engaged in both independent and team managed procedures, and consistently made critical contributions to the surgical mission of the hospital.  His clinical judgment and skillful interventions resulted in many wounded Soldiers lives being saved as bared out by outstanding surgical outcomes.  [applicant] practiced his profession with high standards, compassion, and concern for the well-being of US/coalition Soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi civilian equally.  

   c.  amending Part 5c to show the comment "Promote when possible;"  
   
	d.  providing as a result of the above correction the applicant with an amended OER for the period 18 August 2007 to 5 May 2008; and 

	e.  filing all associated appeal documentation in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to removal of the DA Form 2627 and the OER for the period ending 5 May 2008 in its entirety from the applicant’s OMPF.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20090020818



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020818



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1