IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006690 


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 removal of a relief for cause officer evaluation report (OER) for the period ending 9 October 2007 from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that the OER was issued because of an incident in which 36 night vision goggles were stolen and an investigation was conducted under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 in which the investigating officer recommended his reinstatement as the company commander.  However, his senior rater (SR) disregarded the recommendation and directed his relief for cause.  He goes on to state that he never received any negative counseling regarding his maintenance operations.

3.  The applicant provides:

* A self-authored memorandum explaining his appeal
* A copy of the AR 15-6 investigation
* A copy of the memorandum suspending him from his duties
* A copy of his relief for cause OER for the period 17 May through
9 October 2007
* A copy of his OER for the period 10 October 2007 through 14 February 2008 issued after his relief for cause OER


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve second lieutenant on 15 December 2001 and he was ordered to active duty on 24 January 2002.  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 3 July 2003 and to the rank of captain (CPT) on 1 May 2005.

2.  On 6 September 2007, while serving as the company commander of a maintenance company in Germany, the applicant was suspended from his duties by his SR pending the results of a commander’s inquiry regarding his failure to maintain proper physical security standards and accountability within his unit.

3.  The investigation was completed on 24 September 2007 and the investigating officer found that there were key control problems and errors in sensitive items bookkeeping procedures.  He opined that while the applicant may not have provided appropriate leadership to fix the problems, that failure was not sufficient cause to relieve him as the company commander.  The investigating officer also made reference to an AR 15-6 investigation conducted by another officer regarding the loss of the night vision goggles; however, that investigation is not present in the available records and the applicant did not provide a copy with his application.

4.  The applicant electronically signed his relief for cause OER on 16 April 2008 that covered the period 17 May through 9 October 2007, evaluating him as a company commander for a 4-month period.

5.  In part IVa.7 under Duty - Fulfills professional, legal, ands moral obligations, the applicant received a “No” rating from his rater.  In part IVb.3.9 under Learning - seeks self-improvement and organizational growth, envisioning, adapting and leading change, he received a “No” rating from his rater.

6.  In part V under performance and potential evaluation, he received an “Other” rating from his rater, who indicated that the applicant’s performance was marginal during the period of the report.  He went on to state that he had difficulty in applying the correct leadership and focus to overcome the challenges his unit experienced and he did not apply himself enough towards understanding the day-to-day operations of the company.  As a result, regulatory administrative procedures in his maintenance sections became lax and customer equipment was improperly accounted for.  He also relied too heavily on the technical expertise of his company leadership without conducting appropriate follow-up visits to ensure his orders were executed.  Individuals were not held accountable for failing to obey his orders and this contributed to the deficiencies.


7.  In part VII under evaluate the rated officer's promotion potential to the next higher grade, he received an “Other” rating from his SR, who indicated that the last 4 months of the applicant’s command had been difficult due to serious lapses in his maintenance operations and because of those lapses he (the SR) directed the applicant’s relief for cause.  

8.  The applicant was reassigned to a brigade plans officer position and he received essentially a maximum rating for the following 4 months he was rated.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

10.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures and serves as the authority for the preparation of the OER.  It provides 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 and to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of preparation.  Each report must stand alone.  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.

11. Army Regulation 623-3 also provides 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.  The applicant was relieved for cause because of a lapse in accountability procedures in the maintenance unit he commanded.  Although the applicant contends that he should not have been relieved because the investigating officer recommended his reinstatement as the company commander, the investigating officer did not find him without fault and the decision as to whether he was to remain in command rested with his chain of command, not the investigating officer.

2.  Accordingly, after considering the investigations conducted and the circumstances involved at the time, the chain of command decided that he should be relieved of command.
3.  While the applicant does not agree with the decision of his chain of command, he has failed to show through convincing evidence that the contested report does not reflect the objective evaluation of his rating chain at the time and that it does not properly reflect the rating chain’s evaluation of his performance and potential during the period in question.

4.  Accordingly, the contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid appraisal of his performance and potential during the period in question.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20110006690



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006690



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1