BOARD DATE:	  18 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110008573 


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 a negative comment in Part VI (Intermediate Rater) of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 3 June 2006 through 2 June 2007 be removed.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  His intermediate rater, Major R____, made a negative statement/comment in his OER covering the period 3 June 2006 through 2 June 2007.

	b.  The OER was referred because his intermediate rater commented, "He has great potential at any assignment where he is providing religious support to Soldiers, but needs to grow in his ability to function in the military environment, especially with other chaplains, before he is ready for supervision responsibilities."

	c.  His commander did not concur with his intermediate rater's assessment.

	d.  An Air Force lieutenant colonel (LTC) chaplain who was with him in Afghanistan during part of that period sent him an email to encourage and thank him for all he had to go through with his brigade chaplain.

	e.  The statement is unfair and untrue.  Such a statement has had a major impact on the major selection board and resulted in him not being selected.  He has never slacked or neglected his duty as a chaplain and as an officer of the U.S. Army.

3.  The application indicates he provides an email from an LTC in the Air Force; however, this email is not available.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, he was appointed as a first lieutenant in the Regular Army Chaplain Corps on 28 May 2003.  He was promoted to captain on 9 December 2003.

2.  Records show Major R____ was the intermediate rater for the applicant's OER's covering the periods 15 June 2004 through 31 December 2004 and 1 January 2005 through 2 June 2005.

3.  Part VI of the applicant's OER covering the period 15 June 2004 through 31 December 2004 states, "[Applicant] has demonstrated dedication and commitment as a battalion chaplain.  He conducts more religious support programs for his Soldiers, to include bible studies, marriage retreats, movie nights for single Soldiers and moral leadership trips, than any chaplain in my brigade.  His staff skills are evident in the fact that his commander has entrusted him with the largest CMPR [Commander's Master Religious Program] budget in the 3rd Brigade.  He is a team player and preaching pastor in the Gospel Chapel Service, the largest service on post.  [Applicant] has potential to serve as a brigade chaplain.  Send to advanced civilian schooling in Family Life."

4.  Part Vl of the applicant's OER covering the period 1 January 2005 through 2 June 2005 states, "[Applicant] works more hours and conducts more religious support programs than any chaplain in my brigade.  He executes the largest CMPR in the brigade.  He provides Soldier bible studies, prayer luncheons, marriage retreats, moral leadership trips and single solder events.  An excellent staff officer, he incorporates his Religious Support Plan into the tactical environment, in a battalion training for war.  A team player, he is one of the pastors in the Gospel Service, the largest service on post.  [Applicant] has the potential to serve as a brigade chaplain.  His skill as a counselor would make him a great choice for civilian schooling in Family Life."

5.  The contested OER is a 12-month annual OER covering the period 3 June 2006 through 2 June 2007.  In Part VI of this OER, Major R____ states, "He has great potential at any assignment where he is providing religious support to Soldiers, but needs to grow in his ability to function in the military environment, especially with other chaplains, before he is ready for supervision responsibilities."

6.  The OER was referred to the applicant for acknowledgement because of the negative comment in Part IV.  The memorandum signed by the senior rater states, "You should know that this memorandum is required by regulation and does not in any way imply that I concur with the intermediate rater's comments."

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the referred OER and submitted the following comments:

	a.  He was very solicitous about his intermediate rater's negative remarks.  His remarks stem out of personality conflicts.  His chain of command was aware of the situation and tried to address it on numerous occasions but was not successful in remediation of the situation.

	b.  The chaplain's chain of command through the division and installation level was also aware of the problem but there was no intervention.  In April 2007, his battalion chain of command brought the situation to the attention of the brigade commander.  He counseled the intermediate rater about the issue which angered the intermediate rater more because the applicant had gone to the brigade commander.

	c.  In April 2007 another chaplain was also removed from his intermediate rater's supervision due to a personality conflict.  Another chaplain had to hastily leave the forward operating base so that he did not get into a verbal argument with his intermediate rater.  It seems apparent that revenge was the motive behind the intermediate rater's negative comments because his senior rater was made aware of the situation.

	d.  During a farewell ceremony his intermediate rater told the audience he was thankful for the applicant's willingness to risk everything during Operation Enduring Freedom because when he needed someone to visit other chaplains, the applicant was recommended by his peers.  He has no issue whatsoever working with other chaplains.  He has email from other chaplains to prove his negative comments stem from indifferences and personality conflicts.

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's official military personnel file was presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to have represented the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  This regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  It lists the types of reports that must be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before the reports are sent to Headquarters, Department of the Army, including any report with negative comments in parts Vb, Vc, VI, or Vllc.

9.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-36d states that, with referred reports, if the senior rater decides that the comments provide significant new facts about the rated Soldier's performance and that they could affect the rated Soldier's evaluation, they may refer them to the other rating officials.  They, in turn, may reconsider their evaluations.  The senior rater will not pressure or influence them.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is acknowledged that it appears the senior rater on the contested OER did not concur with his intermediate rater's assessment.  However, that is not proof that the intermediate rater's comment was his considered opinion and objective judgment.  There is no evidence the applicant disagreed with or appealed the intermediate rater's comments in these reports because of a personality conflict.

2.  He contends the negative comment is unfair and untrue.  However, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the negative comment did not represent the considered opinion and the objective judgment of the intermediate rater at the time of preparation.

3.  Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief.

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 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)                                         AR20110008573



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110008573



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1