IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  22 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020779 


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, in effect, that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 7 May 2007 through 6 May 2008 (hereafter referred to as the contested report) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

2.  He states:

   a.  His appeal is based on both administrative and substantive errors in accordance with Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 1-11, which states the commander/commandant does not have authority to direct that an evaluation be changed, and may not use command influence to alter the honest evaluation of a rated Soldier by a rating official.
   
   b.  A printout from the Interactive Web-Response System (IWRS) shows that a copy of the contested report was rejected by the commander due to an inquiry.
   
   c.  The initial OER was signed by his rating chain as follows: 
   
* rater - Captain (CPT) M on 18 June 2008
* intermediate rater - Major (MAJ) B on 18 June 2008
* senior rater - MAJ C on 19 June 2008
* rated officer - applicant on 24 June 2008 
   
   d.  The initial OER is an annual report covering 12 rated months.  The senior rater evaluated his promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified."  
   
   e.  The contested report is a revised version of the original OER covering the same rating period.  The number of rated months was changed to 10 months and contains a code Q for lack of rater qualification.  The contested report was signed as follows:
   
* rater - CPT M on 27 April 2009
* intermediate rater - MAJ B on 4 May 2009
* senior rater - MAJ C on 4 May 2009
* rated officer - applicant on 4 May 2009 
   
   f.  The original OER was changed due to unlawful command influence by altering the honesty of the report by his entire rating chain.  His senior rater changed his promotion potential to the next higher grade from "Best Qualified" to "Fully Qualified."  
   
   g.  With this type of unprofessional behavior from his chain of command, and the administrative errors created by changing the rated months and nonrated codes, he wants the contested report deleted from the Performance section of his OMPF. 

3.  He provides:

* A copy of the original OER, dated 2008
* A copy of the contested report, dated 2009
* A printout from the IWRS
* A memorandum 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The original OER, signed and dated by the applicant and his rating chain in 2008, shows the following entries:

	a.  Part Ii (Period Covered) - 7 May 2007 through 6 May 2008.

	b.  Part Ij (Rated Months) - 12.

	c.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) shows that an X was placed in the “Satisfactory Performance, Promote” block.

	d.  Part Vb shows the rater wrote the following: “(Applicant) has been a solid performer during this rating period.  His focus on physical fitness and motivating team members have [sic] been an influence on the entire S-1 shop.  His demeanor is focused on training of subordinates and he assisted in the deployment of the S1 Section in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.  His adequate knowledge in technical system [sic] helped the S1 Section transform under PSDR [Personnel Services Delivery Redesign].  His focus on personnel system development was helpful to our internal quality control measures by instilling tracking systems for all actions tracked by the S1/Adjutant.  These systems have been used and tracked over 800 actions just during the first few days of their use within the Battalion S1.  This officer also focused downward on our subordinate companies in helping them develop their own internal systems to facilitate better services for their Soldier's [sic] and streamlined procedures for interaction with the battalion staff principles [sic] on a daily basis.”

	e.  Part Vc contains the comment “Continue to groom for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Two.  This Officer has potential for continued service in the Division staff.  He should be considered for his Warrant Officer Advanced Course with his peers.”

	f.  Part Vd shows, “(Applicant) is a recent deployer in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom continue to keep engaged at the staff officer level focused on the Global War on Terrorism.”

	g.  Part VI (Intermediate Rater) wrote, “(Applicant) has performed superbly and has displayed tremendous potential during this rating period.  His technical and management skills are commensurate with his basic branch and grade.  His leadership qualities inspire his subordinates to excel and reveal his vast experience as a senior non-commissioned officer.  Assign to a Human Resources Support Command where he will develop his craft.  Send to the Warrant Officer Advanced Course and promote when eligible.”

	h.  Part VII (Senior Rater) placed an X in the “Best Qualified” block.

	i.  Part VIIc shows the senior rater wrote, “(Applicant) has performed superbly both in garrison and under 	combat conditions during this rating period.  He deployed in Support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and his work ethic and performance of Human Resource Technical issues were outstanding.  This Officer needs to be continually challenged with the hardest assignments we have as an Army.  (Applicant) will excel at these opportunities. Continue to deploy to combat where his skills will continue to be honed and his experience can be utilized for our tactical units at the tip of the spear as he progresses thru the ranks.  This officer should be considered for civilian education for his Associates and Baccalaureate degree in preparation for the Warrant Officer Advanced Course.  Continue to promote at the earliest opportunity when eligible.

2.  The contested report signed by the same rating chain in 2009 shows the following entries and was not a referred report:

   a.  Part Ii - 7 May 2007 through 6 May 2008.

	b.  Part Ij - 10.

	c.  Part Ik (Nonrated Codes) – Q (Lack of Rater Qualification)

	d.  Part V shows that an X was placed in the “Satisfactory Performance, Promote” block.

	e.  Part Vb shows the rater wrote the following: “(Applicant) performed at a satisfactory level during this rating period.  His focus on physical fitness and motivating Soldiers was helpful to the S1 shop.  He assisted in the deployment of the S1 Section in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. His ability to contribute basic knowledge in technical systems helped the S1 Section transform under PSDR.  His focus on personnel system development was helpful to internal quality control measures by instilling tracking systems for all actions tracked by the S1/Adjutant.  These systems tracked over 800 actions within the first few days of their use within the Battalion S1."

	f.  Part Vc shows the comment, “Consider for promotion.”

	g.  Part Vd was left blank.

	h.  Part VI shows the intermediate rater wrote, “(Applicant) displayed potential during this rating period.  His technical and management skills were commensurate with his basic branch and grade.  His leadership qualities guided subordinates in daily tasks.  Assign to a Human Resource Support Center where he will continue to develop his craft.  Send to Warrant Officer Advanced Course and promote when eligible."

	i.  Part VIIa shows the senior rater placed an X in the “Fully Qualified” block.

	j.  Part VIIc shows the senior rater wrote, “(Applicant) displayed the most basic knowledge required of a Human Resources Technician.  His skills and performance was [sic] at the level of a Warrant Officer consummate with his peer group and time in service as a newly commissioned basic branch officer.  His performance as a member of the S1 team supporting both Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were [sic] deemed appropriate by his Rater, Intermediate Rater and Senior Rater during this rating period.  Continue to challenge this Officer with hard assignments and promote with peers at each milestone."

3.  The printout from the IWRS shows the first version of the contested report was received on 21 July 2008 by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), Evaluation Branch and the status shows it was rejected.  The reason for rejection shows the contested report was recalled on 26 August 2008 by the commander.

4.  The version of the contested report signed in 2009 was received by AHRC on 21 July 2009.  The status shows the report was completed (accepted) and is currently filed in the Performance section of his OMPF. 

5.  He provided a memorandum from AHRC, Appeals and Corrections Section, dated 20 September 2011.  This document shows that he requested to appeal the contested report; however, his request was returned without action because it was not received within 3 years of the through date on the contested report.  

6.  A review of the applicant’s record failed to yield any documentation giving the reason his rating chain changed the original OER.  

7.  The applicant did not provide any supporting statements from third parties, rating officials, or other sources to support his claim that command influence caused the rating chain to change the original OER. 

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.

	b.  Paragraph 6-7 states an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect, inaccurate or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.

	c.  Paragraph 6-11 states that for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type in an evaluation report, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources.  Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period.  Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe first-hand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials.  Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias.  

9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 prescribes the procedures for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.  This pamphlet also provides procedures for completing required forms and submitting evaluations to HQDA. 

	a.  Paragraph 1-10 states no person may require changes be made to an evaluation report.  While the evaluation report processes at HQDA it belongs to the senior rater.  Until completed and accepted by HQDA, evaluations will only be changed by HQDA based on reasonable, substantiated information or investigations, and in accordance with established HQDA regulations and procedures.  Senior raters will notify rated Soldier of any changes made to a report, and review changes with the rated Soldier as applicable. 

	b.  Paragraph 1-12 states that access to reports at HQDA is limited to individuals responsible for maintaining the file or authorized to use it for human resource management purposes.  Access to reports at the local level is limited to those persons having command, administrative, or rating official responsibility for the report. 

10.  The IWRS User Guide states the purpose of the Interactive Web-Response System is to provide information to a variety of users at the individual, S1, Human Resource Manager, and Commander levels.  Information can be used to facilitate an effective evaluation system, and reflects administrative information on OERs for all officers, regardless of component.

11.  Once an evaluation has been accepted by HQDA, the administrative information for that evaluation is visible in all IWRS reports; however, the report itself is not yet in the Soldier’s OMPF.  The evaluation is assigned different status labels depending on its stage of processing.  

* REJECTED - Either the report is a duplicate submission or HQDA found major errors that render the evaluation invalid
* COMPLETE - The evaluation has been processed at HQDA and will be electronically pushed to the OMPF within 48 hours 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the contested report covering the rating period from 7 May 2007 through 6 May 2008 should be removed from his OMPF. 

2.  In order to justify deletion of an evaluation report, the applicant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  

3.  A comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's official record, his contentions and arguments, and the evidence submitted in support of his application failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the contested report contained a material error, inaccuracy, or an injustice.

4.  The applicant also contends that the contested OER was changed and resubmitted due to command influence.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficiently compelling evidence, such as statements from his rating chain or third parties, to substantiate his claim.  

5.  While the evidence of record shows the original report was changed, he has not provided sufficient evidence which shows the contested report is substantively inaccurate.

6.  The evidence he provided shows the original OER had not processed through HQDA and therefore had not been posted to his OMPF at the time it was rejected by his commander.  Regulatory guidance states that access to OERs at the local level is limited to those persons having command, administrative, or rating official responsibility for the report.  Based on the available evidence, it cannot be determined what the intentions of the commander or the rating chain were at the time the report was rejected in IWRS per the command's guidance.  

7.  The applicant has not provided clear and convincing evidence to overcome the "presumption of regularity" and justify the removal of the contested OER.  Based on the applicable regulations, the contested OER is correct as constituted and the applicant has not met the burden of proof to justify removal of the contested OER.  



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)                                         AR20110020779





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020779



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1