IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110023064 


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 Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion) be changed from “Satisfactory performance, promote” to “Outstanding performance, must promote” on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 2 April through 15 October 2006 (hereafter referred to as the contested report) or that the OER be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

2.  He states:

	a.  the contested OER does not depict an accurate picture of who he is and his overall performance.

	b.  the contested OER states:

		(1)  he was handpicked to be an Army liaison officer for a Korean three
star general, he briefed generals on aviation plans and tactics; and

		(2)  he had strong performances and great potential, which are not 
write-ups for a satisfactory performance block.

	c.  his record shows he attended several military courses and was an honor graduate;


	d.  he was a fast tracker as evidenced by his becoming a pilot in command ahead of his peers with less than 300 hours of flight time;

	e.  his previous OERs show he was rated in the top 12 of 51 warrant officers, top in his platoon, and rated in the top 15 percent by his superiors;

	f.  based on his background, he was selected for Task Force ODIN and is now a part of the rear detachment while working with the S3 on plans before deploying, where he will be entrusted with running the entire maintenance program and flying medium risked missions;

	g.  his previous OER performance shows he held previous assignments as the medical platoon leader and assistant physician’s assistant;

	h.  he was told by his rater, who he states was not actually his rater, that it was an admonition for a warrant officer to be performing a commissioned officer’s job; and there was no one qualified to be his senior rater;

	i.  when he questioned the satisfactory performance rating, he was told it would be his first OER appearing before a board and if it were marked superior performance, the board would see no potential for growth.  However, he should not have taken his rater’s word; he was passed over, but worked harder the next year;

	j.  he was passed over a second time and elected selective continuation so he could continue to serve;

	k.  he is willing to personally appear before the Board so the members can see who he is; and

	l.  he wants the contested OER changed to show outstanding performance or to be removed from his OMPF.

3.  He provides:

* a copy of the contested report
* a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time the applicant submitted his application, his ORB shows he was serving in the Regular Army in the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2/W-2) at Fort Hood, TX.
2.  The OER, signed and dated by the applicant and his rating chain in 2006, shows the following entries:

	a.  Part Ii (Period Covered) - 2 April through 15 October 2006.

	b.  Part Ij (Rated Months) - 6.

	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) is an asset to the Darkhorse Troop.  As an aviator, he studies often to maintain mental proficiency.  His endless pursuit of knowledge about the UH-60L Blackhawk and flying will help him progress quickly in his next troop assignment.  He challenges senior pilots and junior pilots alike with questions concerning aviation and often participates or initiates discussions leading to professional development of the warrant officers in his troop. As the Troop MWR officer, he had planned and organized numerous gathering that have increased the morale and spirit of his fellow officers.  As a representative of Darkhorse troop he went to Korea for the Ulchi Focus Lens 2006.  During the event he was responsible for briefing aviation plans and tactics.  He was chosen by Lieutenant General Dxxxx to be an Army liaison officer to a three star Korean General.  Due to his accomplishments he was awarded a three star Korean coin and certificate of achievement.  As the Squadron assistant physician’s assistant, he mentored, counseled, and rated three noncommissioned officers (NCO).  He was also directly responsible for providing medical trauma training to three medical NCOs and seven enlisted Soldiers.”

	e.  Part Vc contains the comment the applicant “consistently has strong performances and shows great potential.  Promote with peers and send to Warrant Officer Advanced course.”

	f.  Part Vd is blank.

	g.  Part VI (Intermediate Rater) wrote, “Solid performance by a young aviator.  The applicant’s contribution to Darkhorse Troop was apparent, as he was selected to go the Ulchi Focus Lens 2006.  As a U-60L Blackhawk pilot, he repeatedly amazed fellow aviators of his thorough knowledge of the aircraft and its capabilities even though the Squadron’s maintenance and personnel posture did not allow him to fly.  He possesses the potential to excel as an aviator and officer.  Strong potential.  Promote with peers.”


	h.  Part VII (Senior Rater) “Not Evaluated.”

	i.  Part VIIc shows the senior rater wrote, “I am unable to evaluate this Officer, because I have not been the senior rater for the required number of days.”

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

	a.  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.

	b.  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.

	c.  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 of a Soldier's be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.

4.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) 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 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. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the contested report covering the rating period from 2 April through 15 October 2006 should be changed or removed from his OMPF. 

2.  In order to justify the change or 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.  After 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, other than his dissatisfaction, the applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that his OER contained a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

4.  Aside from his dissatisfaction, the applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the "presumption of regularity" and justify changing or removal of the contested OER.  Based on the applicable regulations, the contested OER is correct as constituted and the applicant did not meet the burden of proof necessary to change or remove 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)                                         AR20110023064



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023064



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1