IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  23 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007460 


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 following DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the official military personnel file (OMPF)).

	a.  The DA Form 67-9 covering the rating period from 18 November 2007 through 17 November 2008, hereafter referred to as the first contested OER),

	b.  The DA Form 67-9 covering the rating period from 18 November 2008 through 18 June 2009 (hereafter referred to as the second contested OER).

2.  The applicant does not give a clear or specific reason for his request.  Instead, he provides hundreds of documents, email, and arguments.  He, in effect, contends that the OERs were given and not deserved.  He had requested a commander's inquiry and he now wonders why Major General (MG) RJK (Commander, Army Reserve Medical Command (AR-MEDCOM)) would send Colonel (COL) CNB (an Inquiry Officer) to investigate COL MVK (the hospital commander), another Army Nurse.  

3.  He states he has been fighting this injustice since he wrote a letter in June 2008 to his chain of command as well as Lieutenant General (LTG) JCS, Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He has exhausted his remedies including an appeal to the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) and he filed a congressional inquiry.  He argues that:

* Colonel K stated that he (the applicant) experienced difficulty in decision making, communication, and implementation of command directives and initiatives; however, he had no such difficulty and he followed orders
* It is true that he resigned from his 2291st Medical Support Unit (MSU) command; but, he did so because it was only a matter of time before his commander would relieve him and replace him with Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) DC

4.  The applicant provides multiple binders as follows:

* Binder 1: Multiple email related to using the first name when addressing other military personnel
* Binder 2: Self-authored response to his rater regarding retirement counseling, Reserve secondary training, and an unexcused absence 
* Binder 3: Assumption of command memorandum and other email
* Binder 4: Multiple email related to communicating with Soldiers
* Binder 5: Multiple correspondence, letters, email, and other documents related to the Pacific (PAC) Warrior Exercise
* Binder 6:  Additional correspondence, statements, letters, and other documents related to the PAC Warrior Exercise
* Binder 7: Email, letters, and other statements related to communications 
* Binder 8: Email, statements, and other documents related to credentialing
* Binder 9: Email, statements, conversation records, Congressional letters, and other documents related to his evaluation
* Binder 10: Multiple email, correspondence, and conversation records related to unexcused absence
* Binder 11: Multiple email related to a commander's inquiry, sworn statements, and after action reports
* Binder (not numbered), titled: Reference Documentation, and contains 25 documents, including:

* various memoranda to a Member of Congress, his commander, and other individuals
* sworn statements
* completed commander's inquiry
* conversation records
* support form
* letters to his Soldiers
* multiple counseling forms and rebuttal of counseling



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he was born on 24 August 1952.  

2.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer, Army Nurse Corps (ANC) with concurrent call to active duty and he executed an Oath of Office on 19 February 1989.  He served in a variety of assignments and he attained the rank of captain. 

3.  He was honorably released from active duty on 30 April 1996 for miscellaneous reasons.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  He subsequently served in various USAR troop program units and he completed several training courses. 

4.  On 10 July 2002, he was issued a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year letter) and on 15 October 2004, he was promoted to LTC. 

5.  During November 2008, he received the first contested report – an annual OER which covered 12 months of rated time from 18 November 2007 through 17 November 2008.  He was serving as a "Family Nurse Practitioner" while assigned to the 2291st MSU, Albuquerque, NM; a subordinate element of the Central Medical Area Readiness Support Group (CE-MARSG), AR-MEDCOM.  His rater was COL MVK, the hospital commander, and his senior rater was COL SMD, the CE-MASRG commander.  The OER shows in:

	a.  Part  IVa (Army Values) and Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all areas.

	b.  Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" block, and entered the following comments:

[Applicant] has an extensive background in Medical Surgical, Critical Care, Perioperative Nursing and has been a Nurse Practitioner for several years.  He has greater than thirty years of military experience both as an enlisted Soldier and as an officer.  [Applicant] maintains a civilian practice as a Nurse Practitioner and had previously been mobilized and utilized his NP (Nurse Practitioner) skills at Ft Bliss for two years.  [Applicant] has been to military training to develop his leadership skills to include, during this rating period, the Company Level Leader's Course and the BN/BDE (Battalion/Brigade) Pre-Command Course.  He assumed command of the 2291st MSU in December after "shadowing" the previous hospital commander for self-development for a command position.  [Applicant] was given the responsibility of OIC of the 2291st personnel participating in PAC WAR exercise in June 2008.  [Applicant] did not maintain his Nurse Practitioner credentials with ARCAA [Army Reserve Clinical Credentialing Affairs] and he was unable to be utilized in that capacity during the exercise.  Credentialing is an individual responsibility and he is in the process of obtaining his credentials as an NP again.  [Applicant] experienced difficulty in decision making, communicating, and implementation of command directed initiatives and resigned as MSU commander.  I believe [Applicant's] strengths will be utilized most fully in the (incomplete statement).

	c.  Part Vc (Comment on Potential for Promotion), the rater entered the comment: "[Applicant's] skills should be utilized to the fullest in the clinical area as a NP.  [Applicant] should not be promoted to Colonel at this time."

	d.  Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 4 officers of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form) was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review.

	e.  Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), the senior rater listed "Clinical Nurse Practitioner, Clinic OIC, Clinic Assist Head Nurse" as the three future assignments for which the applicant was best suited and entered the following comments in Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential):

[Applicant] possesses a great deal of clinical nursing experience.  He currently works as a Nurse Practitioner (NP) in his civilian job.  The Army Reserve was not able to utilize [Applicant's] clinical skills as an NP during an exercise within this rating period due to his oversight in allowing his professional credentials to lapse.  Also during this rating period, [Applicant] held the position as Commander of the Medical Support Unit, a detachment of the 2291st USAH.  [Applicant] resigned his position after six months following disagreement with Command directives.  [Applicant] must demonstrate the ability to accept responsibility for himself and other Soldiers before I can recommend him for promotion.  Retain, but do not promote [Applicant] at this time.

6.  The first contested OER was signed by his rater and senior rater on 15 December 2008 and by the applicant on 5 January 2009.  The first contested OER was processed by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) on 7 January 2009.

7.  During June 2009, he received the second contested report – a change of rater OER which covered 7 months of rated time from 18 November 2008 through 18 June 2009.  He was serving as a "Nurse Practitioner" while assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital, Detachment 1, Albuquerque, NM.  His rater was LTC DMC, the Commander, Detachment 1, and his senior rater was COL SMD, the Commander, CE-MARSG.  The OER shows in:

	a.  Part  IVa and Part IVb, the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all areas.

	b.  Part Va, the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" block, and entered the following comments:

During the rating period, [Applicant] continues to maintain a civilian practice as a Nurse Practitioner.  His current status in re-credentialing his military requirements to practice as a Nurse Practitioner have been met.  He continues to experience difficulty in communication and accepting responsibility for his actions.  [Applicant] continually addressed questions directly to the Commander and did not follow the chain of command in spite of remediation.  His primary concerns and goals are centered on himself and not our Soldiers or the mission at hand.  He has not contributed to the unit by volunteering to participate in additional duties.  [Applicant] has not acquired the skills or training to be able to submit a support form in the PureEdge format/My Forms available on AKO (Army Knowledge Online).  He did submit an out of date support form via his personal email.  All the significant contributions and objectives are centered on his APFT and CEU [Continuing Education Units] credentials.  He supports safety and EEO Commander standards.  

	c.  Part Vc, the rater entered the comment: "[Applicant] has not performed in a manner that would warrant promotion to the next rank at this time."

	d.  Part VIIa , the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 4 officers of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review.

	e.  Part VIIb, the senior rater listed "Nurse Practitioner, OR Nurse, and Critical Care Nurse" as the three future assignments for which the applicant was best suited and entered the following comments in Part VIIc:

[Applicant] maintained clinical competency as a NP through his civilian employment and attending applicable continuing education programs.  He maintains credentialing as a NP through the military.  [Applicant] disregarded command directive and military protocol by not following his chain of command and elevating personal issues to the General Officer level.  Retain in the USAR due to clinical competency as a NP. 

8.  Since the second contested OER contained negative information, it was referred to the applicant for comments.  He contended that:

* he was not terminated of his role as a commander of the 2291st MSU
* he resigned because he was not supported by COL MVK while he was the OIC of the Fort Hunter Liggett Operation in June 2008
* the second contested OER had similar comments as the first contested OER
* he was in the process of a commander's inquiry
* he did not have difficulty communicating and he always accepts responsibility for his actions
* no one wanted to hear his side of the story and that is why he went up the chain; he did nothing wrong
* he has goals and concerns like everyone else but he is also concerned for the Soldiers and the mission

9.  The second contested OER was signed by the rater and senior rater on 29 June 2009 and by the applicant on 13 July 2009.  The second contested OER was processed by HRC on 27 July 2009.

10.  On 14 February 2010, he appealed the second contested OER, for the period ending on 18 June 2009 to the ASRB.  On 5 August 2010, the ASRB denied his request to remove the OER from his record but granted him partial relief without promotion reconsideration in that it voted to: 

* Remove the entry "Served as Commander of the 2291st MSU from December 2007 to June 2008" from Part IIIc
* Remove the entry "Since termination of his role as Commander, 2291st Detachment 1" from Part Vb

11.  On 1 May 2010, COL CNB submitted the inquiry report she conducted into the alleged injustice regarding the first contested OER ending on 17 November 2008 to the Commander, AR-MEDCOM.  She stated that she examined approximately 757 pages of supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, including the contested OER, support form, counseling statements, and other material.  The inquiry officer found: 

* the applicant did not provide documentation of his accomplishments and performance as interim commander of the 2291st MSU or as an NP
* he received extensive support and opportunities to develop his leadership knowledge and skills and his chain of command fully supported him
* he allowed his credentials as a NP to lapse
* during the PAC WAR Exercise he failed to address and resolve several issues, he reprimanded his enlisted personnel instead
* he ignored several directives and requests to help with treating patients during the exercise 
* he failed to pursue corrective action regarding military courtesy during the exercise
* he ignored his commander's directives and failed to conduct risk assessments
* he accrued multiple absences from Battle Assemblies and claimed that he was not ready to put his uniform back on
* he failed to lead by example
* he knew 7 months ahead of time that his credentialing needed to be renewed and he was counseled; but he failed to initiate the process
* he failed to provide a support form to his rating officials
* he lacked understanding of command responsibility 
* he initially planned to retire but changed his mind and looked for another position; this forced his commander to fill the position with another officer

12.  The Inquiry Officer made several recommendations regarding the first contested OER, as follows:

* Part IVd, the rating officials should have checked the block to indicate a referred OER
* Part IVd, the applicant should have checked the appropriate block to indicate whether he intended to submit a rebuttal or not
* Part Vc, delete the entry "should not be promoted to colonel at this time"; because it was not consistent with the entry in Part Va "Satisfactory Performance – Promote"
* Part Vd, change the entry "Adult Nurse Practitioner" to "Family Nurse Practitioner"
* Part VIIc, delete the last sentence "Retain, but do not promote at this time" since it is redundant based on the previous sentence
13.  He was reassigned to the MSU, Detachment 65, a Warrior Transition Health Clinic at Fort Bliss, TX, and later he was assigned to a position in Rochester, MN.

14.  On 19 June 2011, he entered active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  He was honorably released from active duty on 23 August 2012.  While on active duty, in January 2012, he submitted a request to extend his mandatory removal date beyond 31 August 2012; however, his request was disapproved because his specialty was over-strength in the rank of LTC at 200 percent.  

15.  On 10 August 2012, USARC published Orders 12-223-00001 releasing him from the USAR and assigning him to the Retired Reserve, effective 
1 September 2012, due to having attained the maximum age. 

16.  The applicant provided voluminous documents, including email that was exchanged, self-authored statements/rebuttals, correspondence, and other documents as follows:

	a.  An OER Support Form (DA form 67-9-1), dated 17 November 2008, which confirms he was counseled on 18 May 2008.  The form shows he supported safety, was striving to maintain his physical fitness, continued his education, had been communicating with various parties, intended to transfer to another position, and intended to prepare for mobilization.

	b.  Two counseling forms, dated 17 July 2008 and 5 April 2009, each form has a rebuttal memo attached to it.  

		(1)  The first counseling form, dated 17 July 2008, shows counseling occurred on 7 September 2008.  He was informed that his chain of command was concerned about his inability to fulfill his role as commander and his poor sense of judgment and command responsibility.  He was also counseled on his poor communication skills and accepting responsibility.  He was notified that he was relieved as the OIC of the PAC WAR exercise.  

		(2)  The second counseling form, dated 5 April 2009, shows he was verbally counseled on multiple occasions to follow his chain-of-command when inquiring about Army or unit-related issues or problems.  He was also informed to stop sending email to any general officer (GO) regarding personal issues/problems that had not been fully addressed by his chain of command.  He had copy-furnished email to multiple GOs over a period of 10 months about Army and/or unit-related issues that he had not previously addressed with his chain of command and despite having been ordered to cease sending email to GOs in March 2009, he sent email to a brigadier general on 4 April 2009 regarding Army and unit-related issues not previously addressed through his chain of command.

	c.  Various memoranda as follows:

		(1)  Memorandum, dated 29 June 2008, addressed to two COLs and a GO, wherein he shared his experience at the Hunter Liggett Operation.

		(2)  Memorandum, dated 16 August 2008, wherein he accounts for the events and conversations he had with COL K.  He stated he intended to retire; however, he did not submit any paperwork.  He decided to stay in and approach another position.  He also stated he believed he was not a troublemaker; he just wanted to be given a fair shake.  He did nothing wrong.  In his closing paragraph he requested help, because he wanted to continue to serve out his career instead of waiting to turn 60 and collect a check.

		(3)  Memorandum, dated 12 January 2009, addressed to two COLs and a GO, wherein he expresses his dismay concerning his OER.  He stated that he was disheartened and hurt over the evaluation.  He accepted it but that did not mean he agreed with it.  

		(4)  Memorandum, dated 20 April 2009, provides a record of a conversation with an individual at Fort Campbell, KY.  He states he began communicating with the individual in October/November regarding his transfer; however, the position was filled on 19 January 2009 and it was early April when he learned the position had been filled.

		(5)  Memorandum, dated 3 June 2009, wherein he indicates he felt victimized for something that he could not explain.  

		(6)  Memoranda, dated 10 May and 2 August 2009, wherein he requested a commander's inquiry related to the first contested OER.   He contends that:

			(a)  He was not terminated, he resigned from his position as commander, because he was not supported by COL K while he was OIC of the Fort Hunter Ligget Operation in June 2008.  He did not have any difficulty communicating.  He had communicated tirelessly from the point that he became the commander to the present.  He accepted full responsibility for all of his actions.  

			(b)  He emailed a GO as well as others in his chain of command.  The contested OER is reflective of the previous period.  He did not recall being involved with any remediation.  In both of his counseling sessions he responded to several accusations in rebuttals and he had documentation to support his rebuttals.  He had goals and concerns for himself.  It was incorrect to say that he had no concern for the Soldiers or the mission.  In his support form he noted that he is registered and will be enrolled to obtain a Naturopathic Doctorate in natural medicine.  Upon returning to the unit he had a very strong desire to leave the unit and to transfer to another position.  He did not volunteer for anything nor was he appointed extra duties or positions.  He had difficulty with using the Pure Edge/My Forms but he did learn how to use this software.  Finally, he did not disregard command directives when asked not to email a GO.  

	(7)  Voluminous email exchange.

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

	a.  Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps.  Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, and counseling forms.  Consideration will be given to the following:  (a) the relative experience of the rated officer; (b) the efforts made by the rated officer; and, (c) the results that could be reasonably expected given the time and resources available.  Potential evaluations will be performance-based assessments of the rated officers of the same grade to perform in positions of greater responsibility and/or higher grades.  Assessment of potential will apply to all officers, regardless of their opportunity to be selected for higher positions or grades and ignores such factors as impending retirement or release from active duty; this assessment is continually changing and is reserved for Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). 

	b.  Paragraph 2-10 states raters will provide their support forms, along with the senior rater's support forms, to the rated Soldier at the beginning of the rating period.  The senior rater will discuss the scope of the rated Soldier's duty description with the rated Soldier within 30 days after the beginning of the rating period.  This counseling will include, as a minimum, the rated Soldier's duty description and the performance objectives to attain.  The discussion will also include the relationship of the duty description and objectives with the organization's mission, problems, priorities, and similar matters.  The rated Soldier will participate in counseling, assessments and a final evaluation.  Assessment will be conducted with the rating chain throughout and at the end of the rating period.  Rated Soldiers have the opportunity to express their own views during the assessment to ensure that they are clear, concise, and accurate.

	c.  Paragraph 3-20a states each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period.  It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports.  It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered.  The determination of whether an incident occurred during the period covered will be based on the date of the actual incident or performance; it will not be based on the date of any subsequent acts, such as the date of its discovery, a confession, or finding of guilt, or the completion of an investigation.

	d.  Paragraph 3-34 stipulates, in relevant part, any report with negative comments in Parts Vb, Vc, VI, or VIIc will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before they are sent to HQDA. 

	e.  Paragraph 3-39 states, in pertinent part, evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant 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.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.

	f.  Paragraphs 6-3 and 6-4 state the primary purpose of a Commander's Inquiry (CI) is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record.  A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at HQDA.  However, in these after-the-facts cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant does not give a clear or specific reason for his request.  Instead, he provides hundreds of documents, email, and arguments, in what appears to be an attempt to have the Board find that an error or an injustice occurred so that he may be granted relief.

2.  With respect to the first contested OER: 

	a.  The applicant received an annual OER that covered the period 18 November 2007 through 17 November 2008.  His rater rated his performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" and his senior rater rated his promotion potential as "Fully Qualified."  

	b.  The contested OER contained negative information and should have been referred to him for comments.  However, the fact that he provided a rebuttal to his rating officials immediately after receiving this OER and the fact that he submitted multiple emails, correspondence, and self-authored statements to several officials regarding his dissatisfaction with this OER satisfies the requirement of the referral process.  In effect, the OER was referred and the applicant made and submitted comments.  The absence of an "X" in the referral block of this OER is thus an administrative issue that can be corrected by placing an "X" in the appropriate block.

	c.  As the inquiry officer determined, the entry in Part Vc (should not be promoted to Colonel at this time) is not consistent with the entry in Part Va (satisfactory Performance – Promote) and this entry should therefore be deleted. Additionally, the entry in Part VIIc (Retain, but do not promote at this time) should also be deleted since it is redundant due to the previous sentence.

	d.  Aside from that, the contested OER appears to be correct.  An OER is a measure an officer's performance and potential during a period of time.  There is no evidence, and the applicant provided insufficient evidence, to show his rating officials did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating him in a fair and unbiased manner.  In fact, the commander's inquiry that he requested revealed various issues that confirmed the rating he received.

	e.  By regulation, to support removal, transfer, or amendment of a report, there must be evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that this presumption of regularity should not be applied and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature.  The applicant did not satisfy this requirement.  Therefore, he is not entitled to removal of the first contested OER from his records. 

3.  With respect to the second contested OER: 

	a.  The applicant received a change of rater OER that covered the period 18 November 2008 through 18 June 2009.  His rater rated his performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" and his senior rater rated his promotion potential as "Fully Qualified."  

	b.  The contested OER contained negative information and should have been referred to him for comments.  It was referred to him for comments and he provided his comments.  This OER also appears to be correct.  There is no evidence, and he provided insufficient evidence to show his rating officials did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating him in a fair and unbiased manner.  

	c.  As stated earlier, in order to support removal, transfer, or amendment of a report, there must be evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that this presumption of regularity should not be applied and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature.  The applicant did not satisfy this requirement.  Therefore, he is not entitled to removal of this OER from his records. 

4.  The ABCMR is not an investigative agency.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.

5.  After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant’s official record, his contentions and arguments, and the evidence he submitted in support of his application, other than his dissatisfaction, he did not show by clear and convincing evidence, that either OER contained a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting him the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ____X __  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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 making administrative corrections to the DA Form 67-9 covering the rating period 18 November 2007 through 17 November 2008 as follows:

* Placing an "X" in Part IId to indicate this is a referred report
* Placing an "X" in the Part IId, "Yes" block, to indicate the applicant provided comments
* Deleting from Part Vc the entry "[Applicant] should not be promoted to Colonel at this time"
* Deleting from Part VIIc the entry "but do not promote [Applicant] at this time"

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 removing either OER from his official records. 



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20120007460



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007460



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1