IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 January 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120018595
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 that Part II block d (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) be "unchecked or masked" in the Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) covering the periods 20070225 20080109 and 20080110 - 20090109.
2. The applicant states the referred reports are unjust because he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression and he was prescribed two different anti-depressants which he believes caused his weight gain and his failing the height and weight standards.
3. The applicant provides copies of a two-page letter explaining his application, his OERs, and medical records related to his psychiatric treatment.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was commissioned as a military intelligence second lieutenant on 11 May 1996 and entered active duty on 16 June 1996. He completed his training and has been serving on active duty since that time. He was promoted to the rank of major on 1 June 2006.
2. On 9 January 2008, the applicant was given a change of rater OER covering the period 20070225 20080109. He received maximum ratings from his rater and senior rater and the report was referred because the applicant did not meet height and weight requirements. His rater noted that he was enrolled in the weight control program.
3. On 9 January 2009, he was given an annual OER covering the period 20080110 20090109. Again, he received maximum ratings from his rater and senior rater and the report was referred because the applicant did not meet height and weight requirements. His rater noted that he was enrolled in the weight control program and he was making progress.
4. The next OER he received from the same unit and all subsequent reports reflect that he met height and weight standards.
5. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he appealed the contested OERs or that he responded to the referred reports.
6. The applicant provided medical documents that show he was prescribed Venlafaxine and Celexa (also known as Citalopram).
7. Information obtained from the National Institutes of Health website medlineplus.gov shows one of the side effects of both Venlafaxine and Citalopram is weight loss.
8. 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.
9. 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. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of an administrative error or factual inaccuracy.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they appear to lack merit.
2. By the applicants own admission, medical officials did not deem his treatment for PTSD and depression as the underlying cause for his weight gain and he has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application that such was the case.
3. 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 to alter the contested reports as requested.
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) AR20120018595
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120018595
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016971
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)), for the rating periods 2 August 2005 through 9 June 2006 and 10 June 2006 through 4 November 2006 (hereafter referred to as the contested OERs), to show in: * Part I, block (l) (Number of Enclosures) the entry "0" * Part II, block d (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) (1) Paragraph 3-34 stipulates that any report with an entry of "NO" in Part IVc indicating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005030
The applicant requests removal of her Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period from 20070202 to 20070823 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant states during the period of the contested OER Captain R_____y appointed Mr. W____n (GG-14) as her rater in a faxed counseling statement on 1 March 2007. However, she has not submitted any evidence of the rating chain that was established or changed during the period of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001987
The Army requests, through a court remand from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, reconsideration of an earlier Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) request for correction of the applicant's military records to remove the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 1 December 2003 to 22 June 2004, removal of nonreferral documents pertaining to the 2005 and 2006 unit vacancy promotion boards, removal of nonselect documentation for the 2007 and 2008 Department...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002299
It states that the rater will enter (typed) the APFT results and the height and weight date of the rated officer in Part IVc. In the space after height and weight the rater will enter (typed) the rated officer's height and weight respectively as of the unit's last weigh-in. There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none, to show the comments were added after he signed the OER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001451
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008650C071108
Rea M. Nuppenau | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Part IIe (Signature of Rated Officer) of the contested report shows the applicant authenticated the report. Notwithstanding the applicant's affidavit, the applicant has not provided clear and compelling evidence which shows that the ratings on the contested report were in error or that they were not considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015315
The applicant requests removal of Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 1 April 1998 through 31 March 1999 [hereafter referred to as the contested report] from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Part VIIb of the contested report shows the SR's evaluation resulted in a "Below Center of Mass Retain" evaluation. Although the applicant provided a statement from the rater, this statement is not sufficient evidence to show that the contested report did not accurately reflect...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077461C070215
The office did not have then nor did it later have any rating scheme indicating that COL B___ was the applicant's rater or that COL W___ was the applicant's senior rater. The Board notes that AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant's OER appeal in part because he did not provide original or certified copies of his published rating scheme. That the contested OER for the period 7 July 1993 - 31 January 1994, wherein COL B___ was the applicant's rater and COL W___ was the senior rater, be removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002613
The applicant provides a copy of the contested OER; a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 4 February 2009; his OER appeal memorandum, dated 13 January 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from his former senior rater, dated 24 November 2008; an OER appeal supporting statement from a former senior rater, dated 12 January 2009; and an OER appeal supporting statement from his current battalion commander, dated 13 January 2008 [sic], in support of his request. He provided the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018498
The applicant requests removal of the Report of Investigation (ROI) which served as the basis of a referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant's appeal of the contested OER was denied.