BOARD DATE:	  2 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003245 


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 his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) ending 22 June 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be corrected to show his senior rater marked him in the top "Best Qualified" block. 

2.  The applicant states that when he was as a young captain, he did not understand the severity of receiving a fully qualified rating instead of the best qualified rating.  He was not aware of the potential downside until discussing his record with his assignment officer in 2012.  Unit deployment/redeployment schedules had precluded him from receiving personal counseling with his senior rater.  When he was made aware of the potential problem he contacted his senior rater and was told that it had been his intention to mark the applicant in the top block.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of the OER in question, two memoranda from his senior rater, his appeal to U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), and HRC's reply. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 2002.  He was discharged to receive a commission on 26 January 2005.  He was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) second lieutenant on 27 January 2005 and entered on active duty.  He was promoted to captain on 1 March 2008.


2.  During June 2009, he received the contested OER which covered 12 months of rated time from 12 February 2008 through 22 June 2009.  The OER shows:

	a.  He was serving as the:

		(1)  Primary Fires and Effects Advisor for the 31st Brigade, 8th Iraqi Army (IA) Division, responsible for advising the brigade commander and his staff on synchronizing all lethal and non-lethal fires and effects throughout the brigade area of operations.  

		(2)  Liaison with Coalition Forces Headquarters, 8th IA Division Headquarters, and the Iraqi Ground Forces Command to further the development and transition of the 31st IA Brigade to a unit capable of conducting operations independent of coalition support.  Advises the coordination of Civil Military and Information Operations for the 31st IA Brigade.  

		(3)  Additional duties included Assistant Operations Officer Advisor, Field Ordering Officer, Team S-1 Officer, and Joint Fires Observer.

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

	c.  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 "Outstanding Performance – Must Promote" block, and entered the following comments:

Outstanding performance as a Military Transition Team (MiTT) Fires and Effects Advisor in support of the 31st Iraqi Army (IA) Brigade, 8th IA Division. He advised the IA BDE on effects based operation in support of COIN operations conducted within Babil Province, Iraq.  (The applicant) coordinated with the 31st IA BDE’s transfer of the Sons of Iraq programs to Government of Iraq control. His knowledge of the subject helped the IA staff develop a plan to pay and continue to use this program to maintain the security that this program established.  (The applicant) coordinated with USAF and US Army aviation in support of scores of IA operations within the province.  These assets directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of these missions.  He taught classes on the use of indirect fires in preparation for the fielding of mortars throughout the BDE, greatly enhancing combat capability while already conducting COIN operations.  He mentored the IA staff and especially the effects coordinator as they planned for and executed support for the major religious observances, the Arba’een and the Ashura, and the historic provincial elections.

	d.  Part Vc (Comment on Potential for Promotion), the rater entered the comment: 

Tremendous potential.  Send him immediately to a combat unit and give him command of a firing battery as soon as possible.  Promote to major after the completion of a successful company command.

3.  The  senior rater's portion of the OER provides the following:

	a.  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.

	b.  Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), states "No Box Checked."

	c.  Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential):

(The applicant) is an outstanding officer who has delivered a top 1% performance as MiTT team advisor to the 31st Iraqi Brigade.  (The applicant) assumed the strategic mission to oversee the transfer of responsibility of the Sons of Iraq from American Forces to the Iraqi Army.  He has a true gift for training and has become an invaluable asset to the 31st IA BDE.  (The applicant’s) efforts have been truly phenomenal and he will make a great company commander and battalion FSO.

4.  On 8 January 2013 and 25 January 2013, the applicant's senior rater (now a colonel serving at the Army War College) submitted memoranda in support of the applicant's request.  The senior rater states the "Fully Qualified" block was inadvertently checked instead of the "Best Qualified."  He remembers signing the OER and it was his intent to demonstrate that the applicant was a top 1 percent performer and best qualified for advancement.  He is unsure how the administrative error occurred.  In his second memorandum, the senior rater states he remembers changing the "Fully Qualified" mark to show "Best Qualified."  He recommended the OER be corrected.

5.  On 25 January 2013, the applicant submitted an OER appeal to HRC.  

6.  His appeal was returned without action because it had not been received within 3 years of the end of the OER thru date.  He was advised that he could apply to this Board.

7.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies and tasks for the Evaluation Reporting System.  It provides the following:

	a.  An evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army and included in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct; have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represents the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 

	b.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant to justify deletion or amendment of a report.  The appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration, and (2) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility or administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions.

	c.  Appeals of contested OER's must be submitted within 3 years of the thru date of the OER.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Both statements from his senior rater indicate that the senior rater intended to mark the applicant as "Best Qualified."  He stated he had changed the OER from "Fully Qualified" to "Best Qualified" and does not know how the administrative error occurred.

2.  The verbiage utilized at Part VIIc by the senior rater in the OER of "an outstanding officer who has delivered a top 1% performance…" and "(The applicant’s) efforts have been truly phenomenal…" are consistent with a top "Best Qualified" rating, not a "Fully Qualified" entry.

3.  Combining the personal statements from his senior rater, indicating he intended to mark the applicant in the top block "Best Qualified," with the actual OER comments provides a strong impression that the "Fully Qualified" entry was an administrative or typographical error.

4.  Therefore, it is appropriate to correct Part VIIa of the OER ending 22 June 2009 to show the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Best Qualified" block.

BOARD VOTE:

__X___  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected at Part VIIa of the OER ending 22 June 2009 to show the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Best Qualified" block.



      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20130003245





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003245



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1