IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004178 


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 Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion) of his DA Form 
67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 1 March 2007 through 1 October 2007 be amended to show "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" instead of "Satisfactory Performance, Promote."

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  in 2007, he was an Army National Guard (ARNG) Soldier who was mobilized to Fort Bliss, TX.  During this rating period, he was promoted to captain.  He received his first OER as a captain in October 2007.  In the rater section of the OER, his rater selected "Satisfactory Performance, Promote."  At the time, he did not question it because he was under the impression that since it was his first OER as a captain, this was normal.  He is now aware that this is NOT normal and could have negative impacts on his career. 

	b.  there were a number of issues that were not recorded or reflected on this OER.  The narrative for both the rater and senior rater describe him as one of the best officers in the Task Force.  In addition to being recognized by the Commanding General of First Army as one of the best training teams in First Army, he was directly responsible for providing training to an Air Force unit that was struck by an improvised explosive device (IED) while in Iraq.  During this IED strike, a number of Airmen were badly wounded, including one major who lost a limb.  The Airmen on the ground used the training that he provided to them and saved the lives of every wounded Airman.  He was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal for his contributions and recognized by their chain of command.  

	c.  at the time of the OER in question, he did not know that there was an error.  He was in the ARNG at the time and the rater explained that this was normal.  In 2010, he entered active duty via the Call to Active Duty program.  In November 2012, he was informed by his Squadron Commander that the OER in question could have potential negative effects on his career.  He advised him to try and get it corrected.

	d.  his rater at the time in question supports his request and provided a letter.  He has been rated twice by different Squadron and Brigade Commanders and he was rated "Above Center of Mass" to include a command rating while in Afghanistan.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Memorandum, dated 13 January 2013, from his rater at the time in question
* Orders and award certificate for the Air Force Achievement Medal

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the ARNG in December 2000.  He was promoted to first lieutenant in December 2002.  He was ordered to active duty on 16 August 2004 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He served in Kuwait/Iraq from 20 January 2005 to 13 January 2006.  On 4 March 2008, he was released from active duty.  

2.  He was promoted to captain on 19 April 2007.

3.  The applicant was rated "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" by his rater in Part Va of his OER covering the period 1 March 2007 through 1 October 2007.

4.  Orders, dated 15 October 2007, show he was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal for outstanding achievement during the period 25 April 2007 to 25 August 2007. 

5.  He provided a memorandum, dated 13 January 2013, from his rater at the time in question who states:

	a.  the purpose of this memorandum is to change the applicant's OER for the rated period 1 March 2007 to 1 October 2007 from satisfactory to outstanding in light of newly-discovered information regarding his performance.

	b.  it has been brought to his attention that during the rated period the applicant received an Air Force Achievement Medal that was not annotated on his OER.  In light of this new information this would have changed his original rating of satisfactory to outstanding.  Under the applicant's direct supervision his team provided the necessary Combat Life Saving training the Air Force personnel needed while executing a convoy mission in Iraq.  The Air Force convoy was attacked which resulted in some of their personnel being wounded.  The Airmen used the life-saving training to save the life of one of their Airmen.  The applicant was presented the Air Force Achievement Medal for his life-saving training. 

	c.  the applicant's OER should now reflect outstanding performance in light of this new information.   

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Acting Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB).  The advisory official recommends the applicant's performance evaluation in the rater's section be changed from "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" to "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and a corrected copy of the OER filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) in the performance section in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 4-9e.  This appeal meets regulatory requirements on the basis of an inaccurate or unjust rating.  

7.  The advisory official points out:

	a.  the basis of the appeal is to introduce new information that the rater was unaware of at the time of the evaluation.  An appeal can be based on newly obtained favorable information in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-37a, which states, "Rating officials will specify the new information precisely, how it was obtained, whether it was factually confirmed, or how it would change the evaluation had it been considered in writing the original report." 

	b.  his rater, in a memorandum dated 13 January 2013, stated that upon receiving the new information regarding the applicant's performance during the rating period, he would have rated the applicant as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" in section Va rather than "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" if the information were known to him at the time.  The new information is supported by the citation in an Air Force Achievement Medal awarded to the applicant.  The rater was not aware of this award and accomplishment until after the original evaluation report was completed and submitted.
	
	c.  the Air Force presented the applicant an Air Force Achievement Medal.  The award cites the period 25 April 2007 to 25 August 2007, which is within the rating period of 1 March 2007 through 1 October 2007.  The Air Force Achievement Medal was awarded to the applicant because he provided Combat Life Saver training to over 700 Airmen and increased the percentage of Airmen successfully completing the training from 35% to 75% per class.  As the award citation states, due to the training received from the applicant, Air Force members successfully applied the training when life-threatening injuries to a member of the Air Force occurred in an IED attack.   

8.  The advisory opinion was furnished to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  He did not respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence shows the applicant was rated "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" by his rater in Part Va of his OER covering the period 1 March 2007 through 
1 October 2007.

2.  The rater was not aware the applicant received the Air Force Achievement Medal in October 2007 until after the OER was completed and submitted.  The rater indicated the applicant's OER should now reflect outstanding performance in light of this new information.   
 
3.  Based on newly-discovered information, the rater in question provided a memorandum, dated 13 January 2012, to change the applicant's OER for the rated period 1 March 2007 to 1 October 2007 from satisfactory to outstanding.

4.  Based on the rater's memorandum and the NGB advisory official's recommendation, it would be appropriate to amend Part Va of the applicant's OER for the period covering 1 March 2007 to 1 October 2007 to show "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."








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 by amending Part Va of the applicant's OER covering the period 1 March 2007 to 
1 October 2007 to show "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20130004178





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004178



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1