IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    2 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005410 


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 change of the senior rater portion of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 13 April 2006 through 12 April 2007. 

2.  The applicant states the 15 March 2013 memorandum from the retired colonel who was then the battalion commander and his senior rater demonstrates that the OER should be changed.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored memorandum, dated 15 March 2012
* memorandum from COL (Ret) EW, dated 15 March 2013
* DA Form 67-9 for the period 13 April 2006 through 12 April 2007

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a Regular Army Field Artillery captain, acknowledged receipt of the subject OER on 14 May 2007.  He was the battalion fire support officer of the 2d Battalion, 7th Cavalry, with collateral duties as the battalion safety officer and the battalion liaison officer.

2.  In Part V - Performance and Potential Evaluation of the OER his rater, another captain and the task force engineer, commented on specific aspects of the applicant's performance as follows:


CPT B----- has demonstrated his diversity over the last 12 months.  Shifts in the paradigm of the contemporary operating environment have shifted his role from Battalion Fire Support Officer, to Information Officer, to his present duty as Brigade Liaison Officer.  Pat has met all of these challenging jobs head on and contributed to battalion operations.  He served as Battalion FSO during the first artillery live fire conducted by 4th BCT at Fort Bliss.  His operations in the TOC during this time were essential in maintaining the momentum during this CALFEX.  He also performed well during Division Warfighter July 07, developing the battalion's fire support plan.  At the National Training Center, Pat shifted to IO, produced, and disseminated many products.  These products facilitated interactions with role players, resulting in a successful NTC rotation.  Over the past 4 months during OIF 06-08, Pat has performed duties as Brigade LNO.  As the LNO, he performed well, capturing all essential information and disseminating it in a timely manner.  With further mentoring and coaching, he will serve the Army well in the years to come.

3.  In sub-part Vc the rater commented on the applicant's potential for promotion by writing, "Promote immediately, unlimited potential."  

4.  The senior rater, the Battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel EW, marked the applicant as "Fully Qualified" and indicated that he senior-rated eight captains.  He commented on the applicant's performance and potential as follows:

	CPT Patrick B----- has great potential in any capacity that the Army might place him in for future assignments.  Pat works diligently on every project or mission given him.  He is perceptive, smart, and technically proficient.  Pat performed superbly as the Battalion FECC during the first Battalion Live Fire Exercise conducted at Fort Bliss, Texas since the inception of the Brigade…Give Pat the tough jobs and groom for future assignments of greater responsibility.

5.  COL (Ret) EW gives his address as Marietta, GA.  However, his 15 March 2013 memorandum is prepared on the same letterhead as the applicant's memorandum, that of his artillery battery at Fort Sill, OK.  He states:

	CPT B-----'s performance and potential while serving in my battalion from 20060413 to 20070412 is that of a "Best Qualified" officer.  As Battalion Commander of 2-7th CAV, 4th BCT, 1st CAV DIV, I senior rated (him) while he worked in the S-3 section and later as the Battalion Liaison to the Brigade Headquarters

	I recently received information….
	Also brought to my attention….
	
   If I had been aware of CPT B-----'s contributions…I would have rated…as "Best Qualified"…I would have also stated that "he is ready for Company Command….

	I can be reached at….

6.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)) prescribes the policies and procedures for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS.  It also provides guidance regarding redress programs, including commanders' inquiries and appeals.  Additionally:

	a.  Paragraph 3-36 addresses requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier’s record and those being processed at HQDA prior to completion.  An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper officials, and represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier’s record be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will be honored only if based on newly received favorable information

	b.  Paragraph 3-37 provides that rating officials who become aware of information that would have resulted in a higher evaluation of a rated Soldier will take action to alter or remove the report in accordance with the appeal policy stated in chapter 4 and procedures in DA Pam 623–3.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to remove the contested OER from his records has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  No input regarding the new information was obtained from the applicant's rater or from any other officer in the chain of command between the applicant and the senior rater.  There is no indication of how the then senior rater was made aware of this "new" information, which could have been supplied to the senior rater by the applicant including it in his support form.

3.  The retired officer who was the senior rater gave no indication of how the new information was obtained and whether or not it was factually verified.  The appeal simply does not conform to the regulatory requirements.

4.  Given it appears the evaluations were related directly to the applicant’s performance during the period covered by the contested OER, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the applicant's requested relief. 

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)                                         AR20130005410



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005410



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1