IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  27 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011347 


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 a "referred" DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 24 July 2008 through 15 May 2009 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  This OER does not reflect his true character, specifically his trustworthiness and conceptual abilities.  It is inconsistent with the eleven OERs he has received in his 9 years of military service.

	b.  This OER was written as a personal challenge to him to assess his character and the path he was on so he could fix faults before they became permanent flaws.  He has internalized the lessons from this position and devoted great amounts of effort towards personal growth.  He feels he has achieved the goals set for him and that he should be allowed to proceed in his military career and compete with his peers.

	c.  He is enclosing copies of each OER he has received, each speaking to the quality of his character, performance, conceptual abilities, and potential.  He is also enclosing a copy of a letter written on his behalf by his current commander, who, though he was not present at the time of this rating, can provide a current evaluation of his integrity in contrast to the subject rating period.  He has learned a great deal from this experience, especially in knowing his limits and the importance of integrity and confident in a work environment.  He has also learned

to step back from preconceptions between the different types of organizations/
people and see their roles in the greater picture.

	d.  This has allowed him to be an effective leader to Soldiers and civilians as well as foreign allies.  He has learned how to recognize differences in personalities, leadership styles, and communication techniques.  He has grown in his ability to adapt to these traits and effectively interact with individuals encompassing each style that he encounters.  Most importantly, he has deliberately re-inculcated the importance of strong values into his every decision and action.  The overall assessment of his trustworthiness and conceptual ability is inaccurate.  He had, both before and especially after this duty position, demonstrated unquestionable integrity and above average understanding of concepts.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Officer Record Brief, dated 22 May 2013
* twelve OERs, to include the contested OER, for the period 18 September 2004 through 15 May 2013
* Referred OER memorandum, dated 10 September 2009
* Supporting Statement for OER Appeal memorandum, dated 18 April 2013
* Evaluation Report Appeal memorandum, dated 17 May 2013
* Letter of Justification, Evaluation Report Appeal memorandum, dated
17 May 2013
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated
9 March 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Army, Medical Services Corps (MSC) on 29 May 2004.  He was promoted to captain on 1 September 2007.

2.  He provides copies of his OERs for the period 18 September 2004 through
23 July 2008 that show an "X" in the "Yes" block for "conceptual" on each report. These OERs show he was assessed as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified."

3.  On 3 September 2009, he received a "Change of Duty" OER for the period 24 July 2008 through 15 May 2009 for his duties as an Aide de Camp.  Major General (MG) P.D.H., the Commanding General (CG) for the Western Regional 
Medical Command (WRMC) and Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) was both his rater and senior rater (SR).  The OER shows in:
	a.  Part II (Authentication) an "X" in block "d.  This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?" and an "X" in the "Yes, comments are attached" block;

	b.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), item "a.  Army Values" an "X" in each block, except the "honor" block;

	c.  Part IV "b (Leader Attributes/Skills/Action)" an "X" in the "Yes" in each block, except the "conceptual" block;

	d.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), item "a.  Evaluate the rated officer's performance during the rating period and his/her potential for promotion" an "X" in the "Other (Explain)" block.  In Part V, item "b.  Comment on specific aspects of performance, refer to Part III, DA Form 67-9 and Part Iva, and Part Vb, DA Form 67-9-1" the rater entered the following comments:

[Applicant's] strongest performance was the highly successful coordination of all travel, pre-briefs, equipment, training, orders and security for the Corps Chief's visit to Iraq.  He synchronized all requirements with the Surgeon General's travel plans ensuring successful execution of this mission.  He successfully completed all tasks required to support 22 TDY [temporary duty] events for the Commanding General to locations such as Alaska; Washington, DC; California; Massachusetts; and Texas.  He accompanied the Commanding General on 15 TDY events, both CONUS [continental United States] and OCONUS [outside CONUS].  He was actively engaged in providing assistance in planning and executing numerous on-site and off-site events such as monthly award ceremonies and coin presentations for MAMC.  [Applicant] beautifully developed the concept sketch for the layout of the new WRMC's Command Suite in the new headquarters building and he coordinated the design on the AWRMC Commander's Coin.  [Applicant's] performance as an aide during this rating period was overshadowed by several integrity violations culminating in his removal from the position.

	e.  In Part V, item "c.  Comment on potential for promotion" the rater entered the following comments:

[Applicant] has the potential to grow and learn from this experience.  If he chooses to internalize the constructive feedback, he can grow into a very effective leader within the AMEDD.

	f.  In Part VII(a) (SR), the SR (who also acted as the rater) placed an "X" in the "Other" block.  In Part VIIb, the applicant was not assessed.  In Part VIIc, the SR entered the following comments:

Inconsistent performance over the last 10 months.  [Applicant] was given several opportunities to correct deficiencies.  He verbally acknowledged shortcomings, requested opportunities to remain in the position, but his performance did not improve and actually decreased.  He should be given the opportunity to grow and develop as a staff officer before being placed into a leadership position.  Potential for promotion and advancement, to include leadership opportunities, will be based on whether he can be forthright and honest at all times and accept responsibility for shortcomings in performance.

4.  The OER was digitally signed by MG P.D.H. on 21 August 2009 and by the applicant on 3 September 2009.

5.  In a referred OER memorandum, dated 10 September 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the referred report for time served as the Aide de Camp to the Commander of WRMC.  The applicant stated:

	a.  He found no fault with the information contained herein.  His performance as the Aid de Camp to MG H was not to the standard he had come to expect from himself or should be expected from a leader.  His past performance reflected that he was a top performer.  The fact he could allow himself to compromise his integrity was of great personal concern and he had and would continue to anguish over the circumstances and actions that led up to his failure as an effort to prevent any future indiscretions.  It was his firm belief that the role of an Aide de Camp was not for every leader.  That position required a very specific set of skills.

	b.  In retrospect, he did not believe it was a role he was best suited for.  He believed his desire to be successful and never quit versus admitting his inadequacies was a major contributing factor to his poor performance and eventually the compromising of his integrity.  He became so defensive of his personal image that he lost sight of his true values.

	c.  It was his unassailable intent to redress the personal tenets by which he functioned as an officer and a person.  He would use that experience as a learning tool.  He would not compromise his integrity again and he would re-incorporate the Army Values into his person.

6.  He also provides copies of his OERs for the period 16 May 2009 through 
15 May 2013 that show the "Yes" block was marked for "conceptual" on each of these reports.  These OERs show he was assessed as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified."

7.  In a Support Statement for OER Appeal memorandum, dated 18 April 2013, the applicant's current commander stated:

	a.  During the period 2009 through the present, he has served as Commander, U.S. Army Dental Activity (DENTAC), Fort Carson.  In that position, he observed the applicant serve as the dual-hatted company commander and executive officer (XO) for this DENTAC managing a command budget of $12 million and directing the Administrative, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Logistical Program for the unit in an outstanding manner.  As the sole MSC officer in that unit, he heavily relied on the applicant's outstanding guidance and expertise in the non-clinical areas.

	b.  In the applicant's current position as XO and company commander he has served in both a staff and a leadership position and he has executed both exceptionally well.  He believes MG H's intent with the referred OER was to help the applicant be a better officer and leader, and in his opinion that was very successful.  The applicant's potential for success at much higher levels in the Army was absolutely unlimited.

8.  There is no indication the applicant requested a Commander's Inquiry or submitted an appeal of the contested OER through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

9.  He completed the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Captain's Career course on 9 March 2012.

10.  He further provides a copy of his OER appeal and Letter of Justification memoranda, both dated 17 May 2013, to the Army Review Boards Agency that reiterates his request.

11.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Personnel Evaluation - Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.  The regulation stated:

	a.  An OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), and included in the official record of an officer, was presumed to had been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  The burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rest with the applicant.

	b.  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.  Paragraph 1-10 specified except to comply with the regulation, no person could require changes be made to an individual's OER.  Members of the rating chain, appropriate administrative personnel office, or HQDA would point out obvious inconsistencies or administrative errors to the appropriate rating officials.  The regulation also provided the opportunity to request a Commander's Inquiry or to appeal referred/disputed reports.

	c.  Paragraph 3-26 stated an OER with a "No" in part IV will be referred to the rated officer by the SR for acknowledgement and an opportunity to comment before being submitted to HQDA.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR.  The naming convention AMHRR replaces official military personnel file 
(OMPF) with the publishing of this regulation.  Folders and documents previously authorized for filing in any part of the OMPF will remain in the AMHRR.  The AMHRR is an administrative record as well as the official permanent record of military service belonging to a Soldier.  It remains in Army control for 62 years from a Soldier's final separation date and, upon the 63rd year, is transferred to the control of the National Archives and Records Administration.  Table B-1 states an OER is filed in performance section of the AMHRR unless directed otherwise by the appropriate officials.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that during the period covered by the contested OER, the applicant's integrity (moral standards and/or honesty) as an Aide de Camp was questioned by his rating official.  As a result, he was removed from his position and received a derogatory OER.

2.  Since his rating official placed an "X" in the "No" block of the Army values section and since the applicant was rated as "Other" in the promotion potential bloc, the OER was referred to the applicant.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and admitted he could find no fault with the information contained therein and his performance was not to the standard he had come to expect of himself.  He firmly believed that the role of an Aide de Camps was not for every leader.
3.  The applicant's contentions and documents submitted were carefully considered and found not to have merit for many reasons.

	a.  First, by admitting no fault in the information contained in the contested OER and acceptance of responsibility for his actions, the applicant defeated his own argument that the OER did not reflect his true character and abilities during the rated period.

	b.  Second, he has provided insufficient evidence to show the contested report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust.  For example, there is no evidence he requested a Commander's Inquiry to provide clarity of what occurred and led to his removal from his position.  Likewise, he never appealed the contested OER through HRC to the OSRB. 

	c.  Third, there is insufficient evidence of record and he also has not shown this OER contains any serious administrative deficiencies or that it was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

4.  It is clear that the comments contained in the contested OER represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating official at the time of its 
preparation.  As a result, the contested OER was processed and accepted for filing in his AMHRR and there is insufficient clear and compelling evidence to overcome the regulatory presumption of regularity and/or to remove the contested report.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for 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)                                         AR20130011347



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011347



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1