BOARD DATE: 22 April 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130013040
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 amendment of his DA Form 1059-1 (Civilian Institution Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), covering the period 22 June 2009 through 24 June 2010, by redacting the comments contained in item 13 (Reviewer Comments). This AER (hereafter referred to as the contested AER) is currently filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).
2. The applicant states:
* the comments were unjustly written by the reviewer as they are in clear violation of Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)); specifically, paragraphs 3-16, 3-19, and 3-20
* the reviewer on the contested AER included extremely prejudicial information; these comments were written before the completion of an investigation
* after a thorough investigation into these allegations, the charges were dismissed
* the dismissal letter is included in the appeal packet that was previously submitted and is included as an enclosure (to this application)
3. In a separate memorandum, dated 24 June 2013, the applicant states:
* the reviewer comments in the contested AER are in direct contravention of Army Regulation 623-3
* the reviewer violated 3 paragraphs of Army Regulation 623-3, including paragraphs 3-16 (Evaluation Parameters), 3-19 (Unproven Derogatory Information), and 3-20 (Prohibited Comments)
* the contested AER was completed prior to the completion of an Article 32 hearing, which resulted in the dismissal of all charges
* paragraph 3-16 provides that rating officials' evaluation of a rated Soldier will be limited to the dates included in the rating period of an evaluation report - in this case, the alleged incident occurred outside the rating period
* paragraph 3-19 provides that any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded
* paragraph 3-20 provides that no remarks about nonrated periods of time or performance or incidents that occurred before or after the rating period will be made on an evaluation report in this case, the alleged incident occurred outside the rating period of the contested AER
4. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his request:
* a memorandum to the Board from the Article 32 Investigating Officer (IO), Colonel (COL) Sxxxx H. Fxxxxxx, dated 3 July 2013
* Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) Records of Proceedings, dated 20 October 2011 and 21 March 2013
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On or about 18 March 2002, after numerous years of commissioned service in the Medical Service Corps, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the Medical Corps, in the rank/grade of captain/O-3. He currently serves on active duty in the Regular Army.
2. On 17 July 2004, he was promoted to the rank/grade of major (MAJ)/O-4.
3. On 10 February 2009, he signed a training agreement for Army Graduate Medical Education (GME) in aerospace medicine, wherein he acknowledged the program requirements, including 1 year of resident training at the University of Texas at Galveston, TX and the Naval Operational Medicine Institute in Pensacola, FL.
4. On 10 March 2009, while assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK, he received a Change of Rater Officer Evaluation Report (OER).
5. In early June 2009, he began his permanent change of station (PCS) move to his new duty station, the University of Texas at Galveston, TX.
6. On 22 June 2009, he began his period of resident training in accordance with his GME training agreement. On 24 June 2010, he completed this training, which resulted in his receipt of a Master of Public Health degree from the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
7. On 20 July 2010, his reviewer completed his portion of the contested AER. It is presumed he presented the contested AER to the applicant for signature shortly thereafter.
8. His AMHRR contains the contested AER. Item 13 of the contested AER contains the following comments:
As summarized by the following verified derogatory information, [Applicant] demonstrated a lack of integrity and duty that became evident during this evaluation period. On 30 July 2009, the Canada Border Services Agency (Canada BSA) contacted [Applicant's] former duty station at Ft. Richardson, Alaska. The Canada BSA informed the command that on 9 June 2009, while in a permanent change of duty status [Applicant] crossed the Canadian port-of-entry in Beaver Creek Yukon Territory in his Privately Owned Vehicle in possession of 20 syringes of Morphine, 10 syringes of Diazepam, 100 pills of Oxycocone [sic], 8 pills of Percocet and 10 pills of Diazepam that were United States Army property. These controlled items were seized by the Canada BSA. [Applicant] had not sought nor [sic] received authorization to maintain possession or transport of the items across international borders. At no time did [Applicant] inform this command or his former command that he possessed the Army's controlled substances or that it had been seized by a friendly foreign government. His failure to properly secure controlled medical items and subsequent failure to report their confiscation to his command violated Army Regulation 40-61 Medical Logistics Policies Section V Controlled Medical items. Specifically, his actions violated the following paragraphs of AR 40-61: 1) Para 3-23 Security precautions- [Applicant] failed to provide diligent and property security for controlled medical items including DEA Schedule 2 medications having high abuse potential with severe psychological or physical dependence liabilities and DEA Schedule 3 medications having an abuse potential less than Schedule I and 2 substances. 2) Para 3-24(d) Controlled Substance turn-in [Applicant] did not turn in or destroy the controlled substances in his possession IAW AR 40-61 and commonly understood controlled items logistical practices. His poor judgment led directly to the confiscation of the Army's controlled medical items by a foreign government that went unreported to US Government officials and this command for three months (emphasis added). 3) Para 3-27 Periodic inventories of controlled medical items [Applicant] failed to obtain disinterested officer monthly inventories on these controlled items during the period of his possession. This verified derogatory information should weigh heavily on the mind of those deciding future assignments and promotions. APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test): PASS HT/WT: YES 20100408
9. On 26 July 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the contested AER.
10. The applicant refused to sign the AER, with the following annotated on the form, Officer refused [to] check box 8 and to sign on the advice of his attorneys.
11. On 9 November 2010, the contested AER was filed in the performance folder of his AMHRR.
12. He appealed the contested AER on two separate occasions, citing the same errors or injustices he cited in this case; however, on 20 October 2011 and
21 March 2013, the OSRB denied his appeals of the contested AER.
13. He provides a memorandum to the Board from COL Sxxxx H. Fxxxxxx, dated 3 July 2013, who served as the Article 32 IO and was responsible for investigating the alleged incident of 9 June 2009.
a. In this memorandum, COL Fxxxxxx provides glowing comments about the applicant's character, professionalism, and proficiency as an Army physician and officer.
b. COL Fxxxxxx mentions the Article 32 investigation resulted in the dismissal of charges; however, he does not reveal the investigation findings vis-à-vis the infractions reported on the contested AER.
c. His comments do not address the specific incident in question, or the applicant's decision to withhold the incident from his chain of command.
14. Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS. Chapter 3, of the regulation in effect at the time, governs Army evaluation principles.
a. Paragraph 3-20 (Evaluation Parameters) provides that each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered. The determination of whether an incident occurred during the period covered will be based on the date of the actual incident or performance; it will not be based on the date of any subsequent acts, such as the date of its discovery, a confession, or finding of guilt, or the completion of an investigation.
b. Paragraph 3-23 (Unproven derogatory information) provides that no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier. References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting the evaluation to Headquarters, Department of the Army. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated Soldier is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain's use of verified derogatory information. For example, when an interim report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in an OER, noncommissioned officer evaluation report, or AER.
c. Paragraph 324 (Prohibited comments) provides that no remarks on an evaluation report will be made on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period, except Relief-for-Cause reports based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period; or when the most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends the entries in item 13 of the contested AER should be redacted because the reviewer comments in the contested AER are in direct contravention of Army Regulation 623-3; specifically, paragraphs 3-16, 3-19, and 3-20.
2. These paragraphs reference the current version in effect; these paragraphs were cross-referenced to the applicable paragraphs in effect at the time the contested AER was completed.
3. The applicant received the contested AER for his performance of duty during the period 22 June 2009 through 24 June 2010.
4. He contends the reviewer erred in his comments by including derogatory comments before the completion of an investigation. The reviewer comments on the contested AER make no mention of an ongoing investigation or impending charges; however, as permitted by regulation, the reviewer does mention verified derogatory information that affected the applicant's behavior and conduct well into the period covered by the report.
5. Neither the evidence of record nor any of the applicant's submitted evidence absolve the applicant of either the incident of 9 June 2009 or his lapses in judgment thereafter. Unless otherwise proven false, he knowingly transported narcotics across an international border without authorization, and he failed to address this (or the resulting confiscation) to members of his chain of command during the reporting period. This constitutes a breach of trust and ethics by a commissioned officer of the Army. Neither the applicant nor the Article 32 IO claim the incident did not occur. Nor do they refute any of the resulting lapses of judgment discussed on the contested AER.
6. In view of all of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support 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) AR20130013040
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010866
Counsel requests: a. removal of the applicant's OERs for the periods ending 17 February 2010 (hereafter referred to as contested OER 1) and 17 July 2012 (hereafter referred to as contested OER 2), b. removal of the applicant's Academic Evaluation Report (AER) dated 19 December 2008 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER), c. that the applicant be reinstated in the Army, and d. that the applicant be considered for promotion to CPT by an SSB. The memorandum shows the applicant's appeal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005855
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060487C070421
As for the applicant’s allegation that unverified derogatory information was entered in her OER in contravention with Army Regulation 623-105, the OSRB stated that when the applicant’s rater was attempting to determine who was responsible for a "junk“mailing," the applicant told her rater that she did not have access to her e-mail account and had not had access for 10 to 14 days. The normal rater will consider this information when he or she prepares the rated officer's next OER. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016787
He continues by stating that the applicant was found not guilty by a special court-martial which makes the comments on the NCOER essentially unproven derogatory information that the governing regulation prohibits from being entered on the evaluation report. It states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly-designated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000507
The applicant requests correction of his official military personnel file (OMPF) by removing the relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) he received for the period from July 2004 through June 2005. On 1 June 2006, the applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the ESRB. He based his appeal on the argument that the comments in Part IVa of the NCOER violated the provisions of Army Regulation 623-205, paragraphs 3-17a, b, c (1), and c (2), in that no reference may be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030060
The applicant states: a. the OER contains derogatory language, unproven accusations, and outright misrepresentations from his rating chain; b. his senior rater made a material misstatement in his OER by checking the "Yes" box in Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), signifying that he had reviewed his OER support form during the rating period when he did not; c. his rating chain did not perform the required counseling or use the support form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091493C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, the ESRB partially approved the applicant’s appeal on 21 January 2000 and directed: a. that USAEREC will change Part IVc (Height) of the contested report from 64 inches to 66 inches; b. that promotion reconsideration is not warranted because of the change in height; c. that the rating officials on the contested report are correct; d. that the supporting documentation submitted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020985
The applicant requests a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rated period 2 April 2012 through 20 November 2012 be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Paragraph 3-16 of Army Regulation 623-3 states rating officials' evaluation of a rated Soldier will be limited to the dates included in the rating period of an evaluation report. Each evaluation report will be an individual stand-alone evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023837
c. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraphs 3-23a and c state no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier (i.e., charges that are later dropped or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved). The contested report includes derogatory information regarding his charge of careless and reckless driving. The evidence of record does not indicate the contested NCOER was filed in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015921
The applicant requests, in effect, amendment of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 18 August 2006, that is filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The rater documented the applicant's academic performance average for ANCOC of 95.8% and that he passed the APFT on 6 August 2006 in item 14 of the DA Form 1059. The rater also provided comments in item 14 of the DA Form 1059 about the applicant's leadership capabilities and overall...