IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130021430
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, in effect, reconsideration of her earlier request for correction of her military records by removing her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the report period ending on 31 July 2011. In the alternative, she requests that:
* The rating of Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote, in Part V, block a, be changed to Satisfactory Performance, Promote
* The comment in Part V, block b, stating she also received a counseling statement from the battalion commander for government credit card delinquency and loss of a sensitive item, be removed from the report
* Her promotion to captain, pay grade O-3 be restored
* She be reinstated to the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program
2. The applicant states this request is based on new evidence that was not in the record when the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) made its decision. She is asking that the Board find the subject OER inaccurate based on the new evidence.
3. The applicant provides copies of:
* Memorandum, Appointment of Investigating Officer, dated 3 December 2012
* Memorandum, Commander's Inquiry findings, dated 28 January 2013
* Memorandum , Evaluation Report Appeal, dated 19 March 2013
* Memorandum, Return without Action, dated 31 October 2013
* Memorandum, Evaluation Report Appeal, dated 1 November 2013
* DA Form 67-9 for period ending on 31 July 2011
* DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) dated 23 August 2010
* DA Form 67-9 for period ending 14 March 2009
* Letter, Office of the Inspector General, dated 2 November 2012
* Memorandum, Commander's Inquiry findings, dated 15 February 2013
* Orders B-10-206169, U.S Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 10 October 2012
* Orders B-10-206169R, HRC, dated 15 October 2012
* Memorandum, Promotion Review Board Results, dated 4 October 2012
* Memorandum, Promotion Review Board, dated 25 July 2012
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20120016042 on 18 December 2012.
2. The original Record of Proceedings (ROP) shows the Board determined that the subject OER was processed in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The applicant had not provided sufficient evidence or convincing argument that there were any fatal flaws that would warrant removal or alteration of the report. Accordingly, the applicant's request was denied.
3. The applicant has provided new evidence concerning the subject OER that requires Board consideration.
4. On 3 December 2012, the applicant's brigade commander appointed an investigating officer (IO) and directed him to conduct an inquiry in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluations). The subject of the inquiry included the applicant's OER for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011. The concern was whether the OER reflected a fair assessment of the applicant's performance.
5. On 28 January 2013, the IO rendered his 3-page report wherein he states his findings and recommendations.
a. This is the second Commander's Inquiry regarding the subject OER. The first inquiry indicated no errors or administrative errors. This inquiry is the result of the applicant's making a request for another review.
b. The subject OER is an adverse OER that was referred in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 based on a performance and/or potential evaluation of "Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote" in part V, block a.
c. The applicant was interviewed and provided additional information. A review of both the counseling statement and the reference to the counseling statement on the OER revealed that she was counseled for a delinquent travel voucher and not for a delinquent payment of her government credit card (GOVCC) as stated on the OER.
d. The OER also indicated that the applicant was also found partially liable for the loss of night vision goggles (NVG), a sensitive item. She did not dispute this matter but correctly indicated that the loss had occurred during a different rating period and had been the primary driver of another referred OER for that rated period. The IO confirmed with the maintenance noncommissioned officer that the NVG had been lost during a previous rating period.
e. The applicant provided supporting documents from various sources to indicate success on some non-tactical related engineer projects. Her rating had not provided adequate counseling. She questioned the authenticity of some of the counseling statements in her record.
6. On 21 December 2012, the applicant's rater was interviewed by the IO. The rater provided evidence of an initial, periodic, and incident-specific counseling. The rater indicated the applicant's greatest asset was her knowledge of administrative functions but did not possess technical expertise in tactical engineer operations. Furthermore, the applicant's personal distractions and medical issues had an adverse affect on her performance. The applicant also had difficulty in her transition from the role of an administrative staff sergeant to the role of a commissioned officer and platoon leader in an engineer line company.
7. On 8 January 2013, the IO interviewed the applicant's senior rater by telephone. The senior rater had limited interaction with the applicant but did advise her on course of action to register legitimate and substantiated complaints regarding her situation. The senior rater did not observe any negative bias by the applicant's rater.
8. On 11 January 2013, the IO interviewed the former platoon leader, who was now a captain, and who stated the applicant's greatest strength was her administrative skills. The applicant had been assigned to manage pay and medical readiness. The applicant did not have a good understanding of tactical engineer operations or roles of the platoon leader. The applicant had missed most of the field exercises and also missed many days due to medical and personal reasons.
9. As a result of the inquiry, the IO determined that two significant errors exist in Part V block b of the subject OER. A delinquent payment of the GOVCC is a more significant action than a delinquent travel voucher submission. Furthermore, it seems unfair for an officer to receive a significant negative comment regarding supervisory liability for the lost NVG on more than one OER. The IO submitted that this negative comment was correctly included in an earlier OER. These errors may have influenced the "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" rating in Part V, block a of the subject OER. However, based on information received from the interviews, the IO did not question the rater's assessment of marginal performance of the applicant. There was no evidence of bias with regard to the applicant's lack of expertise in tactical engineer operations and effectiveness to serve as a platoon leader in an Engineer line company.
10. The IO recommended changing the subject OER by changing the rating from "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" to "Satisfactory Performance, Promote. While not saying in so many words, the IO implied that the two entries containing factual error should also be removed.
11. On 19 March 2013, the applicant submitted an appeal of the subject OER to HRC. She states that she had been passed over for promotion once because of the subject OER. Although she was subsequently selected for promotion to captain and was number twenty on the list with a promotion date of 1 April 2012, her promotion was delayed until October 2012. On 2 October 2012 she was promoted, but then it was revoked on 10 October 2012. All of these actions are the direct result of the subject OER. At the time of this appeal, she says she was released from the AGR program and was assigned to 309th Training Company. She requested that her OER be removed from her records, or in the alternative, changed in accordance with the IO's recommendation.
12. On 31 October 2013, the Officer Special Review Board advised HRC that the applicant's appeal was administratively closed because the issue had been previously considered by this Board and denied. The applicant was informed of that decision in a 1 November 2013 memorandum from HRC.
13. A review of the subject OER revealed the rater also made these comments in Part V, block b:
* Failed two consecutive inspections during the rating period
* Performed marginally, with occasional significant lapses of judgment to include inputting Soldiers for orders and failing to inform them of their attendance
* Has shown a lack of ability to manage and synchronize the staff sections as necessary
* Has shown a propensity to abdicate responsibility and a failure to admit accountability for her actions, right and wrong, and casts doubt on her ability to serve in a position of leadership and to be responsible for the lives, health, and welfare of Soldiers
* Her performance during this rating period has not been commensurate with an officer of this grade
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends, in effect, that her OER for the rating period ending on 31 July 2011 should be removed from her military records. In the alternative, she contends that:
* The rating of Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote, in Part Va should be changed to Satisfactory Performance, Promote
* The comment in Part Vb stating she also received a counseling statement from the battalion commander for government credit card delinquency should be removed from the report
* Her promotion to captain, pay grade O-3 should be restored
* She should be reinstated to the AGR Program
2. The evidence provided by the second commander's inquiry is sufficiently convincing to show that errors of fact exist in the subject OER. Accordingly, these errors should be removed from the report.
3. However, based on the IO's determination that the applicant's performance was marginal even with these errors removed, the evidence does not sufficiently support changing the rating from "Do Not Promote" to "Promote."
4. Furthermore, the available evidence does not support the applicant's request to have her promotion restored or to be reinstated in the AGR program.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
___X___ ___X___ ____X____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMRs decision in Docket Number AR20120016042, dated 18 December 2012. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the following entries from Part V, block b of her OER ending on 31 July 2011:
* "[Applicant's name] has also received a counseling statement from the BN CDR for GOVCC delinquency"
* "Additionally, as Platoon Leader, [applicant's name] was notified by the BDE CDR of being found partially liable in the loss of a sensitive item (NVGs), and was assessed an approved charge of financial liability during this rating period."
2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to removing the subject OER from her military records, restoring her promotion, or reinstating her to the AGR Program.
_______ _ 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) AR20130021430
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130021430
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016042
18 August 2010, the applicant was counseled by her rater for failing to inform two Soldiers of their required attendance for training, resulting in two no-shows. The following additional administrative actions are recorded in the applicant's record: a. on 31 July 2011, a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) was imposed; b. the applicant was selected for promotion to captain by the 2012 Captain Selection Board which recessed on 10 November 2011; c. on 12 March 2012, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006786
Counsel states an AR 15-6 investigation was conducted about the command climate of the applicant's unit. Headquarters, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 27 April 2011, subject: AR 15-6 Investigation Appointment, shows COL B____ A____ was appointed as an IO by MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, to conduct an informal AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate within the 45th SBDE command group, and an assessment of the relationship between the Brigade Commander, her brigade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017858
A rating chain is established to provide the best evaluation of an officers performance and potential. However, the MAJ's statement does not contradict the contested OER or provide evidence concerning the SR's rating. However, they do not contradict the contested OER or provide evidence concerning the SR's rating.
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 | CY2014 | 20140003946
Counsel provides: * General Officer (GO) letter of recommendation, dated 16 September 2013 * Email exchange dated 27 February 2014 between the applicant and her assignment officer * Contested OER * Printout of evaluation reports available by individual look up * Promotion Orders B-10-106986 * Delay of promotion and referral to a Promotion Review Board (PRB) * Rebuttal to the delay of promotion and referral to the PRB * Orders B-10-10698R (revocation of promotion) * Appeal memorandum, dated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014193
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period from 2 January 2006 through 30 November 2006 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his records and declaring this period as nonrated time. The applicant states that the many comments on the contested OER violate Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System); that the tasks required following the commanders inquiry were not performed; that the rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002285
On 28 September 2006, upon his return to Fort Polk, LA, by memorandum, the applicant's commander notified him of his temporary suspension of command and pending adverse action based on numerous incidents of poor judgment regarding the use of government vehicles and personnel for personal use and the investigation that substantiated allegations of a hostile work environment and gender bias. If the senior rater decides that the comments provide significant new facts about the rated Soldier's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019977
The applicant states: * on 8 August 2008, her battalion commander notified her that she was suspended from her position as a platoon leader; she was also issued a no contact order * she was pending an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct; this investigation concluded on 12 August 2008 * she was reprimanded by her brigade commander on 21 August 2008; she also received a referred officer evaluation report (OER) * she rebutted the OER because it did not accurately reflect her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020641
The applicant states: a. However, this one incident on her record forced her to retire and she was placed on the Retired List in the rank of 1LT/O2E. During that time she was a company commander and CSM G was the Battalion CSM.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012860
The applicant provides: * U.S. Army Human Resources Command memorandum, dated 31 January 2014 * FBOI findings and recommendation CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Records show an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation commenced on 17 March 2011 to determine whether the applicant facilitated communication between captain (CPT) P____ and a female civilian and whether the applicant knew of the no-contact order issued to CPT P____. Also,...