Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000020
Original file (20140000020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		

		BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000020 


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, redaction of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) entry on his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 1 March 2001 through 14 February 2002 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER).  In the alternative, he request removal of the contested report from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

2.  The applicant states that the contested OER is unjust at this time in his career as it reflects an APFT failure that occurred over eleven years ago.  He has been twice non-selected for the Colonel Army Promotion List (APL) Board due to derogatory information in his board file.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Officer Record Brief (ORB)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) endorsement
* General Officer endorsement, dated 14 November 2013
* OERs for the period 1 March 2001 through 30 September 2013
* Self-authored statement
* 2 statements of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently a lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-5) serving in the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG).

2.  The contested OER, during which period the applicant was a major (MAJ/)-4), shows in Part IVc (APFT) that he failed his APFT in January 2002.

3.  On 7 July 2003, the contested OER was filed in his record in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System.

4.  On 20 January 2006, he was promoted to LTC.

5.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he contends that he failed his APFT due to a herniated disk in his lower back and that there have been no subsequent issues.  Further, he has been placed in positions of greater responsibility to include battalion command, executive officer of a regional support group, and currently as the surface maintenance manager for the state of Louisiana.

6.  In addition, he provides two statements of support, one from a general officer and the other from the NGB, which contend the applicant has maintained his physical fitness and he has long-term leadership capabilities for senior positions in the LAARNG.  His progression should not be held back due to this issue.

7.  There is no indication the applicant requested a Commander's Inquiry regarding the contested OER or that he appealed it within a 3-year period.

8.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps.

	b.  Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  

	c.  Paragraph 6-11a states the burden of proof rests with the appellant to justify deletion or amendment of a report.  The appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration, and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests redaction of the APFT entry on the contested OER or to remove it completely from his AMHRR.

2.  The applicant's military achievements, leadership, and potential are not in question; however, by his own admission and confirmed by the evidence of record, he failed his APFT in January 2002.  Accordingly, the entry in question appears to be factually correct and should not be redacted.

3.  Because the entry is not in error or unjust, there is no basis to remove the report.

4.  This document is properly filed in the performance section of his AMHRR and there is no error or injustice.  Therefore, the requested relief would not be appropriate.

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)                                         AR20140000020





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000020



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018498

    Original file (20130018498.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of the Report of Investigation (ROI) which served as the basis of a referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). a. Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps. The evidence of record shows the applicant's appeal of the contested OER was denied.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005298

    Original file (20120005298.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, states that based on the rated officer's duty performance and demonstrated potential, the senior rater will list three future assignments, focusing on the next 3 to 5 years for which the rated officer is best suited in Part VIId. He failed to provide evidence to show he requested a report or was denied a report for his ADSW period. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015993

    Original file (20120015993.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * the principle duty title listed is inaccurate – he served as the organization's commander, not as a program integrator * he had an assumption of command ceremony and he attended conferences and functions designated for commanders – he wouldn't have otherwise attended these functions if he were not the unit's commander * he performed the functions of a commander immediately upon his arrival * the Performance Evaluation in Part IV is inaccurate – he did not vary his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003597

    Original file (20140003597.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 30 July 2008 to 5 February 2009 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). b. Paragraph 2-18 states when an officer is officially relieved of duties and a "Relief for Cause" OER is subsequently prepared, the evaluation report requires referral to the rated officer. Reviewers of "Relief for Cause" OERs will— * ensure that the narrative portions of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003627

    Original file (20130003627.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * the rater was not qualified * he was assigned and rated in a principle duty position that was contrary to the provisions of Army Regulation 614-100 (Officer Assignment Policies, Details, and Transfers) * the OER was not conducive to either Army Regulation 614-100, nor Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) in utilizing a warrant officer outside their military occupational specialty (MOS) * the OER was submitted without the documentation required by Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017858

    Original file (20120017858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A rating chain is established to provide the best evaluation of an officer’s 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 | CY2008 | 20080019425

    Original file (20080019425.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rated period 1 October 2003 through 1 September 2004 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be completely removed from his records and replaced by an OER by a different rater and a different senior rater. On 30 November 2007, by memorandum, the OSRB notified the applicant that his appeal was partially...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009241

    Original file (20090009241.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period from 21 October 2004 through 20 October 2005 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his records. Counsel requests removal of the contested OER from the applicant's records; consideration of the applicant for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB); and consideration of the applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000392

    Original file (20090000392.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests complete removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period from 6 June 2003 through 30 April 2004 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his records. On 11 November 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal of the contested OER. He also believes that the contested OER was inaccurate when it stated that the applicant negatively impacted unit climate and morale; e. in her statement, dated 29 September 2008, a LTC, Chief...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014837

    Original file (20140014837.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She told LTC JL that COL MA had not objected and forwarded LTC JL the email she had sent. v. LTC JL was to go on mid-tour leave on 21 February 2011. Notwithstanding her contention that her raters were prejudiced against her because of the EO complaint she filed against them, the contested OER shows both her rater and senior rater commented on her excellent performance as the first Chief of Military Justice, stated she exceeded every challenge by becoming an ANP Legal mentor, she became an...