BOARD DATE:	  28 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015122 


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 the Relief for Cause (RFC) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) covering the rating period 24 September 2009 through 29 August 2010 be removed from her official military personnel file (OMPF) or transferred from the performance to the restricted folder of her OMPF. 

2.  The applicant states her appeal is based on substantive inaccuracy. Specifically: 

* the placement of the "X" in the Army Values, Attributes, Skills and Actions Values blocks is inconsistent and contradictory
* the Rater did not make any comments on her accomplishments or job performance prior to the investigation that led to her relief
* the OER was not processed to completion until after the investigation had concluded and resulted in her promotion orders being rescinded
* the investigation contained many loopholes and was not substantiated; many of the allied documents are missing which should render it null and void
* there was no counseling conducted by her rating officials and the overall rating is based on biased opinions and errors

3.  The applicant provides:

* Contested OER, referral memorandum, and her comments
* DA Form 2456 (Developmental Counseling Form)
* Warrant Officer By Name Promotion List
* Promotion and revocations of promotion orders
* Deployment orders and amendments
* Other OERs during her service
* Permanent change of station and temporary change of station orders and amendments
* Email exchange

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service (8 July 1997 to 4 August 2008), the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army with concurrent call to active duty and executed an oath of office on 5 August 2008. 

2.  She completed the Supply Systems Technician Warrant Officer Basic Course. She was assigned to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Regimental Multi-Class Supply Support Activity, Fort Hood, TX.  

3.  On 4 June 2010, Headquarters, III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, published Orders 155-0568 ordering her deployed in a temporary change of station status effective 20 August 2010 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  However, her orders were later revoked by Orders 155-0568(R), on 1 February 2011. 

4.  On 21 July 2010, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command published Orders 202-133 promoting her to chief warrant officer two (CW2).  However, the orders were revoked on 28 July 2010 by Orders 209-022 because she was not in a promotable status.  

5.  On 30 August 2010, she received an RFC OER for the rating period 24 September 2009 through 29 August 2010, for her duties as Accountable Officer, while assigned to the unit indicated above.  Her Rater was Captain SJN, the Troop Commander, and her Senior Rater was Lieutenant Colonel TLL, the Squadron Commander.  The OER shows:

	a.  in Part I(j) (Rated Months), the entry "11." 

	b.  in Part II(d) (Authentication-This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?), all blocks are marked, indicating this was a referred report. 

	c.  in Part IV(a) (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism - Army Values), the Rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for the "Integrity" and "Duty" Army values.  

	d.  in Part IV(b) (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism - Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the Rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for the "Mental" attribute; "Technical" skill; and "Decision-Making," "Planning," "Executing," and "Assessing" leadership actions. 

	e.  in Part V(a), the Rater placed an "X" in the "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" block and entered the following comments in Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance):

A recent informal investigation against [Applicant] found substantial evidence to indicate that she mismanaged the Supply Support Activity (SSA) and contributed directly to significant losses and gains during her 11 months as the Accountable Officer.  During this time, [Applicant] failed to conduct cyclic ten percent monthly inventories as stated in AR [Army Regulation] 710-2 [Supply Policy Below The National Level], paragraph 3-29e and DA PAM [Pamphlet] 710-2-2 [Supply Support Activity Supply System: Manual Procedures], paragraph 9-7c.  She also failed to conduct sensitive item inventories every 90 days.  It was her failure to conduct these inventories that resulted in the gains and losses for the SSA.  As a result, at the Change of Accountable Officer Inventory on 
14 thru 15 July 2010, there were a total of 160 Inventory Adjustments to the Authorized Stockage List that were not accounted for.  The results of the 160 unaccounted for Inventory Adjustments were a gain of $2,493,126.79 and a loss of $351,198.47 for the SSA.  However, the gain of $2,493,126.79 is actually a loss, as identified by the investigating officer for [Applicant].  [Applicant] failed to manage the SSA and lead her Soldiers. 

	f.  in Part Vc (Comments on Potential for Promotion), the Rater entered the following comment, "Do not promote.  Give some time to develop her accountability skills; [Applicant] still has the potential to serve in the Army."

	g.  in Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the rated officer's promotion potential to the next higher grade), the Senior Rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block, indicated he senior rated (at the time) 4 officers of this grade, and that a completed DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form) was not received with this report and (thus was not) considered in his evaluation and review.  

	h.  in Part VII(b) (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in same Grade), the Senior Rater placed a "No Box Check" and in Part VII(c) (Comment on Performance/Potential), the Senior Rater entered the following comments:

Poor performance.  [Applicant] failed to properly manage the Regiment's Supply Support Activity resulting in numerous Inventory Adjustments Reports totaling approximately $2.8 million in gains and losses.  It also is believed that she manipulated the SARSS [Standard Army Retail Supply System] database during her tenure as Accountable Officer.  [Applicant] was given guidance numerous times by myself and the Support Operations Officer on simple warehouse procedures that she failed to understand and mismanaged.  Although requested, [Applicant's] DA Form 67-9-1 was never received or brought with her during our various counseling sessions.  [Applicant] has been mentored by numerous Supply Technicians and other Warrant Officers on Fort Hood.  Her abilities as a leader are questionable.  Do not promote at this time. 

6.  The RFC OER was digitally signed by her Rater and Senior Rater on 19 and 20 October 2010.  She acknowledged receipt of the referred OER on 19 October and submitted her comments and signed the contested OER on 21 October 2010.  The OER with her comments was posted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) to her OMPF on 3 November 2010. 

7.  In her comments to the referred OER, she stated: 

* this was the first time on 13 years that she was being scrutinized and her integrity is being questioned
* she viewed the command as a hostile environment and felt her rating officials were biased; the allegations were bogus
* she contended she could not be successful because of lack of resources and manpower, technical (computer) issues, and improper supply procedures
* she did not receive mentorship from her senior leaders and she was not counseled
* she may have mismanaged the warehouse and there were things she could have done better but she should not be blamed for things she did not do

8.  There is no indication she appealed the contested OER through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command to the Officer Special Review Board as required by Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states the performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board.  Appendix B-1 states an OER is filed in the performance folder of the OMPF.

10.  Army Regulation 623-3 establishes the policies and procedures for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  An OER accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of an officer was presumed to have 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 rests with the applicant.

	b.  In order to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under this 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 specifies that no person could require changes be made to an individual's OER except to comply with the regulation.  Members of the rating chain, appropriate administrative personnel office, or HQDA would point out obvious inconsistencies or administrative errors to the appropriate rating officials.  This regulation also provides for the opportunity to request a Commander's Inquiry or to appeal referred/disputed reports.

	c.  Paragraph 6-7 states an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect or inaccurate or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.  The determination regarding adequacy of evidence may be made by HRC.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The investigation that led to the applicant's relief for cause and subsequent receipt of the contested OER is neither available nor is provided by the applicant. The available evidence shows the applicant received an RFC OER for the rating period 24 September 2009 through 29 August 2010.  She makes many contentions but does not provide any evidence to support these contentions.  

2.  For example, she contends she was not counseled.  Yet, her Senior Rater clearly states "although requested, [Applicant's] DA Form 67-9-1 was never received or brought with her during our various counseling sessions."  Additionally, she fails to recognize that she, as an officer, is an equal partner in the counseling process.

3.  She contends that the placement of the "X" in the Army Values, Attributes, Skills and Actions Values blocks is inconsistent and contradictory.  Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms and counseling forms.  The Rater clearly rated her professionalism (Army Values, Attributes, Skills, and Actions) as shown on the contested OER to shed to light that during the rating period she met the standards in certain areas and lacked in others.  

4.  She contends the Rater did not make any comments on her accomplishments or job performance prior to the investigation that led to her relief but does not appear to have provided her Rater with her significant activities/accomplishments or achievements during the rating period.  

5.  She contends the OER was not processed to completion until after the investigation had concluded and resulted in her promotion orders being rescinded.  When the promotion order was issued by HRC, she was not in a promotable status because she was under investigation.  That is why the promotion order was revoked and indicated is in "a non-promotable status." 

6.  She contends the investigation contained many loopholes and was not substantiated; many of the allied documents are missing which should render it null and void but she does not provide the investigation.  The Board is not privy to what occurred and is not an investigative agency.  She has the burden of proof. 

7.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficiently compelling evidence which shows the contested OER is substantively inaccurate and does not accurately reflect her performance or potential or that her Rater and/or Senior Rater did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating her in a fair and unbiased manner.

8.  By regulation, to support removal or amendment of a report there must be evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that this presumption of regularity should not be applied and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature.  This is not the case here.

9.  After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's OMPF, the applicant's contentions and arguments, and the evidence submitted in support of her application, the applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the contested OER contains a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice, or that this OER should be removed.  Therefore, she is not entitled to its removal or transfer to the restricted folder of her OMPF. 

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)                                         AR20140015122





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015122



7


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1