Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018047
Original file (20140018047.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	
		BOARD DATE:	  12 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018047 


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 removal of "do not promote" comments from her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) (OER).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the "do not promote" comments on the part of her rater and senior rater were unjustified.  She was unaware she could appeal the OER until so advised by counsel whom she retained to help her respond to a notification of separation due to non-selection for promotion.

3.  The applicant provides:

* 5 OERs
* 2 DA Forms 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard)
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* 2 Army Achievement Medal (AAM) Certificates
* Memorandum, dated 9 September 2014, SUBJECT:  Notification of Separation Due to Non-Selection for Promotion
* DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG))

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant received her basic appointment as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Officer and was accepted into the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP), on 27 June 2003, with a commitment to earn a degree in medicine.  After earning her medical degree, she was ordered to active duty on 9 June 2008.
2.  On 1 July 2009, she entered Army Graduate Medical Education (GME) training as a Psychiatry Resident.  She was scheduled to complete this training on 30 June 2012.  As a condition of employment within the GME training agreement, the applicant was required to obtain a current unrestricted medical license.

3.  On 30 September 2010, the applicant “resigned in lieu of” from the GME Psychiatric Residency program.

4.  On 28 June 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a referred OER (Period Covered 20090701 through 20100630).  In subparagraph b (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance, Refer to Part III, DA Form 67-9 and Part Iva, b, and Part Vb, DA Form 67-9-1), Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)), the rater states the applicant was not able to pass her medical licensing examination, was placed on administrative probation, and should not be promoted until she passed her licensing examination.

5.  In Part VII (Senior Rater), subparagraph c (Comment on Performance/Potential), the senior rater states the applicant needs to focus on her medical licensing examination and ensure she meets Army Medical Department (AMEDD) standards.  The senior rater did not recommend promotion.

6.  The applicant did not provide written comments in response to the referred OER.  Additionally, there is no record of a request by the applicant for a Commander's Inquiry.

7.  In her application, she argues:

* she was unaware of her ability to appeal her referred OER until recently when so advised by legal counsel
* all OERs from 2008 through 2013 reflect positive service with no evidence to support comments not to retain
* she passed her Basic Officer Leaders Course (BOLC), earned 2 AAMs, and has never had substance abuse, weight issues or Article 15 punishments
* during the period of the referred OER she was under severe stress as a result of having to care for her psychotically depressed sister
* she was also stressed by having to work under a contracted psychiatrist who acted inappropriately with patients and failed to use correct diagnostic procedures
* she observed poor leadership practices on the part of her rater
* During her rater's tenure as the Psychiatry Residency Program Director, 
10 psychiatric interns and residents resigned, presumably due to his poor leadership
* Her rater was aware of her stressors and failed to offer assistance
* rater and senior rater comments are unjustified and should be erased from her record

8.  Applicant provides:

	a.  5 OERs, to include the referred OER:

* period:  20080701 through 20090630; duty title:  PGY-1 Psychiatry Resident; essentially states very positive comments, Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) shows Best Qualified
* period:  20090701 through 20100630; duty title:  PGY-2 Psychiatry Resident; referred OER, essentially stating do not promote or retain until applicant obtains medical license, Part VIIa shows Do Not Promote
* three OERs for the period 20101001 through 201300806 which all show duty title:  Administrative Officer; essentially stating positive comments, promote with peers, Part VIIa shows Fully Qualified

	b.  two DA Forms 705 which respectively show scores of 257 and 265.

	c.  DA Form 1059 showing completion of AMEDD BOLC, achieving course standards, satisfactory written and oral communication, and outstanding leadership.

	d.  two AAMs which essentially recognize the applicant for:

* period 18 December 2009 to 20 December 2009 for remaining on duty for over 40 hours during a weather emergency
* period 3 March 2013 to 30 June 2013 for serving as Army Emergency Relief campaign manager

	e.  Memorandum, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 
9 September 2014, SUBJECT:  Notification of Separation Due to Non-selection for Promotion.  In essence, the memorandum states the applicant was not selected for promotion and must be honorably separated not later than 1 January 2015.  In her acknowledgement of mandatory separation, the applicant requests an appointment in the USAR.

	f.  DA Form 268, dated 22 July 2013, shows the applicant is flagged pending involuntary separation.
9.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), dated 10 August 2007, establishes policies and procedures for officer evaluations.  

	a.  Evaluation reports accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army are presumed to be:

* administratively correct
* have been prepared by properly designated rating officials
* represent the considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating officials

	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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to amend her OER by deleting the do-not-promote and do-not-retain comments was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support her request.

2.  The comments in question simply stated the fact she had failed to obtain her medical license and should not be considered for promotion or retention until she passed her licensing examinations.  In her GME agreement, the applicant acknowledged the obtaining of her medical license was a condition of employment.  

3.  While the applicant states her rater was aware of her stressors, there is no evidence of any attempts by the applicant to seek help either from her chain of command or behavioral health professionals for the severe stress she notes in her application.

4.  Although the record does not state whether she ultimately obtained her medical license, the applicant later resigned from the GME Psychiatry Residency program.  Her subsequent OERs show she served as an administrative officer rather than as a medical officer.

5.  Based upon the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.




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)                                         AR20140018047





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018047



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020226

    Original file (20120020226.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011467

    Original file (20130011467.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the removal from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), or the transfer to the restricted portion of his AMHRR, of the following: * a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 27 August 2010 * a referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the rating period 1 June 2009 through 31 May 2010 2. During the month of July 2010, the applicant received the contested OER, an annual OER, which covered 12 months of rated time from 1 June 2009 through 31...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020641

    Original file (20140020641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 20080018961

    Original file (20080018961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Part Va (Performance and Potential) evaluates the rated officer’s performance and potential for promotion. The records of Soldiers who fail a record APFT for the first time and those who fail to take the APFT within the required time period must be flagged in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions). A diagnostic APFT is not a record APFT.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014476

    Original file (20120014476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 2-5, states the Board will not consider any application if it determines that the applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies available. His rater stated, "[Applicant] did not meet the standards of Army Military Medicine. The OSRB denied his appeal on 28 July 2011, stating: * it is unlikely that his medical problems started during the 4-5 months of his residency training * only one diagnosis...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007772

    Original file (20100007772.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests immediate removal of a Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) memorandum, dated 25 November 2008; a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 9 June 1998; officer evaluation reports (OER's) for the periods 1 October 1997 through 9 June 1998 and 10 June 1999 through 21 February 2000; and all related documents from her official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant states: * in 2009 the issuing authority (now retired Major...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010312

    Original file (20080010312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application: her memorandum, dated 9 November 1998, appealing the contested OER; a memorandum, dated 21 July 1998, from the Personnel Services Branch, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., requesting a minor correction to the contested OER; a memorandum, dated 20 July 1998, from the Senior Rater (MG B____), requesting a minor correction to the contested OER; two memoranda, dated 16 October 1998 and 7 July 2000,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001289

    Original file (20120001289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests transfer of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 1 January through 10 November 2005 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from the performance section to the restricted section of her official military personnel file (OMPF). While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014949

    Original file (20080014949.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    During the rated period this officer repeatedly failed to follow orders. This evidence shows that: a. on 24 July 2006, the applicant requested a commander's inquiry into her evaluation, but that she did not provide the results of that inquiry to the OSRB; b. her OER was referred to her on 7 September 2006 with a suspense date to provide comments by 14 September 2006, which was later changed to 25 September 2006; c. the applicant submitted a three-page self-authored rebuttal, dated 5...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079390C070215

    Original file (2002079390C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 990509-991224 to show that his senior rater, in Part VIIa, marked the block "Best Qualified" (BQ) and that the "Fully Qualified" (FQ) block mark be deleted. His senior rater indicated in Part VIIa that the applicant was best qualified. It goes on to state, "The senior rater's evaluation is made by comparing the rated officer's performance and potential with all other officers of the same grade the...