BOARD DATE:	  3 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021603 


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 reconsideration his prior request for promotion to the rank of colonel (COL) effective 21 December 2012 with pay and allowances or consideration of his case by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to COL.  As new issues, he further requests:

	a.  correction of Part III (Duty Description) of four officer evaluation reports (OER's) covering the periods 25 November 1999 through 24 November 2000, 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2001, 25 November 2001 through 24 November 2002, and 25 November 2002 through 24 November 2003 to properly reflect his significant duties and responsibilities.

	b.  correction of the last three of the four above listed OER's covering the periods 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2001, 25 November 2001 through 24 November 2002, and 25 November 2002 through 24 November 2003 to reflect he served under dual supervision.  If these corrections cannot be made, he alternately requests removal of the OER's from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

* his rating chain failed to identify his unique duty assignment, designate Operation Platinum Wrench as an acquisition recapitalization program, or designate his duty description as Acquisition Corps
* his rating chain failed to inform him that the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) Operation Platinum Wrench (OPW) maintenance training program was an acquisition recapitalization program
* Army leaders identified recapitalization as one of the three critical axes of the Army transformation
* the extent of his duties and responsibilities as they relate to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA)-directed acquisition, recapitalization, and modification of Army Reserve equipment were not accurately annotated
* there is no mention of the recapitalization of Army Reserve equipment in his duty descriptions although it was his primary responsibility
* the number of personnel he supervised was omitted on his OER's
* the amount of resources under his control and the scope of his responsibilities were not accurately represented
* specific functions he performed were omitted from his OER's
* he was the product manager for the OPW recapitalization program
* he managed the HQDA-directed recapitalization program at Fort McCoy, WI; Fort Dix, NJ; and Fort Hunter Leggitt, CA
* he served under dual supervision of the USARC G-4 and G-3/5/7, but this was not annotated in the first line of the duty description of his OER's from 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2003
* his duty descriptions were not jointly developed by his dual chains of supervision
* these omissions and errors in his OER's led HQDA selection boards to be unaware of the extent of his duties and responsibilities, thus not properly considering him for promotion to COL

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement which includes an enclosure list cataloging 33 exhibits.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  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 relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140009925 on 25 September 2014.

3.  Having prior active enlisted service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 25 June 1987.  He entered active duty in the Active Guard Reserve Program in 2006.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 21 December 2007.

4.  The first contested OER is a 12-month annual OER covering the period 25 November 1999 through 24 November 2000.  Part III reflects:

	a.  Principal Duty Title:  Logistics Staff Officer

	b.  Position Area of Concentration/Branch (AOC/BR):  91A00

	c.  Significant Duties and Responsibilities:  "Provides staff planning, direction and coordination of all matters pertaining to maintenance management of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) materiel.  Responsible for developing maintenance management policies, plans, programs, procedures, and methods for the United States Army Reserve Command.  Provides continuity of USAR logistics support through direct coordination with subordinate units, contractors, USARC DCSOPS [Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations], OCAR [Office of the Chief, Army Reserve], NGB [National Guard Bureau], FORSCOM [U.S. Army Forces Command], and Department of the Army Staffs.  Manages the Army Award for Maintenance Excellence and Phoenix Award Programs.  Manages the support and training plans for exercises involving MTOE [modified table of organization and equipment] maintenance units (AT [annual training]/ODT [overseas deployment training]/NTC [National Training Center]/JRTC [Joint Readiness Training Center]) and designated special projects.  As MTOE Branch Chief, manages all assigned personnel and USAR MTOE maintenance units (SRC [standard requirements code] 43)."

5.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) of this OER includes the following statements:  "As a direct result of his planning for support to Operation Platinum Wrench, he inspired closer coordination between members of the USARC staff and outside activities which has resulted in more effective mission support for maintenance units implementing hands-on training during their IDT [inactive duty training] and during their Annual Training.  He effectively coordinated the enlarging of the OPW mission at Fort McCoy and Fort Dix.  He also established the first OPW mission at Fort Hunter Liggett.  [Applicant] was instrumental in providing 15 Maintenance Units to rebuild M915 Gliders which resulted in 60 base M915 Tractors being converted into the high technology M915A4 model.  This effort represented a savings to DA and the USAR of three million dollars."  He received an "Above Center of Mass" rating on this OER.

6.  The applicant signed and dated the OER in Part II (Authentication) verifying he had seen the completed OER Parts I-VII and the administrative data was correct.  Additionally, a review of Part VII (Senior Rater) shows a completed DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form) was received with the report and considered in the evaluation and review.

7.  The second contested OER is a 12-month annual OER covering the period 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2001.  Part III reflects:

	a.  Principal Duty Title:  Logistics Staff Officer

	b.  Position AOC/BR:  91A00

	c.  Significant Duties and Responsibilities:  "Provides staff planning, direction and coordination of all matters pertaining to maintenance management of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) materiel.  Responsible for developing maintenance management policies, plans, programs, procedures, and methods for the United States Army Reserve Command.  Provides continuity of USAR logistics support through direct coordination with subordinate units, contractors, USARC DCSOPS, OCAR, NGB, FORSCOM, and Department of the Army Staffs.  Manages the Army Award for Maintenance Excellence and Phoenix Award Programs.  Manages the support and training plans for exercises involving MTOE maintenance units (AT/ODT/NTC/JRTC) and designated special projects.  As MTOE Branch Chief, manages all assigned personnel and USAR MTOE maintenance units (SRC 43)."

8.  Part V of this OER includes the following statements:  "In addition to managing the routine business of the MOTE Branch, he was assigned [the] additional duty of SRC manager for Ordnance units because of personnel shortages….  He was instrumental in providing appropriate units to exercises such as Golden Cargo, Operation Platinum Wrench (OPW), NTC/JRTC."  He received a "Center of Mass" rating for this OER.

9.  The applicant signed and dated the OER at Part II verifying he had seen the completed OER Parts I-VII and the administrative data was correct.  Additionally, a review of Part VII shows a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with the report and considered in the evaluation and review.

10.  The third contested OER is a 12-month annual OER covering the period 25 November 2001 through 24 November 2002.  Part III reflects:

	a.  Principal Duty Title:  Logistics Staff Officer

	b.  Position AOC/BR:  91A00

	c.  Significant Duties and Responsibilities:  "Provides staff planning, direction and coordination of all matters pertaining to maintenance management of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) materiel.  Responsible for developing maintenance management policies, plans, programs, procedures, and methods for the United States Army Reserve Command.  Provides continuity of USAR logistics support through direct coordination with subordinate units, contractors, USARC DCSOPS, OCAR, NGB, FORSCOM, and Department of the Army Staffs.  Manages the Army Award for Maintenance Excellence and Phoenix Award Programs.  Manages the support and training plans for exercises involving MTOE maintenance units (AT/ODT/NTC/JRTC) and designated special projects.  As MTOE Branch Chief, manages all assigned personnel and USAR MTOE maintenance units (SRC 43)."

11.  Part V of this OER includes the following statements:  "He started TY 02 [Training Year 2002] filling two positions.  While serving in his primary role as the MTOE Branch Chief for Maintenance, G4 he continued to perform as the USARC G7 SRC Manager for Ammunition and Maintenance training and scheduling….  As a result of his meticulous planning, the USARC realized a savings of over $2M [million] in repairs to Army Reserve equipment and in equipment recovered from Defense Reutilization Marketing Office operations.  [Applicant's] Operation Platinum Wrench AT was directly responsible for providing maintenance training to over 4500 Army Reserve maintenance soldiers, repairing more than 1500 defective M16A2s and more than 500 pieces of rolling stock."  He received a "Center of Mass" rating for this OER.

12.  The applicant signed and dated the OER at Part II verifying he had seen the completed OER Parts I-VII and the administrative data was correct.  Additionally, a review of Part VII shows a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with the report and considered in the evaluation and review.

13.  The fourth contested OER is a 12-month annual OER covering the period 25 November 2002 through 24 November 2003.  Part III reflects:

	a.  Principal Duty Title:  Logistics Staff Officer

	b.  Position AOC/BR:  91A00

	c.  Significant Duties and Responsibilities:  "Provides staff planning, direction and coordination of all matters pertaining to maintenance management of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) material.  Responsible for developing maintenance management policies, plans, programs, procedures, and methods for the United States Army Reserve Command.  Provides continuity of USAR logistics support through direct coordination with subordinate units, contractors, USARC DCSOPS, OCAR, NGB, FORSCOM, and Department of the Army Staffs.  Manages the Army Award for Maintenance Excellence and Phoenix Award Programs.  Manages the support and training plans for exercises involving MTOE maintenance units (AT/ODT/NTC/JRTC) and designated special projects.  As MTOE Branch Chief, manages all assigned personnel and USAR MTOE maintenance units (SRC 43)."

14.  Part V of this OER includes the following statements:  "In addition, [Applicant] assisted the USARC G-7 in successfully transitioning the Operation Platinum Wrench maintenance training program to the 166th ASG [Area Support Group] for command and control."  He received a "Center of Mass" rating for this OER.

15.  The applicant signed and dated the OER at Part II verifying he had seen the completed OER Parts I-VII and the administrative data was correct.  Additionally, a review of Part VII shows a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with the report and considered in the evaluation and review.

16.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has not provided any showing he appealed any of the four OER's, ranging in dates from 1999 to 2003, within 3 years of their submission.

17.  The applicant provided a copy of a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) approving his award of a permanent change of station Meritorious Service Medal for the period 1 December 1999 through 7 December 2003.  Achievement 3 of the DA Form 638 includes the statement:  "[Applicant] served for 18 months in a dual-hatted position as MTOE Branch Chief in the G-4 and as the Training SRC Manager in the G-7."

18.  The applicant also provided numerous articles from Army print and online publications, spreadsheets, and execution orders speaking to the importance of the Army Recapitalization Program.  These documents identify the prioritization of systems in the legacy fleet marked for recapitalization and explain the incorporation of research, development, and technology into the methods used for recapitalization of specific systems, focusing heavily on the M915A4 Glider Kit conversion program.

19.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Army's Evaluation Reporting System, including the DA Form 67-9 (OER).  It stated:

	a.  Part III provides for the duty description of the rated officer.  It is the responsibility of the rating officials to ensure duty description information is factually correct.  It is entered in Part III by the rater and is based on the rated officer's entries on DA Form 67-9-1.  The principal duty title and AOC to identify the rated officer's position will be entered in Parts IIIa and b.  This information will directly reflect the duty title found on the DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief).

	b.  In Part IIIc, the significant duties and responsibilities will be a succinct narrative, written in prose format.  The rater will describe in detail the rated officer's duties and responsibilities.  The narrative should be reflective of the duty description on the officer's OER support form.

	c.  When an officer is serving under dual supervision, the statement "Officer serving under dual supervision" will be entered as the first line of the duty description.  The duty description will be jointly developed by the supervisors in each chain of command.

	d.  An OER may have administrative errors or may not accurately record the rated Soldier's potential or the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties.  The Redress Program protects the Army's interests and ensures fairness to the evaluated officer.  At the same time, it avoids impugning the integrity or judgment of the rating officials without sufficient cause.  Commander's inquiries and appeals are separate and distinct actions.  Rated Soldiers may seek an initial means of redress through a commander's inquiry; however, a commander's inquiry is not a prerequisite for the submission of an appeal.

	e.  An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  The rated officer may appeal any report that he or she believes is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of the regulation.

	f.  Because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the individual officer than an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible.  As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult.

	g.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  For a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence must include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  It states the purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, administrative remarks, and any other personnel actions.  The regulation states OER's are required for filing in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System.

21.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and the documentation he provided were carefully considered.

2.  The evidence supports the applicant's contention that he served under dual supervision during the periods 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2001, 25 November 2001 through 24 November 2002, and 25 November 2002 through 24 November 2003.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to administratively correct the OER's corresponding to those periods by adding the statement "Officer serving under dual supervision" as the first line of each duty description.

3.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant any further changes to his OER's or removal of the OER's from his OMPF.  Each of the duty descriptions on the contested OER's was based on his OER support forms which were present for review at the time of preparation and were uncontested by him the entire 12 to 15-year span since their submissions for inclusion in his OMPF.  There is no evidence he ever appealed the duty descriptions as written.  As a career commissioned officer, he failed to exercise due diligence.

4.  Although the applicant contends the omission of significant duties and responsibilities and a statement regarding dual supervision in Part III of his OER's from 12 to 15 years ago led HQDA selection boards to be unaware of the extent of his duties and responsibilities and thus not properly consider him for promotion to COL, the extent of his duties and responsibilities and the manner in which he performed them are fully reflected in Part V of those same OER's and were available for HQDA selection boards at the time of their reviews.  The placement of this information in Part V as opposed to Part III of the OER's does not constitute a material error.

5.  His request for reconsideration for promotion to COL by an SSB was carefully considered, but not found to have merit.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show a material error existed in his record at the time of consideration.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X_____  _X_______  __X__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that partial merit was warranted.

2.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice regarding his request for reconsideration for promotion to COL by an SSB.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned or to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140009925, dated 25 September 2014.

3.  With regard to the new issues he presented, the Board determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that the OER's of the individual concerned covering the periods 25 November 2000 through 24 November 2001, 25 November 2001 through 24 November 2002, and 25 November 2002 through 24 November 2003 be corrected by adding the following statement as the first line of the duty description of each OER:  "Officer serving under dual supervision."

4.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant the portion of the requested relief regarding amendment to the description of his significant duties and responsibilities on his OER's and removal of the OER's from his OMPF.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140021603



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021603



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1