BOARD DATE:  17 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000818 


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 officer evaluation report (OER) covering the rating period 5 March 2010 through 4 March 2011, herein referred to as the contested OER, be transferred to the restricted section of her official military personnel file (OMPF). 

2.  The applicant states that:

   a.  Upon return from Iraq she faced sleep deprivation, problems concentrating and other deployment transition challenges for the first nine months of the contested OER rating period.  However, this situation was temporary.  Her previous and subsequent OERs delineated a positive outcome of continued honorable service to the Army Reserve.
   
   b  The rationale conveyed by her superiors for the unfavorable rating was because she did not have a working knowledge of the Individual Training Readiness System (ITRS) and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).
   
   c.  In previous positions as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) and chief warrant officer three (CW3) at a Regional Support Command, her primary duties were reviewing Soldiers' records and junior promotion boards, compilation of Soldiers’ nonparticipation packets to the Command Judge Advocate (CJA), processing  awards and Defense Travel System (DTS) travel actions, preparing evaluation shells and tracking returned evaluations for corrections, right sizing and tracking Human Resource assets in Balad, Iraq, and interpreting regulatory human resources guidance.  ITRS reporting and iPERMS transactions were normally handled by the Personnel Management Branch.

   d.  At the time she received the contested OER she was uncertain if she would continue service to her country.  She was not aware of the possible recourses available to her until she sought counsel and advice.  Time passed so quickly with her civilian career, Reserves, and volunteering as the treasurer for the Institute of Internal Auditors, Nisqually Chapter, that she did not adequately or timely request an appeal.

3.  The applicant provides:

* OER appeal packet with the contested OER
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
* OER for periods before and after the contested OER

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer of the Army and executed an oath of office as a Warrant Officer One (WO1) on 21 June 1996.  She was promoted to CW2 on 22 February 1999 and to CW3 on 22 June 2004.  Her military occupational specialty is Human Resources (HR) Technician. 

2.  On 10 May 2008 she was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  She served overseas in Iraq from 9 June 2008 to 7 March 2010.  She returned to the United States and was released from active service on 3 May 2010.  She was issued a DD Form 214 showing she served 1 year, 11 months, and 24 days of active service this period.  She served 1 year and 9 months of foreign service. 

3.  After her overseas deployment she received an annual OER for the period 5 March 2010 through 4 March 2011 as a member of an Army Reserve troop program unit.  (During this rating period she was promoted to CW4 on 22 June 2010.)  The contested OER covers seven rated months for her duties as a Brigade S-1 HR Technician while assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade, 95th Division (U.S. Army Reserve (USAR)), Vancouver, Washington.  Her rater was Captain (CPT) JMW, the Brigade S-1, and her senior rater was Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) SJD, the Deputy Commander.  The contested OER shows in:

	a.  Part II(D) (Authentication - This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) that all blocks are unmarked indicating this was not a referred report. 

	b.  Part IV(c) (Significant Duties and Responsibilities.  Refer to Part IV(a), DA Form 67-8-1 (OER Support Form)), she served as a senior HR Warrant Officer assigned to the S-1 section in support of five battalions and over 850 drill sergeants spread over 11 states and 14 locations.  She was responsible for drafting brigade policy guidance and procedures relative to human resource requirements; providing full spectrum support to include Soldier Readiness Processing, Organizational Inspection Program, awards, Defense Travel System, and evaluations; mentoring and providing guidance to Soldiers within the section; and providing recommendations for improved customer service and better business practices.

	c.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), the Rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all Army values, attributes, skills, and actions. 

	d.  Part V(a), the Rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" block and entered the following comments in Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance):

(The applicant) displayed marked improvement since being newly assigned.  During the rated period she assimilated into the units operating procedures and attended Brigade New Leader's Orientation. 
(The applicant) has worked well with her peers and subordinates after her initial transition.  She conducted all necessary training and obtained permissions for multiple different data and personnel systems to include ITRS, RLAS, and iPERMS.  (The applicant) devised monthly tracking products for our HRC returned and unit external evaluations, contributing to an increased submission rate and expediting corrective action when required.  In addition, she drafted numerous commander's policy letters and reviewed subordinates correspondence.  She displayed her accumulated knowledge and contributed multiple "best practices" to the brigades current operations, (The applicant) is ready for increased responsibilities within the brigade operations now.

	e.  Part Vc (Comment on potential for promotion), the Rater entered the following comment, "(The applicant) should remain in her current position and rank to develop a total mastery of Brigade level operations prior to promotion with her peers." 

	f.  Part VIIa, the Senior Rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block, indicating he senior rated (at the time) one officer of this grade, and that a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in the evaluation and review.  
	g.  Part VII(b) (Potential compared with officers senior rated in same grade), the senior rater gave her a "Center of Mass" rating and in Part VII(c), the senior rater entered the following comments:

(The applicant) has begun to show some expertise and taking charge of her duties in the later part of the rating period.  She is now proficient in using ITRS to track personnel readiness statistics and taking charge to the BDE's (brigades) external evaluations.  Through her experience has brought best practices into the BDE in order to improve the BDE personnel section.  She should continue honing her skills at the BDE level before moving on to higher levels of command.

4.  The contested OER was digitally signed by her rater and senior rater on 1 June 2011.  The applicant's digital signature is dated 2 June 2011.  The contested OER was then posted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) to the performance section of her OMPF. 

5.  Her 1 December 2014 written appeal of the contested OER to U.S. Army Human Resources Command was returned without action because she did not file it within 3 years of the through date of the OER.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) places a time restriction on the submission of substantive appeals to within 3 years of the contested OER through date.  

6.  She submits copies of the OERs for the periods before and after the contested OER.  In each of the OERs her rater rated her performance as "Outstanding Performance Must Promote" and her senior rater rates her promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified."  No derogatory information is noted on these reports. 

7.  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.

8.  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 is 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.  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of an administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 

	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 may 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 or disputed reports.

	c.  For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier’s OMPF, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of the an evaluation “THRU” date.  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; National Guard Bureau (NGB) (Appeals Section); or the appropriate State Adjutant General. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that an OER she received post deployment is, in effect, not a fair representation of her duty performance.  She claims she suffered from sleep deprivation, concentration and general post-deployment adjustment issues that could have negatively affected her duty performance.  

2.  The available evidence shows the contested OER is neither derogatory nor referred.  On the contrary, it contains positive and encouraging comments.  It appears to be administratively accurate and it was timely processed.  

3.  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.

4.  By regulation, to support removal or amendment of a report there must be evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the 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.

5.  The applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the contested OER contains a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting her the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140009455



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000818



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1