PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 October 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07428 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his placement on his senior rater’s profile be corrected from the second block to the first block. In the alternative he requests that the senior rater profile be deleted from his officer evaluation report (OER). In addition, the applicant requests that he be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel. APPLICANT STATES: That his senior rater had intended him to be placed in the top block of a restarted profile. Also, the rating profile does not accurately portray his placement on the date his senior rater signed his rating. In addition, his senior rater’s profile violates Army policy in that no officer could have been evaluated as above center of mass and any second block evaluation in his dual center of mass profile will be viewed as below center of mass. In support of his request the applicant submits a letter from his senior rater in which he states that he had intended the applicant’s placement in the second block to reflect him as being center of mass. He had restarted his profile and when he rated the applicant his profile should have been 0-3-0 (first, second and third blocks). He had completed three more OER’s a week after he signed the applicant’s report and placed those officers in his top block, those officers being “far more senior and experienced than [the applicant].” He directed that those three OER’s be held for a month to insure that the applicant’s OER was recorded first so that his placement would be in the center of mass of his profile. However, the other three officer’s OER’s were inexplicably recorded first. The applicant’s senior rater portrays the applicant as a superb officer who should have been promoted to lieutenant colonel. The applicant also submits letters in his behalf from the Staff Judge Advocates of Fort Lewis, Washington, and the 108th Division, Charlotte, North Carolina. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: While a major serving on active duty as an assistant staff judge advocate of the XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the applicant was given a change of rater OER for the period covering 1 November 1990 to 22 April 1991. That report painted a word picture of the applicant as a highly motivated officer, an officer who accepted and overcame all challenges, and an officer with exceptional organizational and managerial skills. The applicant’s rater stated in that report that the applicant had been promoted to major during that rating period. His senior rater stated that the applicant should be selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In the senior rater’s profile, the applicant was placed in the second block of a 3-3 profile, a rating which is considered the bottom half of a dual center of mass profile. On the date the applicant submitted his request to the Board he was receiving retired pay in the rank of major, having retired on 1 September 1996. Facts relating to the applicant's contentions concerning the contested OER are contained in an OSRB case summary, which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated. The OSRB opined that the applicant had failed to submit clear and convincing evidence that would warrant alteration of the contested OER. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. While it may have been the intention of the applicant’s senior rater to place him in a stand-alone center of mass rating, as pointed out by the OSRB he would not have achieved that even if the OER’s of the three other officers had been processed after the applicant’s OER. His profile for majors at that time had been 1-1-0, not 0-2-0. 2. The Board also agrees with the OSRB that the bell-shaped curve desired in a senior rater profile was hard to achieve with such a small population to rate. As such, the Board does not consider that issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant altering or deleting the applicant’s senior rater profile. 3. The Board notes that the applicant had just been promoted to major during the rating period in question. While he was undoubtedly a superb junior field grade officer, he did not have the experience of the more senior majors his senior rater had in his profile. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: JAV LLS GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING SAC DENY APPLICATION Edmund P. Mercanti Loren G. Harrell Director