APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, correction of his military records by invalidating and removing the Senior Rater Profile Block on his Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) covering the rating periods 17 April  - 2 November 1986 and       3 November 1986 - 12 July 1987.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the senior rating profile blocking has substantive inaccuracies in that the blocking is not consistent with the senior rater’s narrative.  He chose not to appeal the reports at the time because the block check was considered consistent with Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) guidance on senior rater profile development.  Now he has been told that these two OERs are the reason he was non-selected for Command and General Staff Course (CGSC) attendance.  He submits as supporting documentation statements from three officers who have been associated with him since June 1995 and statements from his rater and senior rater at the time of the contested reports.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

The first contested OER is a change of rater report for a 7-month period.  The senior rater gave him a 2d-block, center-of-mass potential evaluation check       (2 - 6 - 0 - 0 - 1…0).  The senior rater’s comments included “…done a super job since being assigned… His …programs resulted in the best trained and maintained scout platoon in the battalion.   Based upon his demonstrated performance I selected him over all the other Lieutenants in the battalion to become my Adjutant.   “

The second contested OER is a change of rater report for an 8-month period.  The senior rater gave him a 2d-block, center-of-mass potential evaluation check (7 - 15 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 0…0).  The senior rater’s comments included “…His professional knowledge of the personnel business has increased tremendously over the past several months, to the point where he is now a top notch Adjutant….”

Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for preparing, processing and using the OER.  The regulation also provides that an OER accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper 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 appealing an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly nullifies the presumption of regularity.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

In pertinent part, the regulation states that statements from rating officials often reflect retrospective thinking, or second thoughts, prompted by an appellant’s non-selection or other unfavorable personnel action claimed to be the sole result of the contested report.  As a result, claims by rating officials that they did not intend to evaluate as they did will not, alone, serve as the basis of altering or withdrawing an evaluation report.

The regulation normally requires that appeals be submitted for consideration by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) within five years of the end date of the challenged OER.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the OSRB (SEE ATTACHED).  The OSRB recommended that the application be denied.  The OSRB opined that the three supporting statements from the officers who have known the applicant since June 1995 are not relevant to his claim, since they did not know of him or his duty performance during the rating periods in question.  They opined that any awards/congratulatory letters received during the periods in question are not indicators of the applicant’s potential to serve successfully in higher grades.  Awards for performance or achievement just recognize performance or achievement in a given grade or duty position and are not pertinent to the senior rater’s assessment of an individual’s potential for advancement. 

The OSRB notes that the applicant’s rater has stated that the senior rater’s assessment was “   inconsistent with his duty performance…” and he went on to make an erroneous statement about another individual who supposedly  successfully appealed his OER for the same reason.  In the senior rater’s supporting statement, he has stated “My intent was to develop a five block profile with center of mass being blocks two and three.  In retrospect that was a bad move…”  He stated that had he known that OER inflation trends would result in the “2 block” entries resulted in the applicant’s non-selection for CGSC, he would not have marked the second block.  The OSRB notes that the senior rater’s supporting memorandum is clearly the result of “retrospective thinking.”

The OSRB noted that the applicant contended that the senior rater evaluation was not consistent with duty performance.  They note that he makes the mistake of confusing performance with potential.  The senior rater’s comments are a judgment of the individual’s performance; his block check is a judgment of his potential to perform at higher grades.  The two are not meant to be consistent and it does not constitute a “fatal flaw” in an OER.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, clear and convincing evidence must be strong and compelling in nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  “Retroactive thinking” statements by rating officials are not clear and convincing evidence.  

3.  The applicant has not shown that the contested OER contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  The applicant has not shown that the senior rater’s evaluations, made from a supervisory perspective, represented other than his objective judgment and considered opinions at the time he prepared the contested OER, or that he exercised faulty judgment in evaluating him as he did.

4.  The contested OER appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the periods in question.

5.  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:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director