MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           21 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC93-11692C
				   AR1999014922

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. G.  E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Gary F. Gereats		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by expunging the senior raters mark from his Officer Evaluation Report of 13 June 1988 through 12 June 1989.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the removal of the senior rater’s profile did not fully correct the injustice and he holds that the presence of the rating “X” in block two itself has the same impact as a below center of mass evaluation.  He states in order for the report to indicate a fair and accurate evaluation of his performance during the period in question, it is necessary to remove the “X” block rating by the senior rater to alleviate any misconceptions that selection boards may have.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  This applicant’s case is reopened in accordance with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records Reconsideration Project (ABCMR-RP) criteria.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his case on 17 November 1993 (COPY ATTACHED. 

The applicant submits a statement, dated 1 October 1991, from his senior rater that indicates that the rater’s intent was to rate the applicant in a center of mass block. A second statement, dated 2 April 1994, from a major general supports the request for deletion of the “X” from the profile.

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.  The Board disagrees with the applicant’s contention that not removing the “X” is the same as an indication of a below center of mass determination.

2.  A review of all of the applicant’s OERs shows that once senior rater’s profile was removed from the OER in question it is consistent in placement and verbiage to his other evaluations.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CFM__  ___SK_ _  ___GFG_  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC93-11692C
AR1999014922	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990421	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	193	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.