PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            19 August 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999018270

	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.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. David E. Weightman		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	

	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.

2.  The applicant requests that his officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 1 March through 30 October 1992 and all related documents be deleted from his official military personnel file (OMPF).  He states, in essence, that the senior rater (SR) erroneously rated him in the third block thinking that the third block represented his center of mass (COM) rating; and that information contained in his appeal which was filed in his OMPF affected his selection for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4).  In support of the application, he submitted documents submitted by officers who have observed his duty performance.  Those documents are attached and therefore the information contained therein need not be reiterated.

3.  The applicant was serving on active duty in the rank of CW2 as a property management technician with the 528th Special Operations Support Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the period of time in question.

4.  The contested OER, for the period covering 1 March through 30 October 1992, shows that in Part IV, Performance Evaluation - Professionalism, completed by his rating officer (RO), he was rated as “1” in all 14 areas.  Part V, Performance Potential and Evaluation, shows that he “Always Exceeded Requirements” and, following numerous laudatory remarks, that his potential for promotion is shown as “Promote Ahead of Contemporaries.”

5.  Part VIIb, SR Potential Evaluation, shows all laudatory remarks by the SR, including “His superb level of fitness, not only set the example for others but provided him an edge over other warrants in making quick supply support decisions which have materially enhanced command readiness posture.”  Additionally, he wrote "Select to attend the Senior Warrant Course.”  The SR, a lieutenant colonel serving as Chief, Material Management Center, rated the applicant in the three block.

6.  A review of the SR profile shows that of 4 ratings, 0 were in the top block, 
3 were in the two block, and 1 was in the three block, (i.e., 0/3/1*/0/0/0/0/0 - *Indicates position of applicant).  This is a below COM report.  The SR did not refer the report to the applicant for acknowledgment or rebuttal.

7.  On 1 March 1993 the applicant was promoted to CW3.

8.  On 14 October 1993 the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denied the applicant’s appeal of the contested OER.  The denial has been placed on the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  The OSRB Case Summary shows that the SR was contacted on 29 October 1993; that the SR stated, in part, that "he thought his center of mass was the 3 block” and that he "considered [the applicant] a center of mass officer."  The SR did make additional comments at the time which could only be considered derogatory and, in the course of events, the OSRB Case Summary, containing those comments, was subsequently filed in the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF.

9,  He has not been selected for promotion to CW4.

10.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraph 3-12, Responsibilities of the SR, shows, in part, that a responsibility of the SR is to evaluate the rated officer’s potential relative to his or her contemporaries.  His or her evaluation is based on the premise that in a representative sample of 100 officers of the same grade or grade grouping (Army-wide) the relative potential of such a sample will approximate a 
bell-shaped normal distribution pattern.  The regulation also provides the opportunity for SR’s to refer adverse reports to rated officers.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The SR three block rating in the contested OER reflects the applicant’s performance as below COM, and is considered an adverse report.

2.  Contrary to the determination made by the OSRB, the contested OER and the comments made by the SR when contacted on 29 October 1993, clearly indicate that he intended to rate the applicant’s performance as COM in the contested OER, and that he mistakenly rated him below COM.

3.  By maintaining a profile in the manner in which he did, the SR did not accurately portray the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period as COM.  His failure to do so constitutes error and injustice.

4.  The remaining portions of the OER have not been contested and appear valid, and therefore, should remain as a matter of permanent record in the applicant’s OMPF.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by deleting the SR profile in Part VIIa of the contested OER, covering the period 1 March through 30 October 1992, of the individual concerned;

b.  by removing from his OMPF all documents related to his appeal of the contested OER;
c.  that following administrative implementation of the foregoing, by submitting his records to duly constituted special selection boards;

d.  that, if he is selected for promotion, by promoting him and assigning him an appropriate date of rank; and

           e.  by notifying him if he is not selected for promotion.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

rvo_____  ew_____  svw_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018270	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 August 19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.