PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  9 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024819

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol J. Suiter		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, in effect, that on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 29 January 1995 to 12 December 1995, the senior rater potential evaluation rating be changed from the 2nd block to the 1st block; that the reason for the OER be changed from “Depart TDY” to “Annual”; and that the end date of the period of the report be changed to 28 January 1996.

3.  The applicant states that more than one month of unusually demanding operations while deployed were not included in his OER rating period.  The month included deployment to Bosnia.  The senior rater states he would have given him a top block rating had he included that month in the rating period.  The administrative error of rendering him an incorrect “Depart TDY” OER resulted in an unjust rating.  The rater and senior rater strongly endorse and support this application by memoranda attached to his application.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he, a Major, was assigned to the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  His duty assignment was as a Collection Team Leader responsible for organizing and developing Combined Arms Assessment Teams (CAAT).  On or about 13 December 1995, he was deployed to the 1st Armored Division (1st AD) in Europe as the operations officer for a CAAT sent there by the CALL to support the 1st AD.  
The deployment orders were for a period of 179 days.

5.  Prior to departure on this deployment, the applicant was given a “Depart TDY” OER by his rater and senior rater at the CALL for the rating period 29 January 1995 to 12 December 1995.  The OER was a good one with the rater rating him as always exceeds requirements and recommending promotion ahead of contemporaries.  The senior rater gave a good rating and rated the applicant’s potential in the 2nd block which was in the center of mass for his rating profile.

6.  A CAAT is composed of an operations officer who is a regularly assigned member of CALL, a CAAT team chief who is TDY (Temporary Duty) to CALL from another organization for the temporary duty as team chief, and such other personnel who are specialists from other organizations on TDY to CALL. Normally, the TDY periods are for less than 90 days which does not require rendering personnel evaluation reports.  If the TDY period is for 90 days or greater, personnel evaluation reports would be required for the CAAT members both at the end of the TDY period by the CALL rating chain, and prior to departure on TDY by the personnel’s regularly assigned unit as a “Depart TDY” OER.  The rating chain for CALL would be from CALL to the CAAT team chief, to the CAAT operations officer, and to the team members, adjusted as necessary according to rank.  However, the operations officer is still responsible to, and receiving guidance or instructions from, the chain of command of CALL.  As such, he would receive OER letter input form the CAAT team chief to his regular CALL rating chain.

7.  The anticipated 179 day deployment for the applicant was reduced by mission requirements to less than 90 days.  The applicant’s CAAT team leader provided OER letter input to the applicant’s regular rater at CALL to be included in his next OER.  According to the OER letter input and the award of an Army Commendation Medal for the applicant’s performance on the deployment, the applicant’s performance was outstanding.

8.  In 1997, the applicant appealed his “Depart TDY” OER on the basis of administrative error and substantive error.  He charged that the reason for the OER, “Depart TDY”, was incorrect according to the purpose for such OERs as defined in the applicable evaluation regulation.  He charged that substantive error was made by not including his performance on deployment in the report in question.  Had the incorrect “Depart TDY” OER not been rendered, his deployment performance would have been included in an “Annual” report and his rater and senior rater would have given him a higher rating placing him in the top box for potential.  His rater and senior rater write letters to support this allegation.  The US Army Personnel Command Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) considered the appeal but denied the appeal finding no error.  However, the applicant was still working for the same CALL rating chain while deployed and performing the primary functions of his duty assignment at CALL.  The applicant’s subsequent OER further substantiates the fact that he was still working for the same CALL rating chain as he was before he deployed.  These facts indicate that the provisions of the “Depart TDY” OER requirements did not apply in this case.

9.  Army Regulation 623-105, Officer Evaluation Reporting System, states that a “Depart TDY” OER is required only when an officer departs TDY, “to perform duties not related to his or her primary functions in his or her unit and while on TDY serves under a different immediate supervisor for a period of 90 or more calendar days.  In cases where it cannot be determined if the TDY will last for 90 days, a report will be submitted.  A report is not authorized when the officer on TDY is still responsible to, or receiving guidance or instructions from, the chain of command of his or her organization.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A “Depart TDY” OER was incorrectly rendered on the applicant.  The applicant did not perform duties unrelated to his primary functions in his unit.  In fact, while deployed, he did perform his primary duties assigned in CALL and was still responsible to and receiving guidance or instructions from the chain of command and rating chain at CALL.  As such, according to AR 623-105, he was not authorized to receive a “Depart TDY” OER ending 12 December 1995.  His rating period should have been continued to his “Annual” report end date of 28 January 1996 and included input on his performance while deployed under the direction of CALL.

2.  Had the proper “Annual” OER been rendered, his rater and senior rater certified by letter that the applicant’s outstanding performance during deployment would have been included in the OER and his senior rater would have given him a 1st block (top block) rating in part VII a, potential evaluation.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned by:

	a.  changing the reason on his “Depart TDY” OER to “Annual” OER and changing the rating period end date from 951212 to 960128; 

b.  changing the senior rater Part VII a on the OER to show the senior raters potential evaluation of the rated officer in the 1st block or top block;

c.  filing on the OMPF with this now corrected “Annual” OER, the OER letter input provided by the CAAT Team Chief and the memorandum provided by the rater amending his OER comments; and

d.  changing the period of report on the “Annual” OER for the period 951213 - 961212 to 960129 - 961212.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RO__  __DJ____  __CS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024819	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.111	Evaluation	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.