PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028563

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 

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 Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) for the periods 18 January 1993 – 17 January 1994 and 18 January 1994 – 1 June 1994 be removed from his permanent file or as a minimum moved to his restricted fiche.

3. The applicant states, through counsel, that he received two OER’s that were unfair and based on untrue or minor events.  Further, he found himself a 2LT on initial assignment in a hostile work place.  

4.  In support of his request, he has provided letters of support from fellow nurses, the results of polygraph test, and a Letter of Support from a Nurse Recruiter and copies of his OER’s since his transfer to the US Air Force.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned on 26 May 1985 as a Nurse, completed the Army Medical Officers Basic Course and was assigned as an Army Nurse to the USA Medical Activity, Fort Hood, Texas.  He was separated from the US Army on 15 July 1992, with an honorable discharge.

6.  The two contested OER’s were prepared by the same rater and senior rater.  The numerical gradings by the rater on both reports reflect shortcomings in the areas of knowledge, performing under mental stress, judgement and on one report noted that the applicant failed the annual physical fitness test.  The senior rater commented on the applicant’s less than satisfactory clinical skills and judgement and concluded that he would be better suited for a different career field.  These OER’s placed the applicant at risk for potential adverse personnel action, such as non-selection for promotion.

7.  After a positive initial OER for the period 26 September 1992 – 17 January 1993, the applicant’s rating chain changed.  Over the next year the applicant was counseled.  Once for providing information to a patient in such a manner that the patient and father became upset.  The applicant rebutted that counseling in writing.  Another counseling was the result of a patient requesting that the applicant not be allowed back in his room.  The applicant rebutted that he had never been in the patient’s room and was not at work when the patient was admitted.  He submitted work records to show that he was not scheduled to work on the day the complaint arose and the results of a polygraph exam.  The polygraph showed the applicant was telling the truth when he states that he had never been in the room of the complaining patient.

8.  The rater on the contested OER’s wrote a letter supporting the applicant’s request to have the two OER’s removed from his file, but did not go into specifics of the applicant’s performance.  However, in another letter authored by the Army Nurse Recruiter, she states she spoke with the rater on several occasions about the applicant’s performance and his OER’s.  The recruiter stated that the rater told her that her hands had been tied by the senior rater and that the applicant did not help his position by two decisions he made: first, he supported (in writing) a subordinate’s side of an issue against the senior rater and second, he also let it be known he was leaving the Army for the Air Force at a time when the Army was short of nurses.

9.  The applicant has since entered the USAF and as examples of his service therein has included seven OER’s covering the period 13 February 1995 –        31 July 1999.  These are evaluations of the applicant since his entry into the USAF nursing program in January 1995.  All of the evaluations depict the applicant as serving admirably as a USAF nurse.  These USAF OER’s and the applicant’s first OER’s in the US Army are submitted to support his claim that the two US Army OER’s are unfair and based on untrue or minor events.

10.  The applicant’s USAF records indicate he was recommended for company grade officer of the month and then officer of the year for the period 1 January 1996 through 31 December 1996.

11.  MILPER Message Number 97-149, provides, in pertinent part, that access to 2LT OER’s be restricted after promotion to captain.  This will effectively remove information from an officer’s performance file, which may simply be a reflection of an initial learning curve, and thereby preclude its use for personnel management decisions later in an officer’s career. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received two potentially career ending OER’s as a US Army 2LT, yet the incidents detailed in the counseling statements appear to be incidents that would routinely occur in a hospital and certainly are not unexpected of a 2LT on first assignment.  The Board opines the OER’s are unduly harsh for a new lieutenant.

2.  Normally transfer of the 2LT OER’s would happen in accordance with the MILPER message cited above, when the applicant became a captain, however he was in the USAF when he became a captain.  This Board corrects US Army records only.  The applicant may choose to use this Board’s affirmation of his application to request through appropriate USAF channels the transfer or removal of the OERs from his USAF records.

3.  Notwithstanding his initial difficulties, his performance since the incidents in question has been outstanding.  His evaluations since the two contested evaluations, portray him as a superb officer with high integrity and the potential for further outstanding service. Of special note is his recommendation for company grade officer of the year.  

4.  It would be appropriate therefore, to extend the benefit of doubt to the applicant in the interest of fairness and grant relief by masking the two contested OER’s.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the available Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by masking the two OER’s for the periods 18 January 1993 – 17 January 1994 and 18 January 1994 - 1 June 1994 by moving them to the restricted portion of the OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:  

___cmf__  ___emw_  ___jip __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__________Calvin M. Fowler_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028563	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000706	
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.  134.04		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.