MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044957

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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:  In effect, that a Personnel Command (PERSCOM) memorandum for record (MOR), dated 7 August 1996, subject: Officer Evaluation Report/Academic Evaluation Report (OER/AER) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that while serving as the Company Commander for the 131st Field Hospital, since redesignated as the 31st Combat Support Hospital, at Fort Bliss, Texas, between July 1995 and June 1997, he was deployed to Haiti from October 1995 through April 1996.  During this deployment he discovered that his OER for the period June 1995 through October 1995 had never been completed.  He claims to have submitted an Officer Evaluation Report Support Form to his rater before leaving on his deployment to Haiti; however, the rater was not aware of this submission until apprised by the applicant several months later.  

The rater had remained at Fort Bliss during the deployment to Haiti and he had assured the applicant that the OER would be completed.  However, upon his return to Fort Bliss the rater was out-processing for his retirement from the military.  The rater signed several blank OER forms with the intent that the applicant’s OER be completed by the senior rater (SR).  His SR during the period never discussed completion of the OER with the applicant but instead a personnel Warrant Officer discussed the OER with him.  This personnel official advised him that the SR wanted to be fair to all his officers and did not want to do a rating on the applicant for this period of time.  At the time the SR was under the impression that he did not qualify to rate him because he had not been under his command for 90 days and a further detriment to its completion was the lateness of the report at that time.

A letter of explanation in regard to the OER was submitted to PERSCOM which indicated that the SR did not qualify to render a rating at the time and several months later PERSCOM added the MOR in question to his OMPF.  The MOR stated that the period from June 1995 to October 1995 would be designated as unrated.  The applicant claims to have understood at the time that having unrated time in your OMPF is usually interpreted by promotion boards as an indication of negative or substandard performance;  however, he felt he had no recourse to resolve the issue at the time and placed his hopes for promotion on the rest of his record.  

The applicant claims that he performed his duty while in command during this unrated period to the utmost of his ability, as evidenced by his preparing his unit for deployment and successfully completing that mission.  His performance in command is documented in two other OERs which placed him in the “one block.” He feels that had his SR properly rendered an evaluation on him for this unrated period he would have received a rating that would have made him competitive for promotion. 
He concludes that in fairness he does not think the SR was aware he has a unrated MOR in his record; however, in his opinion, the SR still failed to take the proper steps to properly rate him when he had the responsibility to do so.  This he contends impacted his non-selection for promotion by the most recent Army Medical Department Major (MAJ) promotion selection board, which released its results on 24 May 2000.  It is his opinion that the unrated time documented in his OMPF contributed to this non-selection.  He claims to understand the necessity for PERSCOM to account for all time periods in an officer’s OMPF and that he does not have a good remedy for his situation.  However, he strongly feels that the unrated MOR in his OMPF is a red flag to promotion boards and undeservedly compromises his chances for promotion.  

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

He is currently serving on active duty as a Captain (CPT) in the Medical Service Corps.  The applicant’s CPT date of rank is 1 August 1994 and he is currently assigned as the Chief of the Clinical Services Division of the Medical Activity at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.  

On 7 August 1996, the Chief of the PERSCOM Evaluation Reports Branch published a MOR, subject: OER/AER to effect an administrative correction in the applicant’s OER record.  This MOR declared the period 2 June 1995 through 
17 October 1995 as nonrated and it was filed in the applicant’s OMPF to account for the gap in his OER history.  

The evidence of record shows that the applicant served as the Company Commander of the 131st Field, later redesignated as the 31st Combat Support Hospital at Fort Bliss, Texas from June 1995 to February 1997.  His OER history for this assignment includes the MOR referred to in the preceding paragraph and two OERs.

The first OER was a SR option report that covered the period 18 October 1995 to 29 February 1996 and evaluated the applicant as the Company Commander of Task Force 131, Unit #5810, APO AE 09301, which included his deployment in Haiti.  In Part Vb (Performance and Potential Evaluation-Rater) the rater placed him in the first block (Always Exceeded Requirements) and commented in Part Vc (Comments on Specific Aspects of Performance) that the applicant was an outstanding officer and leader; in addition, to providing glowing comments on the applicant’s preparation of his unit for deployment and his successful accomplishment of the deployment mission in Haiti.  In Part Vd (Officer’s Potential for Promotion to the Next Higher Grade) the rater also placed him in the first block (Promote Ahead of Contemporaries and provided very flattering corresponding comments in which he indicated that the applicant had unlimited potential.  

In Part VIIa (Potential Evaluation) of this report the SR placed the applicant in the first block and included in his corresponding comments a statement that the applicant’s performance as the Task Force 131 Company Commander had been outstanding.  The SR also recommended that the applicant be promoted early and that he be selected for attendance at the Command and General Staff College resident course. 

The second OER was an annual report that rated the applicant as the Company Commander of the 31st Combat Support Hospital, Fort Bliss and covered the period 1 March 1996 to 28 February 1997.  In Part Vb the rater placed him in the first block (Always Exceeded Requirements) and the comments in Part Vd stated that the applicant had performed his duties as a Company Commander in an outstanding manner.  In addition, the rater stated that the applicant having provided quality medical support during a six month deployment in Haiti, then lead his unit through a strategic redeployment and immediately prepared the unit to receive a major transfer of medical equipment, a mission he accomplished in an outstanding manner.  The rater also placed the applicant in the first block (Promote Ahead of Contemporaries) in Part Vd of the OER.  

In Part VIIa (Promotion Potential) of this OER the SR placed the applicant in the first block and in his Part VIIb comments, he stated that the applicant’s performance of duty had been truly outstanding.  The senior also recommended that the applicant be selected for the resident CGSC and that he be promoted to MAJ at the earliest opportunity.  

Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System-OERS) prescribes the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system.  This regulation designates the PERSCOM Commander as the executive agent for the OERS.  This responsibility includes exercising final review authority on all evaluation reports received at Department of the Army (DA) and for establishing policies, granting exceptions to policies, or formulating new policies for the OERS.  As a matter of policy, upon the discovery of a gap in an officer’s OER record, PERSCOM officials routinely prepare and insert into the officer’s OMPF a non-prejudicial MOR that declares the gap time as an unrated period.

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. After carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant the Board finds that the applicant’s contention, that the OER MOR in question contributed to his non-selection for promotion to MAJ, lacks merit.  

2.  The MOR contained in the applicant’s OMPF is a standard non-prejudicial document that is routinely prepared and filed in an officer’s OMPF by PERSCOM officials when they discover an unexplained gap in the officer’s OER record.  

3.  In the opinion of the Board, there is no reason to conclude that any promotion selection board would automatically interpret the MOR in question to be an indicator of some negative or substandard performance on the part of the applicant.  

4.  The applicant received two OERs while he served as a Company Commander that provide promotion selection boards a more than adequate evaluation of his performance in that position.  These OERs clearly document his outstanding performance of duty to include his accomplishments in connection with his unit’s deployment to Haiti.  Therefore, the Board finds no basis for providing the requested relief. 

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  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

___eja __  __mkp___  __rvo___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044957	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  267	123.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.