MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 March 2001     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047963

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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:  That an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 26 December 1992 through 31 May 1993 be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File).  He also asks that once the report has been expunged that he either be promoted to the grade of major or referred to a standby board.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time he received the report he was in his first year of military service and “endured an atmosphere that was prejudicial and contrary to the spirit of racial harmony….”  He notes that he “was not accepted, supervised nor integrated into the unit” and contends that his performance during the period in question was excellent.  He states that in spite of a “stressful environment and the constantly changing scenarios that we faced during the NTC training” he excelled and in fact received an impact award as a result.  He states the rating was based on the “rater’s feelings and not on [his] job performance” and that he was “not accepted by [his] supervisors as a Black, Catholic Chaplain with an African accent.”

In support of his request he submits three letters of support.

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

He was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve Chaplain in May 1992 and entered active duty in the grade of captain with four years of constructive service credit.

In January 1993 the applicant received his first active duty evaluation report which covered the period 28 August 1992 through 25 December 1992.  The report, which was rendered by the same rating chain which rendered the report in question, notes the applicant was performing duties as the battalion chaplain for the 142nd Signal Battalion at Fort Hood, Texas.  His rater indicated the applicant should be continued on active duty and “considered for positions of greater responsibility in the Chaplains’ Corps.”  His senior rater placed him in the second block along with nine other officers who were rated “center of mass.”  

In June 1993 the applicant received the evaluation report in question.  His rater gave him a “2” under section IVa(10) (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism) and noted the applicant “needs to acknowledge criticism and act on it.”  The rater also noted that while the applicant performed well during the rating period “he has had some difficulty adjusting to Army life.”  His senior rater placed him in the third block along with another officer resulting in a “below center of mass” rating.  The senior rater commented that in spite of the “limited exposure” the applicant had to the “traditions and customs of Army service he has done well in serving the soldiers and families of the battalion.”

Subsequent to the report in question the applicant’s overall performance evaluation reports indicate that he has been a solid performer.  His senior raters often rated him in the top block.  However, in each of the reports where he was rated in the top block the senior raters’ profiles were such that the top block contained the majority of the officers rated by that particular senior rater, in effect, rendering a center of mass evaluation for the applicant.

According to information contained in his OMPF he has been awarded one Army Achievement Medal and several Army Commendation Medals, although there is no indication he received an award during the period December 1992 through May 1993.  The Army Achievement Medal he received recognized his outstanding achievement during a rotation to the National Training Center in January 1994.

Two of the letters rendered in support of the applicant were dated in 2000 and the other one was dated in 1994.  The 1994 letter notes that the author had known and observed the applicant for the “past year” and saw “him grow in the job and become a wonderful pastor and military chaplain.”  He noted the applicant “performs very well under physical and mental stress and is extremely adaptable to changing situation” and “would recommend [him] for promotion and continued development within the Chaplaincy.”

One of the letters rendered in 2000 notes that he was assigned with the applicant between 1 March 1993 and 4 May 1994 and appears to comment on the applicant’s performance during the 1994 rotation to the National Training Center, the same rotation for which the applicant received an Army Achievement Medal.  He noted that the applicant did not need “more exposure to chaplains with more experience in both field and garrison” as indicated in the evaluation report.  Rather, the author indicated that he merely needed “supervisors willing to assist a new chaplain with the intricacies of the Army culture.”

The second letter, written in 2000, merely recommends the applicant be promoted and that his “leadership as an Army officer” and as a “spiritual director” in Germany “resulted in remarkable growth.”

An October 2000 memorandum from the OSRB (Officer Special Review Board) notes the applicant’s appeal was returned without action because it did not provide sufficient evidence of a clear and convincing manner that the contested report was incorrect, inaccurate or in violation of the intent of the regulation.  The memorandum noted that one of the statements submitted in support of his appeal covered only two months of the applicant’s contested report and one of 

the letters covered a period “outside of the period of the contested report.”  Both of those statements were included with the applicant’s petition to this Board.

Army Regulation 623-105 states that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.

Army Regulation 623-105 also states that the officer evaluation report Redress Program, which includes Commander’s Inquiries, appeals to the OSRB and petitions to this Board, protects the Army's interests and ensures fairness to the officer.  At the same time, it avoids impugning the integrity or judgment of the rating officials without sufficient cause.

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.  While the applicant may not agree with the rating he received during the period in question, there is no evidence which confirms the report was issued in error or that it was unjust.  

2.  He contends that his less than favorable report was the result of his not being accepted as a “Black, Catholic Chaplain with an African accent” however the Board notes that he has not provided any evidence, including the statements submitted in support of his petition, which substantiates that contention.

3.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant received an earlier report from the same rating chain which was much more favorable and tended to support a conclusion that the report in question represented a fair and accurate appraisal of his performance during that period.  The applicant provides no explanation for the differences in the two ratings rendered by the same rating chain.

4.  In view of the fact that there is no basis to expunge the OER from his file, there is no basis to promote the applicant or to present his records to a standby board.

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 that 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

___jh___  ___jtm__  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047963	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010313	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.