SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  9 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000049019

	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.  A quorum was present during the further consideration and deliberation.  The findings appearing in proceedings dated 9 February 2000 were affirmed.  The following additional findings, conclusions, and recommendation were adopted by the Board.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty  		Analyst	

	The Board convened at the call of the Director on the above date to reconsider the conclusions and recommendation appearing in proceedings dated 14 January 1998.

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	

	The applicant and counsel, if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following additional evidence:

	Exhibit

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:

10.  That in the original proceedings of this applicant’s case, AR1999024819, the Board directed that the OER letter input provided by the CAAT Team Chief and the memorandum provided by the rater amending his OER comments, be filed in the applicant’s OMPF along with the corrected OER for the period of 29 January 1995 to 28 January 1996.  Subsequently, the Board and the applicant were notified by the Officer Promotions Branch, PERSCOM, that filing these documents with the corrected OER could have a negative effect on selection boards.  Consequently, the applicant requested that these documents not be filed in his OMPF and be removed from the OMPF if already filed.

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES: 

4.  In correcting an error and injustice in the applicant’s OER, the Board unintentionally created for the applicant an inequity in the applicant’s record by including the OER letter of input and the rater’s memorandum requesting correction of the OER.  Since these two documents had very positive things to say about the applicant and explained why the OER was corrected, the Board considered that they would be of value in the applicant’s OMPF.  On the later advice from the Officer Promotion Branch, it was learned that such filing would not be of benefit and may, in fact, be a deficit to the applicant.  Consequently, these two documents should be expunged from the applicant’s OMPF.

5.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned by voiding subparagraph c. of the original case recommendation and expunging from his record the OER letter of input and the rater’s memorandum requesting correction of the OER.

BOARD VOTE:

__mm___  __ea___  __cg___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Mark D. Manning___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049019	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.134	Removal/Deletion of Record	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.