MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  20 September 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001058059

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 2 December 1981 through 1 December 1982 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or moved to the restricted portion of his OMPF.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was never counseled on his substandard performance and he had no idea that his rater thought so poorly of him.

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

At the time of the contested OER the applicant was serving on active duty as a communications platoon leader in the rank of first lieutenant.  It was the first OER of his active duty career and was a 12-month, annual report.  The rater was the applicant’s company commander and the senior rater (SR) was the battalion commander.

In Part IV, Professionalism, the rater provided six “3” ratings, two “2” ratings, and six “1” ratings for professional competence.  The rater noted in his narrative comments that the applicant did not seek responsibility, required detailed guidance and supervision, must set higher standards for his platoon, and needed to improve his self discipline to become a more effective leader.

In the rater’s performance block of Part V, he marked the box for “Met Requirements.”  In the narrative portion for performance, the rater noted that the applicant had been mostly ineffective in providing leadership and had failed to plan and direct an effective training program for his platoon.  The rater also mentioned that he had counseled the applicant on numerous occasions concerning his shortcomings.  In the potential for promotion section, the rater checked the box for “Do Not Promote.”  The rater noted the applicant had limited potential for increased responsibility.

Comments provided by the SR on the applicant’s potential noted that he had not satisfactorily progressed and required extraordinary supervision.  The SR placed him in the fifth block of his profile with 50 other lieutenant ratings ranked above him and one below him in the seventh block.  The SR also noted that he reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal comments prior to forwarding the OER.

The report was referred to the applicant for possible comment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the adverse OER and provided a rebuttal for consideration.  The applicant’s rebuttal addressed each low rated area in detail, providing an example of his duty performance to show that the low ratings were not accurate.  He believed that his rater was providing little or no guidance and then, only at the last minute.  He also noted that he had never received even one counseling statement from his rater and his rater did not recommend that his promotion to first lieutenant be delayed even though he spent the majority of his platoon leader time as a second lieutenant.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever requested a commander’s inquiry or appealed the contested OER to the Department.  He was promoted to the rank of captain effective 1 June 1985.  He was voluntarily separated from active duty in the rank of captain effective 31 July 1992 under a special separation program with monetary incentives.

Effective 1 August 1992 he accepted an Army Reserve appointment in the rank of captain.  He was promoted to the rank of major in the Army Reserve effective 1 April 1994.  Effective 6 July 1995 the applicant was voluntarily assigned to a Reserve unit.  He was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1999 and 2000 Reserve Component Selection Board.  He was discharged effective 1 September 2001 based on his two nonselections for promotion and having completed 20 years of commissioned service.

Army Regulation 623-105, in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provided that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation stated that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.

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.  The applicant has submitted no evidence of substantive inaccuracy of the contested report from anyone in a vantage point equivalent to that of members of the rating chain.

2.  The applicant has not shown that the contested report contains any serious administrative deficiencies or was not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.

3.  The contested report appears to represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of his demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing it from his OMPF.

4.  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

5.  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

__rw___  ___pm___  ___kl__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058059	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010920	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.0005	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.