PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  28 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001058644

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

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, in effect, that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 950603 – 960414 be removed from his record or that the rater’s section on the OER Part Vd (This Officer’s Potential for Promotion to the Next Higher Grade) be changed from “Promote with Contemporaries” to “Promote Ahead of Contemporaries.”

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that during the rating period 950603 – 960414, for which he received a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) OER as the Assistant V Corps Chaplain in Heidelberg, Germany, he had a change of duty from 17 December 1995 through 28 March 1996 when he was reassigned as United States Army Europe (USAREUR) Forward Chaplain in Taszar, Hungary.  He states that he should have been given a change of duty OER but was not, which constitutes a substantive error in the 950603 – 960414 OER.  He further states that the rater selected “Promote with Contemporaries” without justification, as a result of conflict with the applicant, presenting an unjust and inaccurate representation of his performance and demonstrated potential.  He provides a copy of an OER appeal with supporting documentation to include supporting statements from two general officers, two colonels, a lieutenant colonel, a sergeant major, and a sergeant first class, and an award of a Meritorious Service Medal for the period in question.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he, a lieutenant colonel chaplain, was assigned to Headquarters, V Corps, in Heidelberg, Germany, on 27 June 1995, as the Assistant Corps Chaplain.  His rater was the Deputy Corps Chaplain and his senior rater was the Corps Chaplain.  According to his Officer Record Brief, he was reassigned as USAREUR Forward Chaplain in Kaposvar, Hungary, on 30 November 1995.  The USAREUR Forward was deployed in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.  He returned to Heidleberg and his Assistant Corps Chaplain job on or about 28 March 1996.  On 15 April 1996, he was reassigned through a PCS move to the 100th Area Support Group, Grafenwoehr, Germany, as the Deputy Chaplain.

5.  He received a PCS OER for the period 950603 – 960414, which included a period 950603 – 950626 for PCS leave and travel.  He received from his rater, “1” ratings in professional competence (Part IIIa), complimentary comments in professional ethics (Part IIIb), performance rated as “Always Exceeded Requirements” with complimentary comments (Part Vb&c), and promotion potential rated as “Promote with Contemporaries” (Part Vd).  His senior rater rated the applicant’s potential in the second block, center-of-mass, with complimentary comments (Part VII).

6.  The applicant appealed the OER to the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) on three successive occasions between 30 September 2000 and 

approximately 15 March 2001.  The first two appeals were based on a claim of injustice in the rater’s potential rating of “Promote with Contemporaries” which the applicant contended was the result of a personality conflict with the rater and not a true measure of his potential.  On both appeals, the President of the OSRB returned the appeals without action, finding insufficient evidence to support the contention.  The applicant’s third appeal include new evidence, additional statements of support, and a new issue, substantive error concerning the change of duty that occurred during the rating period.  The President of the OSRB again returned the appeal without action indicating that the new evidence did not warrant accepting the appeal for adjudication.  The applicant was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

7.  The Chief of the Appeals and Corrections Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), provided an advisory opinion that the OER for the period 950603 – 960414 should be removed from the official record and the period declared nonrated.  The opinion is given that a change of duty OER should have been given to the applicant when his duties changed from V Corps Assistant Corps Chaplain to USAREUR Forward Chaplain, in accordance with Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 5-4a.  This constitutes a substantive error in the OER in question.  Correction of the ratings by obtaining the change of duty OER is not now possible as it is over the 2 1/2 year time limit established by PERSCOM to prepare new OERs.  The applicant concurs with this opinion.

8.  According to Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 5-4a, a report is mandatory when the rated officer has a change of principal duty, even though the rater remains the same.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s OER for the period 950603 – 960414 contains a substantive error in that he was given a change of duty during the period but not given the required change of duty OER.  As such, the OER for the period 950603 – 960414 is invalid and should be removed from the record and the period declared nonrated time.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned by:

	a.  removing from the record the OER for the period 950603 – 960414; and

	b.  showing that the rating period 950603 – 960414 is nonrated time; and

c.  placing an adequate explanation in his Official Military Personnel File to show that this nonrated period was not caused by any fault on his part, to ensure that he will not be prejudiced thereby in any future personnel actions or board selection considerations.

BOARD VOTE:  

__js___  ___dh___  __rd____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___John N. Slone___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058644	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010828	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111 – Efficiency Reporting System	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.