PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            4 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062176

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 DA Form 67-8, Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period from 1 August 1992 through 1 November 1992 be corrected by allowing his senior rater (SR) to amend Part VIIa by checking the top block of the SR profile (Part VIIa).

3.  The applicant states that until recently he was unaware that the contested OER was considered a derogatory report because he was placed below center-of-mass (COM) in the SR profile.  While investigating why he was not selected for lieutenant colonel, the applicant “discovered” that the senior rating on his OER was considered below COM and portrayed him as a substandard officer.  The applicant states that the SR evaluated his performance using incomplete information and rated his performance using unsound guidance from his superior officers resulting in an OER that does not accurately reflect his performance during the rated period and that this evaluation is currently being misunderstood by the Army Boards reviewing it.  

4.  In support of his application, the applicant submitted a letter in his own behalf; a copy of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) findings; a memorandum of support of the OER appeal from a General Officer; a note from his former SR, dated 30 November 1992; a letter from his former SR to correct OER; and the subject OER.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 21 December 1984 and subsequently entered active duty.  He was promoted to the grade of captain on 1 May 1989.  

6.  In November 1992, the applicant received the report in question.  It was a change of rater performance evaluation report covering a total of 4 rated months. His SR placed him in the third block along with ten other officers.  He had rated three officers in the top block and eight officers in the second block.  The SR comments were generally positive, noting that the applicant was “an outstanding officer, a future MI battalion commander and Division G-2, and that he should be schooled and promoted accordingly.”  The OER was not considered an adverse OER and therefore, was not referred to the applicant.

7.  On 30 November 1992, the SR provided the applicant a copy of his OER with an attached note stating, “You are doing an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances.  I only regret that I have been unable to get to know you and the company better.  My COM is block 3 and below.”

8.  The applicant was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 2001 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.

9.  On 28 June 2001, the SR, in a letter of support of the applicant’s appeal, stated, in effect, that he was unaware that placing the applicant in the third block would put him below the SR’s COM and that he would like to change it from “3” to “1” if possible, otherwise he asked that the report be removed completely.  He added that in his second opportunity to evaluate the applicant in the same capacity as a MI company commander for an 8-month period of time, he tried to rectify the original OER.  He concludes by saying the applicant was one of the best company commanders he has ever worked with, a true professional, and that he is requesting help in righting a wrong and correcting a mistake of the past.

10.  On 30 July 2001, the applicant appealed the contested OER to the OSRB.  The OSRB conducted a preliminary review of the OER and returned it without action due to it being more than 5 years since the OER completion date.

11.  The applicant’s complete OMPF through 18 June 2000 was reviewed to determine whether the contested OER reflected his standard duty performance.  The applicant’s duty performance has been consistently above COM with the exception of the contested OER.  His duty performance before and after the contested OER has been exemplary.  Of the 19 ratings received, the applicant was placed in the top block 13 times, in the second block 5 times, and in the third block 1 time.  In all of those ratings, his performance was rated as “always exceeded requirements,” his potential for promotion to the next higher grade was rated as “promote ahead of contemporaries, and his professional competence and ethics was always annotated as “1” (high degree).

12.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  It notes that it is the responsibility of the SR to evaluate a rated officer’s potential relative to his or her contemporaries.  His or her evaluation is based on the premise that in a representative sample of 100 officers of the same grade or grade grouping (Army-wide), the relative potential of such a sample will approximate a bell-shaped normal distribution pattern.  At the time, the regulation also provided the opportunity for SRs to refer adverse reports to rated officers when, in the opinion of the SR, the report contained ratings or comments which were so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the rated officer’s career.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is a career soldier with an exceptionally strong OMPF consisting of solid, slightly above center of mass OER ratings with the exception of the contested report that is below COM.

2.  The SR’s narrative comments called the applicant “outstanding” and a “future MI battalion commander and Division G-2.”  These comments were not consistent with his placement of the applicant in Block #3 of the SR profile.  It is inconceivable that the SR would recommend a below COM officer for battalion command and duty as a Division G-2.

3.  Given the inconsistencies between the SR’s below COM block check, his narrative comments on potential, and the ratings and comments by the rater, the Board concurs with the SR that his profile failed to convey his intent to rate the applicant COM and that the applicant should not be penalized for the SR’s mistake.

4.  Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the SR in this case clearly intended to rate the applicant in the third block; however, it is also just as clear that the SR did not intend for that third block rating to put the applicant below COM.  

5.  The Board determined that the block check in Part VIIa of the contested OER is inconsistent with the SR’s narrative comments, the same type comments used by the SR when placing the applicant in block #1 on the next OER.  Therefore, the Board concludes that a more equitable resolution would be to amend the contested OER by removing the SR’s profile in Part VIIa.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

a.  deleting the SR profile in part VIIa of the contested OER covering the period 1 July 1992 through 1 November 1992, of the individual concerned;

	b.  that an appropriate nonprejudicial statement explaining the absence of the senior rater profile in part VIIa of the contested OER be placed in his records;

c.  removing from his OMPF all documents related to his appeal of the contested OER;

	d.  following administrative implementation of the foregoing, submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel using the criteria of the 2001 Lieutenant Colonel promotion Board; 

	e.  if he is selected for promotion, promoting him and assigning him an appropriate date of rank; and 

	f.  by notifying him if he is not selected for promotion.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

_AAO____  _KYF___  __RWA__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		     _Arthur A. Omartian   _
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062176	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20020404	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	131.1000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.