MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068027

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		                          Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison 		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  Through counsel, that the applicant’s relief for cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER) be altered or deleted (the applicant’s counsel only states that he is appealing the contested OER), and that the applicant be given promotion reconsideration to lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  Through counsel, that the applicant was given the duties of two positions, he was given more work than he could be expected to handle, he was given untrained personnel, he was given inadequate facilities and equipment, and he was given no guidance or assistance by his superiors.  Counsel gives specific examples to support his contentions.  Counsel specifically responds to the allegation made on the applicant’s contested OER that his conduct or lack thereof put troops in danger, contending that the applicant had actually brought the proposed troop movement to his rater’s attention (his rater didn’t “discover” it as is professed), and the policy which the proposal would have violated was not a published or well known policy.  Counsel outlines the contributions made by the applicant while he was assigned to the position from which he was relieved, and counsel concludes that while there was certainly a deficiency in the command, that deficiency was with the applicant’s rater and senior rater.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits statements from an officer who personally observed the applicant’s duty performance during the period in question, and who replaced the applicant when he was relieved and an officer who had previously held the position from which the applicant was relieved.  In that statement the officer said “It must be emphasized that the [Chief of Operations] COO’s position is an extremely demanding and high profile assignment.  Depending on the internal qualities of the person occupying the COO assignment, existing office interpersonal relationships, and local command climate – the job can become a physically fatiguing, mentally exhausting, and emotionally draining experience.  At times, the multiple tasks and requirements may seem quite overwhelming to constantly, effectively and efficiently manage on a continuous and sustained basis.”

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

That while serving as a major on active duty in the Regular Army, on 19 June 1999, the applicant was assigned as the COO for the Joint Military Commission (JMC), Multinational Division (North), Stabilization Force 6; a special staff section organized under the Dayton Peace Accords to ensure compliance and facilitate military operations within the three Entity Armed Forces (EAF) of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

On 29 September 1999 the applicant was relieved for cause from his position as the COO.  In the relief for cause OER he was given, his rater stated, “[The applicant’s] duty performance has been substandard.  He routinely failed to follow guidance, follow-up staff actions, or conduct staff coordination.  He routinely failed to meet suspenses.  He lacks both the professional knowledge and expertise expected from a field grade officer.  He was unable to plan and execute missions satisfactorily.  He failed to provide required or adequate initial counseling to his subordinates in a timely manner.  I instructed him to develop a section long range calendar, training plan, and weekly training schedule.  He consistently failed to provide me with these items.  Although I spent many hours rehearsing with [the applicant] and coaching him, he could not successfully brief the [commanding general] during the morning updates.  I removed him from all coverage in the division operations center.  Since that time, he has routinely failed to ensure that we have this coverage.  He failed to properly supervise the JMC Training and Movement Section.  Its mission is a key aspect of our operations and requires heavy oversight by the operations officer.  His failure to provide quality control of Entity Armed Forces Training and Movement requirements resulted in the inadvertent approval of a permanent Entity Armed Forces move related to the Brcko demilitarization process.  Final disposition of Brcko military forces affects the balance of power between the Entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Because of this, the Commander, SFOR, has retained approval authority for all Entity Armed Forces permanent moves from Brcko.  [The applicant] was aware of these issues.  Had our JMC Chief not caught this error and stopped the move, our division would have faced serious negative repercussions.  I have lost confidence in [the applicant’s] ability to perform in this job.  I do not believe he has potential for promotion.”

In this OER, the applicant was rated as “No” in Duty:  Fulfills professional, legal and moral obligations, one of the seven Army Values.  The applicant was rated as “No” for 12 of the 16 categories under Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions.  His rater rated the applicant as Unsatisfactory performance, do not promote.  The applicant’s senior rater rated the applicant as Do not promote, and placed him in the block “Below center of mass do not retain,” in his senior rater profile.

On 1 October 1999, the applicant submitted a written objection to a command-directed mental health evaluation.  The applicant stated that the reason for his referral was his rater’s report to medical personnel that he (the applicant), “had difficulty following through with tasks, that [he] was distractible, that [he] missed deadlines, and that [he] was not functioning cognitively as a [major].”

On 5 October 1999, the applicant responded to his referred OER.  In that response the applicant outlined his accomplishments during the time he was assigned to the position for which he was given the contested OER, and argues the validity of many of the negative comments made by his rater on that OER.

On 7 October 1999, the applicant requested a commander’s inquiry into his relief for cause OER.  In this request, the applicant stated that he had the hardest job in the JMC, and he was only aware of one problem with his job performance, which was his briefing ability.  The applicant then charged that his rater “displays poor leadership skills . . . he is verbally abusive and often loses his temper – kicking chairs and desks, punching panels, and throwing objects in the presence of everyone in the JMC.”  The applicant charged that his senior rater frequently focused upon projects outside the JMC mission, and that he was unavailable to provide guidance to the officers in the JMC because he frequently traveled to “restaurants in Sarajevo, saunas in Doboj, and fairs in Derventa.”  He also charged that his senior rater disregarded aviation safety and force protection rules and made inappropriate statements (statements which could be considered sexual harassment). 

On 22 October 1999, the commander’s inquiry was completed.  That investigation found that, “There is no indication of bias on the part of the rater or senior rater.  The rater and senior rater portions of the OER are supported by fact and accurate . . .”  The officer conducting the commander’s inquiry concluded that, “The OER accurately describes [the applicant’s] performance of duty during the rating period.”

On 12 May 2000, the applicant appealed his relief for cause OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).  In support of his appeal he submits statements from the Deputy Commander in Chief of the Southern Command, and from the Commander of the 10th Mountain Division.  The Commander of the 10th Mountain Division stated that he had observed the applicant’s performance firsthand while he was in the position from which he was relieved.  The general states that the applicant, “ . . . demonstrated an adequate grasp of the EAF major training events and movements, and he possessed a strong working knowledge of the Dayton Peace Accords and the SFOR Commander’s Instructions to the Parties.  [The applicant] assumed the duties in a JMC Section that was initially disorganized.  This fact, coupled with our transfer of authority from the outgoing Division and pace of operations, created a pressure-packed atmosphere.  While he did not excel, I believe that both the relief and the block checked for potential in Part VIIb [of the OER] were excessive.  It is my judgment, based on daily observations over several months in a deployed environment, that he may well have flourished in a different section.  He did not get that opportunity.”  

The OSRB contacted the rater of the applicant during the time covered by the contested OER.  His rater said in part, “ . . . the applicant had problems with the oversight of his Training and Movement Section, which was in itself a real leadership challenge but one that was successfully overcome by the appellant’s successor . . . the JMC section where they worked was a challenge but the appellant just did not meet the challenges . . . both he and the SR offered help, guidance, assistance, and training; however, the appellant was just unable to meet the challenges of the job and their expectations . . . the appellant was an officer who was a nice person.  His performance just did not measure up to the challenges of the job or the rating officials’ expectations of an experienced field grade officer.”  

The OSRB contacted the applicant’s senior rater during the time covered by the contested OER.  His senior rater said in part, “ . . . the appellant could handle one task at a time adequately . . . the appellant was selected for this position at his request because he was the senior major who was deployed to the JMC . . . the appellant was in a demanding job dealing with the implementation of the Dayton Accords, it was a nontraditional staff job but one that a Major with appellant’s experience should have been able to handle.  The job itself required hard work, detailed planning and preparation, and an ability to coordinate, integrate and manage multiple support functions in a multinational environment 
. . . the appellant knew these requirements before he was placed into the duty position . . . the appellant was just not able to handle the myriad of tasks required by the job . . . the major who subsequently replaced the appellant did an excellent job in that same duty position with the same personnel and resources.”

The OSRB denied the applicant’s appeal.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he was given more work than he could be expected to handle, he was given untrained personnel, he was given inadequate facilities and equipment, and he was given no guidance or assistance by his superiors, are somewhat supported by the statements from his predecessor and replacement.

2.  However, a field grade officer is expected to be able to overcome obstacles.  The applicant’s position at the time of the contested OER, as described by the applicant’s senior rater, was an extremely demanding and difficult one.  The applicant’s senior rater also said that the applicant was aware of the difficulty and complexity of the job prior to his assignment to the position, so he had requested that job knowing fully what he was getting into.  A successful tour in that position would have been looked upon very favorably by promotion and professional development selection boards.  But a very challenging position has the potential downside of failure.  Not everyone has the skills and abilities to overcome a multitude of diverse problems.  It is apparent that the applicant did not have those skills and abilities.

3.  The applicant only held his position for two months.  If the situation was totally untenable, the officers who held that position before and after the applicant would be expected to also have been relieved due to their inability to perform all of the tasks which were expected of them.  The Board finds no evidence of any such trend.

4.  As such, the Board must conclude that the applicant’s OER accurately reflects his performance of duty and his potential for promotion.  This conclusion is in keeping with the Commander’s Inquiry conducted on the contested OER and the OSRB case summary.

5.  While the statements provided show that the applicant is performing his current duties in a very satisfactory manner, that is not an issue in this case.  The issue is whether the OER he was given when he had the “hard job” accurately reflects his performance at that time.

6.  Since there is no basis for removing or altering the applicant’s relief for cause OER, there is no basis for granting his request for promotion reconsideration.

7.  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

___jhl ___  ___rwa__  ___wtm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068027	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
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.	111.04	
2.	131.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.