PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           4 June 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070876

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 a corrected Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 22 May 1999 to 21 May 2000 and signed by the applicant , the rater and the senior rater on 10 July 2000 be substituted for the OER currently in his record.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that, because he was forward deployed to Okinawa, Japan and the group headquarters is Fort Lewis, Washington, he signed a blank OER form so that it could be submitted on time.  His rater and senior rater's drafts got inadvertently signed and submitted.  After they visited him on Okinawa they finalized the OER.  The error was discovered when he reviewed his microfiche in December 2000.  In support of his request he submits memoranda from the Group executive officer, the rater and senior rater.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was a Special Forces major and company commander at the time of the OER in question.  He was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the Fiscal Year 2001 Promotion Board and promoted to LTC on 1 April 2002.

5.  The applicant's rater marked all "Yes's" in Part IV (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism) and checked the "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" block in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation).  His senior rater checked the "Best Qualified" block and indicated that he was in the center of mass (COM) of 37 senior rated officers of that grade.  

6.  The applicant appealed to the Officer Special review Board (OSRB) in January 2001.  The OSRB contacted the following individuals who all agreed to the release of the information:

•	The group military personnel technician reported that he was instructed to process all COM reports and this included the applicant's.  He was not aware that the applicant's OER was supposed to be processed as an above center of mass (ACOM) report.  The Group commander had room in his profile to give the applicant an ACOM rating.

•	The group personnel officer (S1) reported that he was aware of the circumstances surrounding the contested OER.  The commander had directed that all OER be processed when signed, which led to the problem.  The commander may have inadvertently signed the applicant's COM rating or he may have changed his mind.  The fact that the company was deployed so far from the group made everything more difficult.

•	
The Group executive officer was contacted and he confirmed that an administrative error had occurred, that the Group S1 had fouled up by not processing the applicant's OER properly. 

•	The rater affirmed that an administrative error had occurred. He had conferred with the senior rater and they had agreed that an ACOM rating was appropriate.  The rater had had previous problems with the Group S1 over the evaluation reports for two command sergeants major.

•	The senior rater was aware or the situation.  He stated that an administrative error had occurred.  The COM report was a draft that was inadvertently submitted.  He intended to submit an ACOM report.  He confirmed what the Group executive officer had reported, that the admin officer had been directed to destroy the draft COM report and submit a ACOM report on the applicant.

7.  The OSRB reviewed the available evidence, including the words that the senior rater had previously used in COM and ACOM reports and the regulatory requirements and concluded that that applicant had not overcome the presumption of regularity.  His request was denied.

8.  A second appeal was rejected on 2 October 2001 for lack of new evidence.

9.  The supporting memoranda from the Group executive officer, the rater and the senior rater confirm their assertions that an administrative error occurred when the COM report was submitted.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the decision by the OSRB, this Board concludes that there is a preponderance of clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity and that an error has occurred.

2.  The OER currently filed in the applicant's records should be replaced with the one for the same period signed by the applicant, the rater and the senior rater on 10 July 2000.  The documentation relating to his appeals to the OSRB should be expunged from his records.

3.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below will rectify an error.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by expunging the OER for the period 22 May 1999 to 21 May 2000 from the records of the individual concerned and by substituting the one for the same period signed on 10 July 2000. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__jlp____  ___aao_____  _rks__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_   _Jennifer L. Prater_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070876	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020604 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.