PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           22 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999031043

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Member	
	Mr. Ted Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 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 applicant did appear before the Board and was represented by counsel.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

Exhibit A – Working Paper – 12 Problems (handwritten)
Exhibit B - Application for correction of military records
Exhibit C - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any)
Exhibit D - Case Summary
Exhibit E - Live testimony and any evidence introduced during the hearing
FINDINGS:  

1.  The applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), promotion reconsideration for promotion to the rank of major, and reinstatement to active duty with all back pay and allowances. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the OER covering the period from 3 December 1988 to 15 September 1989 is erroneous, unjustly derogatory and should be removed from his records.  He further states that the relationship between himself and his rater was hostile from the outset, that he was informed that he would be the scapegoat for the neglected maintenance situation that existed in the unit, that he was put in charge of officers who were incompetent, and that the supply system was severely disorganized.

4.  The applicant's military records show that he was commissioned as a Regular Army second lieutenant upon graduation from the Military Academy at West Point on 23 May 1984.  He was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 August 1988 and is currently serving in the Washington State Army National Guard in the rank of captain. 

5.  The contested OER is a change of duty OER for the period 3 December 1988 to 15 September 1989 evaluating him as a captain while performing the duties of a squadron maintenance officer in an armored cavalry regiment.

6.  In part IV, under Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, the applicant’s rater gave him “2” ratings under “Possesses capacity to acquire knowledge/grasp concepts”, “Motivates, challenges and develops subordinates”, “Performs under physical and mental stress”, and “Is adaptable to changing situations“.  He gave the applicant “3” ratings under “Displays sound judgment” and “Clear and concise in oral communication.”  The applicant received “1” ratings in the remaining eight areas.  The supporting comments indicate that the applicant displayed difficulty in assimilating required coordination and management concepts, that he had limited success in organizing and guiding subordinates resulting in confusion and underemployment, that intense working conditions like FTX or gunnery degraded his productivity, that his judgment was often disregarded by his superiors, peers, and subordinates, that he had an awkward and melodramatic oral speaking style, and that he was fine and honorable man who excels in all professional ethics.

7.  In part V, under Performance and Potential Evaluation the rater indicated that the applicant “Met requirements” and that he was a fine man who was in over his head in the job.  He further indicated that he needed to develop a maintenance strategy and use his subordinates, unit maintenance sections, and all direct support maintenance assets to sustain the squadron’s operational readiness.  He lacked the mental flexibility, leadership presence and coordination skills to do this to the required level.  This was so despite his total commitment to the job and repeated attempts by his rater to outline the required standard of performance.  The rater recommended that the applicant be promoted with his contemporaries and opined that the applicant could best serve the Army when employed in positions where his great intellectual ability can be maximized – such as writing doctrine, war-gaming or teaching history.

8.  In part VIIa, under senior rater (SR) Potential Evaluation, the SR placed the applicant in the fourth block.  The applicant was the only officer rated.  In part VIIb, the SR commented, in effect, that the applicant worked hard at being the squadron maintenance officer but proved unequal to the task.  Although keenly intelligent, he was unable to provide the leadership needed for a complex organization hitched to a busy training schedule.  He had difficulty in tracking the many resources available to him, prioritizing work effort, and planning for the sustainment of future operations.  He was not able to develop the unit maintenance officers into a cohesive group.  He was able to focus on one maintenance area but others came to a standstill or fell apart in the process.  He was just not the man for the job and it showed.

9.  The OER was considered adverse and as such was referred to the applicant for comment.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf whereas he disagreed with the rater’s assessment of his performance and potential.

10.  The applicant submitted an appeal of the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) along with supporting statements from five co-workers.  The OSRB, after reviewing the supporting statements from his          co-workers, opined that while his co-workers were in positions to observe the applicant from the vantage point approximating that of the rating officials, they did not share the same perspective as that of the rating officials.  The OSRB contacted the rating officials and the rater indicated, in effect, that he was very displeased with the applicant’s performance, that he counseled him on his poor leadership and inability to communicate maintenance priorities to his subordinates.  He further stated that the applicant could not grasp the maintenance concept of “Fix Forward”, that he had great difficulty in managing available maintenance records and assets, that he could not be found when needed the most and that the rater ended up doing many of the applicant’s duties.  He also stated that he formally counseled the applicant and the applicant responded with a written response indicating that he expected the formal counseling, that he knew he had problems in doing the job, and that he had problems living up to his father’s expectations.  The rater further indicated that he discussed the applicant’s situation with the regimental commander and they both agreed that he should be moved from the job.  He also opined that the rating accurately and fairly portrayed the applicant’s performance and potential.

11.  The OSRB also contacted the SR who opined, in effect, that the applicant’s rating was one of the first evaluations he rendered after taking command.  He opined that the applicant had a problem in dealing with people and especially in team-building.  He was always off doing his own thing as opposed to building and nurturing a cohesive and effective maintenance organization.  He was overwhelmed by the many facets of squadron maintenance, coupled with the myriad of different equipment found in a cavalry squadron.  The SR opined that based on his (the applicant’s) poor performance he had no choice but to remove him from the job before the unit’s scheduled rotation to the National Training Center.  He further stated that his evaluation was accurate and fair.

12.  The OSRB concluded that the applicant had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support his contentions that the contested OER was inaccurate or unjust and denied his appeal on 18 November 1992.

13.  The applicant applied to this Board on 30 December 1992 citing essentially the same contentions that he cited in his appeal to the OSRB in addition to the contention that the deficiencies cited in the contested OER were areas in which he had previously been cited as excelling in.  The Board opined that while he had been commended for his intelligence and diligence, he was apparently unable to apply these attributes properly to the existing problems to the point that he could achieve the results/expectations of his rating officials.  The Board also noted the supporting statements and opined that those officials were not privy to the expectations of the rating officials.  The Board unanimously voted to deny his request on 24 March 1993.

14.  At the formal hearing, the applicant and his counsel presented testimony to reiterate the evidence already submitted in support of his case and provided an additional 12-point working paper (Exhibit A) authored by his maintenance warrant officer, which addressed some of the problems that he was encountering as the Regimental Maintenance Officer.  He stated that he initially started as the Regimental assistant S-3 and the move to be the Regimental maintenance officer was considered a step up or a promotion.  However, he did not seek the job nor did he consider maintenance his forte’; but more something he worked vigorously to be good at.  He further stated that he inherited a disaster and that he was the fourth maintenance officer in a 1-year period of time.  He went on to state that he had an adversarial relationship with his support elements and that his rater could resolve issues with them in minutes that he himself could not resolve in hours.  However, after intervention by the rater, the rater would berate him for not being able to accomplish simple tasks.  The applicant further explained that the rater was considered a fast-mover and was very intimidating; therefore, he was able to get things done that others could not accomplish.  He went on to state that he experienced a shortage of qualified personnel and repair parts in addition to the poor maintenance support and his rater did nothing to help alleviate the situation but chose instead to micro-manage his operation.  He continued by stating that his performance was not properly depicted in the contested OER because shortly after he was relieved his unit went to the National Training Center and because of the changes he had put in place, the unit did quite well and was successful in its deployment.  Given the short amount of time between when he was relieved and when the unit was deployed, it is not feasible to believe that the maintenance problems could have been fixed in such a short amount of time.  

15.  Army Regulation 623-105, in effect at the time, serves as the authority for the preparation and submission of OER’s.  It provides in pertinent part, 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.  The burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.
 
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.  Inasmuch as the Board, much like a court, is not an investigative body, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to present evidence, witnesses, and testimony to convince the Board that the contested OER did not represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation and that it should be removed from his OMPF.

2.  The basis for the applicant’s appeal was primarily that he inherited a disaster, that he was the fourth such maintenance officer in a 1-year period, that his performance was not properly depicted in the contested OER, and that his rater used him as a scapegoat to cover-up for his own shortcomings. 

3.  The Board has reviewed the supporting statements submitted by the applicant with his appeal and agrees that the individuals were in positions to know the maintenance posture of the unit; however, the Board does not agree that they were aware of the expectations of the rating officials nor were they privy to the counselings the applicant received from his rating officials or their expectations of the applicant as it pertained to his responsibilities.

4.  The Board also notes that while the applicant has focused his appeal on the deplorable state of maintenance in his unit at the time, the primary focus of the contested OER was his ineffectual leadership, his inability to prioritize his work, and his inability to develop his subordinates into a cohesive work force.  While the maintenance may have been poor, the poor rating he received was in areas that are considered common and essential to all commissioned officers; the ability to lead, manage and coordinate the efforts of subordinates.

5.  The applicant’s contention that his rater used him as a scapegoat for the poor maintenance posture of the unit appears to be without merit.  The Board notes that the senior rater also noted the applicant’s shortcomings as a leader and manager and had his rating chain wanted to make him the scapegoat, they could have relieved him for cause.  It is apparent from the language of the report that they recognized that he was a hard worker and that he simply was not up to the task at hand and chose to move him to another position.  This is further supported by the applicant’s testimony that he was the fourth maintenance officer in a year and his failure to show that any of the other officers received similar evaluations or failed in the job for similar reasons.

6.  The applicant’s contention that he had incompetent subordinates also appears to be without merit.  As a commissioned officer and a leader, he had the responsibility to mentor and counsel those subordinates who were not meeting his expectations and take appropriate steps to either bring them up to standards, or eliminate them from the service and request replacements.  He has provided no evidence to show that they were not meeting his expectations or that he took steps to resolve the problem.

7.  Additionally, given that his successor was successful, the applicant’s claim that there was inadequate preparation time to effectively resolve the maintenance problem prior to deploying to the National Training Center is questionable, it is reasonable to presume that the successor exhibited the necessary organizational skills required to prioritize the tasks and personnel to accomplish the mission or at the very least to meet the expectations of the rating chain.

8.  While the Board recognizes that units such as the applicant’s spend a lot of time training and that such training takes a toll on the equipment, the primary issue in this case appears to be whether or not the applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of his rating officials the ability to lead and manage the tasks associated with his position.  It is apparent by the success of the unit in its training rotation that the maintenance in his unit was acceptable enough to sustain and successfully complete a major training exercise; however, it is not apparent to the Board that his rating officials were unjust in their assessment of his ability to lead and manage his personnel and the responsibilities associated with his position.  In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to remove the report from his records.

9.  The Board notes that it is common for officers to be tasked to serve in many different capacities and in most cases do an admirable job of learning new skills and demonstrating their ability to manage personnel under varied conditions.  The Board also recognizes that not every officer will do well in every job; however, it is the responsibility of rating officials to identify the strengths and weaknesses and to counsel the rated officers on their shortcomings and to document those shortcomings when the rated officers does not make improvements in those areas.  By the applicant’s own admission, maintenance was not his forte’ and he worked hard to be good at it; however, it appears that in doing so he failed to demonstrate the organizational skills required of officers to prioritize the tasks at hand.

10.  In the OSRB’s review of the applicant’s appeal, they contacted the rating officials for additional information since the applicant had provided third party statements in support of his appeal.  The Board does not find it unusual or particularly prejudicial that the OSRB did not contact the individuals who provided the supporting statements.  The rating officials had provided their assessment of the applicant’s performance and potential in the form of the contested OER.  Once additional information was provided by the third party sources, it is only logical that the OSRB would seek to determine if in light of the statements if the rating officials wanted to change their evaluation or provide additional clarification.  The Board does not find this to be an unreasonable way for the OSRB to resolve any issues it may have in regards to an appeal in which new evidence is presented.

11.  Promotion boards do not disclose the reasons for selection or nonselection and the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the files reviewed by a promotion board.  While the Board cannot determine whether or not the contested OER was the resultant cause of his nonselection for promotion to the rank of major, the Board is aware that in the drawdown that is occurring throughout the Department and the Armed Forces, many very qualified officers are not being selected for promotion due to the limited number of resources/positions available.  While this is unfortunate, such nonselection does not necessarily constitute and error or injustice on the part of the Department.

12.  The Board also notes that by the applicant’s own admission, his rater, prior to becoming the squadron executive officer, served as the regimental operations officer for a year prior and that he (the applicant) served initially as an assistant operations officer prior to being given a more responsible position as the maintenance officer.  Accordingly, it appears that he was familiar with his rater while in his previous position and while his rater had recently assumed the position as the executive officer, the fact that the chain of command had had a complete turnover, his rater was a member of the unit with whom he reasonably should have had previous experience with.  Accordingly, the Board finds that his reasoning that a wholesale change of command contributed to his dilemma to be without merit.   

13.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

RECOMMENDATION:  

That the application for correction of military records submitted by the individual concerned and remanded to the Board be denied.  

DISSENT:  Two members (Mr. Vick and Ms. Fletcher) agreed with the applicant’s contention that the maintenance posture of the unit was much better than he was given credit for and recommended that the Board approve the applicant’s request to remove the contested OER from his records.

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031043	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  193	111.0000	
2.  310	129.0000	
3.  192	110.0300	
4.		
5.		
6.