IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005982 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to add the following DA Forms 67-8 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) and DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) in two separate applications: * DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995 * DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996 * DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997 * DA Form 67-9 covering the period 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001 * DA Form 67-9 covering the period 17 July 2011 through 16 August 2012 * DA Form 67-9 covering the period 17 August 2012 through 16 August 2013 2. The applicant states: a. Two OERs covering the periods 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 which evaluated her performance as the Commander, 417th Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) Detachment, rated and senior rated by a major general, should be entered into her permanent service record. b. She and the major general consulted with the OER section at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) regarding the major general acting as her rater and senior rater for the OERs in question. Both OERs were submitted as soon as they were given permission. The OERs have not yet been entered into her permanent record. Email and voice messages to the OER section at HRC have not been answered for more than 8 months. c. She has served as the Commander of the 417th IMA Detachment since April 2007. The 417th IMA Detachment is one of the only IMA detachments left in the U.S. Army Reserve. They are a points only, no pay unit, and meet on a weekly basis. They have been co-located with the 75th Division (Battle Command Training) in Houston, Texas, for about 35 years and they have a memorandum of agreement with that command. d. In January 2014, she contacted the major general about serving as her OER rater and senior rater. A general officer in the rank of major general can serve as both rating officials for an individual OER. For the previous 6 years, the commanding general of the 75th Division served as her rater/senior rater. The commanding general during the 2 years in question traveled so much that arranging for an OER did not work out. She contacted the major general who belonged to the 417th IMA Detachment before he was selected as a general officer. Belonging to the 417th IMA Detachment for many years, he was familiar with the unit's mission, her work ethic, and was a fitting choice to be her rater. e. In February 2014, the major general contacted the OER section at HRC for guidance about the OERs. At first, the major general was told not to sign them. HRC asked for documentation on the activities of the 417th IMA Detachment. In May 2014, the major general was given permission by the HRC OER section to sign both OERs. Both OERs were signed by the major general and forwarded to HRC. The OERs were never entered into her permanent record. f. Four OERs covering the periods 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995, 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996, 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997, and 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001 were improperly removed from her permanent service record and should be restored immediately. Her OER history spreadsheet shows these OERs were entered into her permanent file by HRC officials. These OERs are complete and vetted in all respects and are only missing because they were improperly removed. They do not need to be processed. g. The improper action most likely occurred due to a lack of attention to unit names when reviewing "THRU" dates for duplications. The 417th IMA Detachment and the 1st U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Linguist Unit had the same "THRU" dates because HRC-St. Louis attached her to each of them on the same date. h. She does not have a copy of the OER covering the period 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001. After its original submission, it was resubmitted in June 2008. It was resubmitted again, but it was not placed in her permanent record. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Forms 67-9 covering the periods 17 July 2011 through 16 August 2012 and 17 August 2012 through 16 August 2013 * email * OER summary sheet * DA Forms 67-8 covering the periods 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995, 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996, and 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was born on 9 March 1947. She was appointed as a captain in the USAR, Medical Corps, on 15 March 1993. 2. Her OMPF on the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) contains a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995 which shows the rater as Colonel (COL) R____ and the senior rater as COL N____. 3. She provided a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995 which shows the rater as COL G____ and the senior rater as COL C____. This form is not filed in her OMPF. 4. Her OMPF contains a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996 which shows the rater as Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) K____ and the senior rater as COL G____. 5. She provided a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996 which shows the rater as LTC H____ and the senior rater as COL H____. This form is not filed in her OMPF. 6. Her OMPF contains a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997 which shows the rater as COL C____ and the senior rater as COL H____. 7. She provided a DA Form 67-8 covering the period 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997 which shows the rater as LTC K____ and the senior rater as COL G____. This form is not filed in her OMPF. 8. The available records do not contain an OER covering the period 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001. 9. She was promoted to COL effective 29 November 2001. 10. Her OMPF contains an OER covering the period 11 July 2011 through 10 July 2012. 11. She provided a DA Form 67-9 covering the period 17 July 2011 through 16 August 2012. This OER is not filed in her OMPF. 12. Her OMPF contains an OER covering the period 11 July 2012 through 10 July 2013. 13. She provided a DA Form 67-9 covering the period 17 August 2012 through 16 August 2013. This OER is not filed in her OMPF. 14. On 31 March 2015, she was reassigned to the Retired Reserve due to reaching maximum age. 15. On 1 April 2015, she was placed on the Retired List. 16. She provided an OER summary which shows the four OERs covering the periods 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995, 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996, 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997, and 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001 listed on it. The OER summary also shows an OER covering the period 13 August 2001 through 24 August 2001. There is no OER covering the preceding period 21 December 2000 through 12 August 2001. 17. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored. The regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that: a. the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and b. action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. 18. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF. It states the purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, administrative remarks, and any other personnel actions. OERs are required for filing in iPERMS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's OMPF contains OERs for the periods covering 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995, 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996, and 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997. 2. The applicant contends the OERs she provided with different raters and senior raters for the periods covering 21 December 1994 through 20 December 1995, 21 December 1995 through 20 December 1996, and 21 December 1996 through 20 December 1997 were removed from her OMPF and should be restored immediately. However, the governing regulation states requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored. 3. The OERs for the above-referenced periods filed in her OMPF appear to have been prepared by the properly-designated rating officials and are properly filed in the applicant's military records in accordance with the governing regulation. There is no evidence that they were improperly prepared or filed. Further, these OERs are not unfavorable. 4. Her contention that the OER she provided for the period covering 21 December 2000 through 20 December 2001 was removed from her OMPF was also noted. However, the OER summary shows an OER covering the period 13 August 2001 through 24 August 2001 is filed in her OMPF. There is no OER covering the period 21 December 2000 through 12 August 2001. 5. Her request to add OERs covering the periods 17 July 2011 through 16 August 2012 and 17 August 2012 through 16 August 2013 was carefully considered. However, the evidence shows she received OERs covering this time frame (11 July 2011 through 10 July 2012 and 11 July 2012 through 10 July 2013) which are filed in her OMPF. 6. An OER accepted for filing in the OMPF is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials when it was prepared. 7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005982 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005982 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1