BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011825 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____x___ __x______ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011825 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. BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011825 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 removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 15 April through 22 November 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states he requests the removal of this contested OER based on new evidence attached to his submission. The contents of the OER are untrue and unjust for the following reasons: a. As the enclosed statistical analysis proves to >99.9% certainty, his day-to-day supervisor, Colonel (COL) M, was biased against him, and was therefore unable to give an accurate assessment of his performance to his rating chain. Since graduating from residency in 2005, he has received nine top-block OERs when working for supervisors other than COL M. In contrast, every single time he worked for COL M, he received a center of mass (COM) evaluation. Statistical analysis shows the odds that COL M was rating him impartially are <0.01%. Whether gender-based, racial or merely personal, her bias against him is irrefutable, and for this reason alone, the OER should be removed. b. Beyond mere bias, however, he has statements from three field grade officers familiar with the climate in the Pathology Department at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fort Bragg, NC, attesting to the fact that: * as Department Chief and his day-to-day supervisor, COL M actively participated in malicious gossip about him with others in the Department, and he was COL M's "target" * COL M created a hostile work environment for him by repeatedly trumping up baseless allegations in an effort to ruin his career * the female officer who finally helped her do that was subsequently investigated for filing many baseless actions against male Soldiers c. The OER is based on mere opinion from COL M and those in her circle of gossip. He firmly believes COL M and her subordinates abused the system to prevent him from becoming Department Chief. Not surprisingly, their statements are strikingly similar and even used the exact same language, or words to the effect that he should not be put in a leadership position. But those opinions are both baseless and directly refuted by fact. He has held numerous leadership positions and done well in them. He served as: * Deputy Commander for Clinical Services (DCCS) at a Medical Department Activity (an O-6 billet) * Deputy Director for the Congressionally-Directed Medical Research Program (also O-6 billet) * Department Chief at a Medical Center (also O-6 billet) * Department Chief at lbn Sina Hospital in Iraq * Officer in Charge (OIC) of the 44th Pathology Team in Iraq * OIC of a research station in the Congo * Chief Resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center * Battalion Fire Direction Chief, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division d. While serving in the above positions, he received highly favorable evaluations from such prominent Officers as: Lieutenant General W (the current Surgeon General) when she was the Womack Commander; Brigadier General De___ Do___, the former Commander at William Beaumont Army Medical Center (WBAMC); COL Mi__ He___ (the Commander of Walter Reed) when he was WBAMC Commander; COL Je___ Da____, Acting Commander of the Medical Research and Materiel Command; COL Er___ Ed____,281st Combat Support Hospital Commander in Baghdad; and COL Br__ Bu____ (former Joint Special Operations Command Surgeon) when he was DCCS at Womack. e. It is patently unjust that the collective judgment and favorable evaluations of his performance by so many prominent officers can be outweighed by the opinion of a single supervisor whose bias is proven to be >99.9%. Many of the above officers recognize the fundamental unfairness of this situation and have recommended that he seek to have the OER removed. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he can serve at the O-6 level and it is fundamentally unjust that he cannot be promoted to that rank because of the biased opinion of one individual that is directly refuted by 26 years of honorable service and favorable evaluations. 3. The applicant provides: * test analysis of his ratings * Three character reference letters * Memorandum: subject Termination of Elimination Processing CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Regular Army Medical Corps commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 20 May 2000. 2. He completed various training courses, served in a variety of stateside and overseas assignments, including the Congo, Iraq, Honduras, and Panama, and he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 20 May 2010. 3. He was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC, between July 2005 and December 2011, with intermittent assignments to other locations. At the time this OER was rendered, he was assigned to Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, as the Medical Director, Community Based Clinic Laboratories. 4. In June 2011, as a result of a commander's inquiry, an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to conduct an informal investigation into allegations of the applicant's unprofessional conduct. Specifically: * whether the applicant had an unprofessional discussion with subordinates * whether the applicant had an unprofessional relationship with subordinates * if he failed to adhere to military customs and courtesies * whether he wore a baseball hat, in uniform, while indoors, and when confronted by a subordinate, he stated "I am in charge, I will wear what I want" * whether he was drunk while on call * whether he made comments suggesting that OERs are meaningless and that he is capable and willing to alter the OERs of subordinates to promote his agenda 5. The IO submitted his findings on 30 June 2011. The IO found/recommended: a. The applicant frequently made comments (not graphic or derogatory) about the physical attractiveness of women who passed by. His behavior itself undermined his credibility and authority as an officer. He reported now that he is aware, he would desist from such behavior. The IO recommended counseling the applicant regarding the propriety of a senior officer's comments in the presence of junior officers. b. The applicant was married but living separately from his spouse at the time and in the process of getting a divorce. During the time the alleged relationship occurred, he was not assigned to his present department and did not have supervisory authority over the individual he was alleged to have had a relationship with. He admitted to going out on a date with a junior female officer, but there was no evidence to support the existence of a relationship. The IO recommended the applicant be reminded of his obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety. c. There was no specific evidence of deviation from customs and courtesies provided. He admitted coming to work in civilian clothes occasionally, which could create an unprofessional appearance and undermine credibility. The IO recommended counseling the applicant regarding adherence to the standards. d. The applicant admitted to wearing a baseball hat, in uniform, while indoors, for about 15 minutes, but it was related to sports and he removed it when asked. The IO recommended counseling the applicant regarding adherence to standards and uniform policy. e. There was no evidence he was drunk while on call. No action was indicated based on inconclusiveness of the evidence. f. There was no evidence he made comments suggesting that OERs are meaningless and that he was capable and willing to alter the OERs of subordinates to promote his agenda. The IO recommended counseling the applicant. 6. In the course of the investigation, COL M provided extensive documentation of prior conflicts involving the applicant within the department, specifically between her and the applicant, and with further allegations regarding a possible approach by the applicant toward a female enlisted student in July 2009. This created the perception of an appearance of impropriety by the applicant among his coworkers and it had bearing on their unfavorable perception of him. The applicant also provided extensive documentation alleging technical deviations from standards allowed under COL M's supervision within the department, as well as allegations of extensive discrimination against men, on a systematic basis, over a sustained timeframe, abetted by the actions or inactions of COL M. The IO recommended administrative actions in the form of counseling for the applicant and for The Office of The Surgeon General to provide a suitable replacement for COL M, who was pending reassignment. The IO further recommended the applicant be offered overall supportive counseling by the chaplain or behavioral health officers. 7. Also on 30 June 2011, the Deputy Center Judge Advocate conducted a legal review of the commander's inquiry and found it legally sufficient and within the parameters of the commander's appointment memorandum. The IO's findings were consistent with statements and other evidence. 8. The applicant received the contested OER, a permanent change of station (PCS) OER, covering 7 months of rated time from 15 April through 22 November 2011, for his duties as the Medical Director, Community Based Clinic Laboratories, WAMC. His rater was COL Fr__ L. Ch___, the Deputy Director of Clinical Services, and his senior rater was COL Br__ T. Ca__, the Hospital Commander. The OER shows in: a. Part IId, an "X" is placed next to the question "This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?" and another "X" is placed next to the answer "No," indicating the applicant did not desire to attach comments. b. Part IVa (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for "Respect" and an "X" in the "Yes" blocks for the other 6 values. Additionally, in Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" blocks for "Interpersonal" and "Building" skills. c. Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation- Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and his/her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" block and entered the following rating in Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance): Good clinical performance punctuated by an unfortunate breakdown in leadership. As a surgical pathologist, [applicant] appropriately signed out 219 surgical, 72 gynecologic cytology, and six non-gynecologic cytology specimens and one bone marrow with no major discrepancies or quality of care issues. [Applicant] served as the primary laboratory service representative for WAMC's six outlying clinics in department meetings and expertly managed the opening of laboratory services in two newly established community based medical homes. While serving as Acting Department Chief, [applicant] demonstrated behavior which demanded further investigation. [Applicant] made public comments that created the perception amongst his subordinates of a hostile work environment, and in addition he violated the Medical Center’s uniform policy. These actions undermined [applicant's] ability to effectively lead subordinates. [Applicant] has not initiated a Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback in the last three years. d. Part Vc (Comment on Potential for Promotion), his rater stated, "[Applicant] has good potential for future improvement and continued Army service in a new work environment. Consider for promotion to COL." e. Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in "Fully Qualified," in Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) his senior rater indicated "Below Center of Mass-Retain," and in Part VIIc, his senior rater stated: Satisfactory and competent clinical performance. [Applicant] has been effective as a laboratory specialist and clinical pathologist. However, he failed to consistently perform at the field grade officer level, lead by example, and demonstrate a full commitment to the Army Values. He lost the trust, confidence, and respect of his subordinates through an unsatisfactory approach to interpersonal leadership and a disregard for Medical Center policies. [Applicant] does possess the potential to succeed in future clinical leadership assignments with a focused change in his behavior and demonstrated commitment to the Army Values. Promote when indicated. 9. The OER was signed by his rater on 17 November 2011, his senior rater on 23 November 2011, and by the applicant on 12 December 2011. It was posted to his records at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), on 13 December 2011. 10. A letter of referral, dated 17 November 2011, shows the OER was referred to the applicant in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 3-43. The applicant was advised of his right to submit comments if desired. There is no indication he provided any comments. 11. The applicant was reassigned to Fort Bliss, TX, around December 2011, and Fort Irwin, CA, around June 2015. While at Fort Bliss, during April 2013, the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), initiated elimination action against the applicant. The applicant's chain of command (immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders) recommended retention. 12. On 30 May 2013, the CG, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX, reviewed the elimination action and recommended the "Show Cause" action be terminated and the applicant be retained. The CG based his recommendation on the fact that, with the exception of this one breakdown in leadership, it had been reported to him the applicant had served admirably for 17 years. He had the full support of his chain of command and he overcame his mistake by providing exemplary performance. 13. On 3 September 2013, the CG, HRC, decided to terminate the elimination action and ordered the flagging action removed. He warned the applicant that although this action was terminated, this did not preclude the underlying misconduct, or substandard performance, evidenced in his OMPF from being used in future administrative actions. 14. There is no evidence the applicant requested a commander's inquiry regarding the OER, or appealed the contested OER to the Officer Special Review Board within 3 years of the through date. 15. He provides: a. A self-authored analysis comparing his supervisors and ratings. He states if the two supervisor groups (COL M vs All Others) are rated equally and without bias, then the probability of observing the pattern of OERs he describes is 6 out of 10,000. Therefore, he concludes that he has either randomly observed an exceedingly unlikely event, or more likely, the two Supervisor Groups are not rating equally. That is, the odds that COL M’s evaluations were biased is >99.9%. b. Character reference letter, dated 27 January 2014, from Major M who states she is writing this letter for the purpose of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant regarding his experience at WAMC. She served as the OIC of the clinical laboratory at WAMC from May 2003 through December 2005 and worked directly with the applicant on a daily basis. (1) There was a toxic culture in the lab that was driven by a tightknit group of tenured civilian employees, particularly the civilian technical supervisors. These individuals - all women - created and perpetuated a culture of rumor, gossip, and manipulation. Many of these supervisors had been working in civil service for decades. The environment they created required new leaders to cautiously maneuver around them in order to perform their duties. Meanwhile, the civilians did their best to exclude or prevent involvement of key military leaders in their business. The women who engaged in this manipulative and unprofessional conduct would gossip about targeted individuals with the intent of undermining their authority. She personally overheard these women whispering about the laboratory manager and his supposed incompetence. They also whispered about her and her inexperience, and in the applicant's case, about his looks, his marriage, and his "arrogance." They used gossip and rumor to create a hostile environment for their targets, often males or officers who simply tried to get them to do their jobs. These women were careful to keep close ranks and discuss these things only among themselves, but they were able to recruit several female officers into their circle, among them then-LTC M. (2) Prior to the applicant's arrival, LTC M had been the Medical Director of Clinical Pathology. Despite bearing overall responsibility for the lab, she was not engaged in the daily operations of the lab and neglected key duties of the Medical Director, including quality control, proficiency testing, instrument validation, and reviewing unusual occurrences. Instead, she trusted the civilian supervisors completely with the understanding that they would keep her informed on an as-needed basis. At the same time, she developed an inappropriately close relationship with them and she recalls many hushed, "closed door" conversations. In her observation, these conversations were used to manipulate LTC M to skew her perspective to meet their agenda and to gain her support. She continued this relationship with the civilian supervisors after she had been promoted to Department Chief which ultimately undermined her (the author's) effectiveness as OIC, as well as the authority and effectiveness of the laboratory manager and the applicant. (3) In July 2005, the applicant was appointed Medical Director of the Clinical Lab, replacing LTC M, who had been promoted to Department Chief. He immediately took charge of his responsibilities and began requesting quality control records and other documentation from the civilian supervisors in order to familiarize himself with the lab operations. His request was not well-received. During his review of the records, he uncovered numerous egregious failures to review quality controls by the previous Medical Director, LTC M, who then became very defensive herself. When he attempted to correct the problems, he was resisted by the civilian supervisors and LTC M gave him no support. (4) At this point, he had become a "target" and she began to observe a marked increase in the negative comments, criticisms and rumors regarding him. COL M, the civilian supervisors, and other senior females began gossiping about his "arrogance," speculating about his personal relationship with his wife, and criticizing him behind his back. In a matter of months, rumors began to circulate about him having inappropriate relationships with women other than his wife. She personally witnessed several of these conversations, many of which were carried out by COL M. However, she never witnessed or overheard anything from the applicant which would support those claims. In her opinion, his demeanor as a confident and competent pathologist was inappropriately judged as "arrogance" by people who were simply not used to being held to a standard. She never witnessed any behavior from the applicant that would support a claim that he is malicious. During their longstanding professional relationship, she and the applicant worked together at Fort Bragg, on deployment in Iraq, at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and at Fort Bliss. At no time did she see him conduct himself in a manner that was inappropriate or unprofessional. (5) She read the last OER he received at Fort Bragg. Based on the lack of substance in the narrative and the fact that he was a target of the toxic, gossip-ridden culture in the lab at Fort Bragg, she believes the OER was essentially in reprisal for the problems he uncovered in the past and to prevent him from becoming Department Chief when COL. M retired. She believes his experience at Fort Bragg was unfortunate. He is a superior senior leader who has provided support and encouragement to her throughout her career. She would gladly work with him in the future. c. Character reference letter, dated 27 January 2014, from LTC D who states he is writing to document his view of the events that transpired at the WAMC laboratory during the time the applicant was assigned to the lab in June 2005 until he was released from active duty in June 2007. During that timeframe, he (the author) served as a staff pathologist and as the Director of Cytopathology. COL M was the chief of the department. He had a close working relationship with both the applicant and COL M, who was his immediate supervisor. (1) COL M had been the medical director of clinical pathology prior to the arrival of the applicant. The responsibilities of the medical director include supervision of the overall quality of the test results produced by the laboratory. Quality in the laboratory is typically monitored by daily quality control (e.g. comparing results of tests with known samples) and also through proficiency testing (e.g. performing tests on samples submitted from testing agencies and comparing the results with other laboratories). (2) Upon the applicant's arrival, he assumed the responsibilities of the medical director of the clinical pathology, replacing COL M who had been promoted to chief of the department. After assuming the responsibilities of medical director, the applicant began evaluating the quality assurance procedures in the laboratory. He found that basic quality control procedures were being ignored by the technical supervisors. Since he believed the quality assurance to be substandard, it was incumbent upon him to address his concerns to the chief of the overall laboratory, COL M, which he did. The inadequacies in the laboratory were reported up the chain of command and caused COL M professional embarrassment because, as the prior clinical laboratory medical director, she was responsible for the lack of competent oversight during her tenure. Subsequent to these events, COL M's actions toward the applicant were highly questionable. (3) During the time that she was working in the laboratory, she initiated an Equal Opportunity (EO) investigation into the conduct of the applicant, ostensibly for inappropriate behavior in the work environment, despite the lack of any specific allegation related to his behavior. She created a hostile work environment for the applicant by directing the investigation toward him despite the lack of specific allegations and the fact that, as overall laboratory supervisor, she was responsible for the overall work environment in the department. (4) He (the author) subsequently left the laboratory (and the active military) in June 2007 for civilian employment, but he remained in the Reserve and he is presently a LTC in the Selected Reserve. The applicant recently showed him the OER that he received while he was under her supervision. He read the evaluation and based on his personal observations during that time, he believes it is without merit, defamatory, and motivated by a personal vendetta directed towards the applicant, due to COL M's professional embarrassment over the quality management during her tenure as medical director of the WAMC clinical laboratory. For this reason, the author believes the OER should be expunged from the applicant’s record. He concludes that the applicant is one of the finest officers he has worked with in his over 20 years of military service encompassing numerous active duty and reserve assignments, including several overseas deployments. The only evaluations that are not exemplary are the ones that COL M completed. To allow his career to be adversely effected by his courage to identify and correct deficiencies within his assigned area of responsibility would be reprehensible. d. Character reference letter, dated 27 January 2014, from LTC J, Laboratory Manager, Department of Pathology and Area Lab Services, who states he is writing on behalf of the applicant. (1) The applicant is the Assistant Chief of the Department of Pathology and he has consistently demonstrated ethical and professional work behavior throughout the entire duration of the time spent working with him. Because of his consistent work ethic, he has come to know him as an individual whom he can always rely on to complete any mission timely and efficiently. He is a highly respected physician with exceptional leadership skills. He has the remarkable capacity to remain calm during periods of high operational tempo. His character is always above reproach and he is clearly one of the top officers in the department. His unsurpassed motivation and desire to improve processes within the department, WRAMC, and his personal performance, has established an outstanding, rare example of effective, comprehensive leadership, and inspiring example to all department Soldiers to emulate. (2) While he (the author) was not present during the events underlying the applicant's referred OER from Fort Bragg, he is extremely familiar with the individual who initiated the underlying investigation and action against him. A former female drill sergeant and a Medical Service Corps officer that he worked with when he was the Executive Officer for the 9th Theater Army Medical Laboratory, this individual has a reputation that precedes her in an extremely negative way. During the time that he worked with that individual, she attempted to initiate and was successful at initiating several actions against fellow male Soldiers in their command. Based on his knowledge of those actions, all were completely without merit and his professional opinion is that she was fixated on purposely instigating issues with other male Soldiers. It is his understanding that as a result of her actions in those cases, she was subsequently investigated due to filing actions against so many male Soldiers. (3) Given his direct personal experience working with both of these officers, he believes the applicant was likely one of the unfortunate targets of this officer. His experiences in dealing with the applicant, combined with his personal observations of that female officer led him to conclude that she fabricated allegations against the applicant in an attempt to damage his professional career. The applicant is a must-retain officer and valuable asset to any organization. He is one of the Army's top officers in his field and he would not hesitate to recommend him for retention and promotion. He would fight to serve with him in any future assignment. If he is not allowed to continue his dedicated service, it would sadly he a blatant travesty of justice. REFERENCES: 1. AR 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 DA Forms 67-9 will be filed in the performance section of the OMPF. 2. AR 623-3, in effect at the time (August 2007), prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 1-8 states an officer's performance of duty is an extremely important factor in determining a leader’s potential. Duty performance is judged by how well a Soldier performs assigned tasks and how well each meets Army professional values uniquely established for each respective corps. b. Paragraph 1-9 states evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer corps. Performance is evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms and counseling forms. c. Paragraph 1-11 (Commander’s Inquiry) states when it is brought to the attention of a commander that a report rendered by a subordinate or by a member of a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of this regulation, that commander will conduct an inquiry into the matter. The commander’s inquiry will be confined to matters related to the clarity of the evaluation report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the evaluation with policies and procedures established by HQDA, and the conduct of the rated Soldier and members of the rating chain. The official does not have the authority to direct that an evaluation be changed; command influence may not be used to alter the honest evaluation of a rated Soldier by a rating official. The results of the commander’s inquiry, however, may be provided to the rating chain and the rated Soldier at the appointing official’s discretion. d. Paragraph 3-39 states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. e. Paragraph 6-8 (Timelines) states because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated individual that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an OER “THRU” date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time may be excused only if the appellant provides exceptional justification to warrant this exception. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the report and a decision will be made in view of the regulation in effect at the time the report was rendered. The likelihood of successfully appealing a report diminishes, as a rule, with the passage of time. Prompt submission is, therefore, recommended. f. Paragraph 6-11 (Burden of proof and type of evidence) states the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. For a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant’s performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant’s performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practical, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered. The results of a commander’s inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. 3. AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-15b(3), states a Board of Inquiry may not recommend removal of documents such as OERs, Article 15s, and memoranda of reprimand from an officer's OMPF. The board recommendations are limited to either retention (with or without reassignment) or elimination. 4. AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and to ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. Chapter 7 contains guidance on removal of unfavorable information from official personnel files. It states appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information are to be directed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board. It further states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. It also provides guidance for appeals for transfer of OMPF entries and states that these appeals may be based on proof that the documents in question have served their intended purpose and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 5. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. DISCUSSION: 1. The OER contains a listing of the Army values and dimensions of the Army’s leadership doctrine that define professionalism for the Army officer and apply across all grades, positions, branches, and specialties. They are needed to maintain trust, confidence, and the qualities of leadership and management needed to sustain an effective officer corps. These values and leader attributes/skills/actions are used to emphasize and reinforce professionalism. They are considered in the evaluation of the performance of all officers. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant's chain of command conducted an informal investigation into various allegations of the applicant's conduct while assigned to WMAC. It appears that the cumulative effects of several incidents involving the applicant were the creation of a poor command/leadership climate within the applicant's department and inter-personal conflicts between the applicant and COL M. 3. However, COL M was not a rating official. Additionally, even if she provided negative input regarding the applicant's performance, the applicant's rater (COL Ch___, Deputy Director of Clinical Services) and senior rater (COL Ca__, Hospital Commander) were not bound by her input. In other words, there does not seem to be evidence to show his rater and senior rater did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating him in a fair and unbiased manner. 4. The statistical analysis provided by the applicant is noted. However, there is no regulatory requirement for the senior rater to rate any officer within a population as an above center of mass (ACOM). The senior rater profile, as the name indicates, belongs to the senior rater. The senior rater makes an assessment of the rated officer’s potential in comparison with all officers of the same grade. This assessment is based on officers the senior rater has senior rated or has currently in his/her senior rater population. There is no correlation between the rating previously assigned by COL M and the rating assigned by other senior raters. Each OER stands alone and in each case, the senior rater is under no obligation to senior rate any officers as ACOM. 5. One of the steps in the redress system is the referral process, including a Soldier’s opportunity to comment on the referred OER. The record reflects the applicant was provided an opportunity to comment on the referred OER to his rating official and he chose not to do so. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that shows he requested a commander’s inquiry or that he appealed the contested OER to the Special Review Board within the established time limit. 6. The applicant has provided statements from officers familiar with his duty performance and with the behavior and performance of COL M. Each of the statements expresses support for the applicant and indicates COL M did not treat him fairly. The statements do not address the degree to which COL M may have influenced the contested OER, if at all. 7. By regulation, to support removal or amendment of a report, there must be evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that this presumption of regularity should not be applied and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011825 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011825 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2