ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20160015339


APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his service records to reflect the following: 

* completion of Combat Lifesaver Course
* completion of Recruiting Company Commander Course
* Commanding General’s Gunner Certification (Recruiting Badge)
* change Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for rating period 9 March 1994 through 8 March 1995 to show senior rater “1” block in lieu of “2” block, or documented as such 
* show component as U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in lieu of Regular Army (RA) on his Army Human Resource Command (AHRC) Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points)
* creditable service granted on DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) for Delayed Entry Program (DEP) service from 26 December 1982 to 20 July 1983
* add service computation to DA Form 1506 for service in the Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC)/ Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) from 29 August 1988 to 19 July 1990

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* (2) DA Forms 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes), dated 31 October 1990
* Certificate of Completion of Combat Lifesaver Course, dated 22 April 1998
* Certificate of completion of Recruiting Company Commander Course, dated 
2 October 1998
* Commanding General’s Gunner Certificate, dated 24 May 1999
* DA Form 67-8 (OER) for rating period 9 March 1994 through 8 March 1995
* Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 15 September 2001
* AHRC Form 249-E, as of 21 October 2015
* Extract from Department of Defense (DoD) Financial Management Regulation (FMR) 7000.14-R, Chapter 1 – Basic Pay
* Statements of support for OER Appeal, various dates

FACTS:

1.  The Board will not consider the portion to the applicant's request pertaining to adding the Recruiting Company Commander Course, as this item will be addressed through an administrative correction.

2.  The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) to show creditable service for the time served while in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) from 26 December 1982 to               20 July 1983, and Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC)/ Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) from 29 August 1988 to 19 July 1990.  In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR), the regulation under which this board operates, the Board will not consider an application if it determines the applicant did not exhaust all administrative remedies available.  There is no evidence the applicant submitted his request to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), ATTN: Veteran Services, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122 to have his report changed.  Therefore, this portion of the applicant’s request is premature and will not be acted upon by the Board or further discussed in this record of proceedings. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect: 

* the documents listed in his request are missing from his records, based on his ORB
* he was a USAR Officer on active duty, not a Regular Army Officer
* there were changed in the DoD FMR7000.14R, volume 7A, Chapter 1 [regarding service which is creditable]

4.  The applicant provides: 

   a.  Official documents in support of the following: 
   
* 22 April 1998 – course completion for combat lifesaver course
* 2 October 1998 – certificate of completion for Recruiting Company commander Course
* 24 May 1999 – Commanding General’s Gunner Certificate, issued by U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)
   
   b.  His OER for rating period 9 March 1994 through 8 March 1995, in which the senior rater placed an X in the second box of the SR rater column, in item A of Part VII (Senior Rater) of the DA Form 67-8. 
   
* the senior rater stated the applicant was one of 39 total officer rated in the grade of Captain
* his comments reflect the applicant was a “motivated officer who consistently produce[d] top-notch results;
* […]a leader who has proven can accomplish difficult tasks;
* recommend[ed] high level challenging jobs to capitalize on his unlimited potential”

   c.  Letters to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command from his senior rater, peers, and several command personnel on his behalf as supporting statements for his appeal to change the OER for the aforementioned period to reflect a “top” or 1-block.  Copies of all the letters submitted by the applicant have been provided to the Board for their review and consideration.
   
      (1)  Colonel (COL) L_ R_ W_, who is listed as the senior rater on the DA Form 67-8, stated in his letter, dated 23 January 1997, that: 

* it was his “intent for [the applicant’s] OER to reflect that he should be promoted and have the opportunity to attend Command and General Staff College”
* the applicant’s “performance under today’s conditions and continued inflation would be top block performance”

      (2)  In a letter dated on 7 January 1998, his rater, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) R_ G_ J, stated the applicant performed all of his duties in an outstanding manner, and clearly demonstrated confidence and competence as a company commander.  He continues to state that the applicant’s performance as a company commander was, in his opinion, “clearly indicative of a top block, above center of mass OER.” 
      
   d.  Extract from DoD FMR 7000.14-R, volume 7A, Chapter 1, section 0102 (Creditable Service), wherein the applicant highlights “service which is creditable,” with reference to: 
   
      (1)  Paragraph C, which states Creditable Service Periods include active or inactive service in the Army, USAR, and Army National Guard components without restriction.
      
      (2)  Other Creditable Service (with restrictions noted below and in subparagraph 010202.A) include the following service periods of service:
      
* service terminated by desertion or dishonorable discharge unless the enlistment is fraudulent
* service as a member of the Army ROTC, provided the member has concurrent Selected Reserve (drilling) status for duty performed on or after 1 August 1979
* Service as an enlisted member in the Reserve Component (RC), including Ready Reserve service (inactive and active) under DEP, provided the RC enlistment was entered into before 1 January 1985

5.  A review of the applicant’s service and finance records shows the following: 

* 21 July 1983 – enlisted in the Regular Army 
* 30 May 1986 – honorably released from active duty and transferred to USAR
* 12 June 1986 – transferred to U.S. Army National Guard
* 29 August 1988 – enrolled as a ROTC Scholarship Cadet for 2 years
* 20 July 1990 – appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer
* 29 October 1990 – ordered to active duty upon acceptance of appointment 
* 31 July 2001 – discharged from active duty under other than honorable conditions

6.  The applicant received the contested OER for the rating period 9 March 1994 through 8 March 1995, during which his duties as a Commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment.  The contested OER shows his rater was LTC R_ G_ J_ (Battalion Commander) and his senior rater as COL L_ R_ W_ (Group Commander).

   a.  Part IVa (Professional Competence), the rater placed a “1” for “high degree” of agreement in all the boxes in this section. 
   
   b.  Part Vb (Performance during this rating period), the rater placed an “X” in the “Always Exceeded Requirements” block. 
   
   c.  Part Vd (This Officer’s Potential for Promotion to the Next Higher Grade), the rater placed an “X” in the “Promote Ahead of Contemporaries” block.
   
   d.  Part VIIa (Potential Evaluation), the senior rater placed an “X” in the second box of the “SR” column and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate a DA Form 67-8-1 (OER Support Form) was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review.  There were 39 officers in the applicant’s grade which were senior rated by his senior rater.
   
   e.  Part VIIb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:
   
[The applicant] is a quiet, driving, mature, and motivated officer who consistently produces top-notch results.  He is a leader who has proven he can accomplish difficult tasks.  His company has been tasked with the support of bilateral exercises with Japanese Ground Self-Defense Forces as well as support for such operations as Kobe disaster relief.  He has implemented Total Quality Management while assuring his soldiers are trained and ready.  His organizational ability was notably evident in the execution of his company's mission as well as special inspections and operations.  I have found his judgment and recommendations to be well thought out and dependable.  Recommend high level challenging jobs to capitalize on his unlimited potential.

7.  On 10 March 1995, the applicant’s rater and the applicant signed the contested OER for the period of 9 March 1994 through 8 March 1995.  The senior rater signed the following day, on 11 March 1995. 
   
8.  AR 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system and provided principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS) and DA Form 67-8 (OER).  It also provided guidance on appealing evaluations.

   a,  Paragraph 4-16b (Part VII, Senior Rater) states the senior rater’s evaluation is made my comparing the rated officer’s potential with all other officers of the same grade, or grade grouping.  His or her evaluation is based on the premise that in a representative sample of 100 officers of the same grade or grade grouping (Army-wide), the relative potential of such a sample will approximate a bell-shaped normal distribution pattern.
   
   b.  This distribution pattern is shown in the senior rater's portion of the OER. The pattern means that in a representative sample of 100 officers of the same grade or grade grouping (Army-wide) only one officer can reasonably be expected to be placed in the top block. The probability of having an officer of such potential is 1 in 100.
   
9.  The Army Institute for Professional Development, US Army Training Support Center issued a certificate of completion for the Combat Lifesaver Correspondence Course, completed on 22 April 1998.

10.  The applicant received the USAREC Commanding General’s Gunner Certificate on 24 May 1999.  There is no evidence of this in the applicant’s service records.  

10.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The version of the regulation which provides detailed instructions and source documents for completing 
block 14, Military Education states from ERB/ORB, list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. 

1.  The Board found sufficient evidence to grant relief for the following portions of the applicant’s claim:
      a. based upon the administrative notes found by the analyst of record, the Board recommends the annotation of the applicant’s Recruiting Commander Course on his DD Form 214, and
      b.  the Board found sufficient evidence to add the Combat Lifesaver Course to the applicant’s DD Form 214. 

3.  The Board did not find sufficient evidence of an error or injustice regarding the following portions of the applicant’s claim:
      a.  the OER dated 8 March 1995; the board found that the senior rater, Colonel (COL) L_ R_ W_, did not expressly indicate and did not convince the board that the applicant was one of his top performers.
      b.  AHRC Form 249-E; RA is the appropriate component, and
      c.  regarding the DEP and SMP on the DA Form 1506, the applicant is directed to submit a request for correction to HRC.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:x	:x	:x	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to item 14 of the DD Form 214 ending 31 July 2001: “COMBAT LIFESAVER COURSE, 1 Week, 1998.”

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the OER, the AHRC Form 259-E, and the DA Form 1506 (DEP and SMP)







	 
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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  

The Certificate of Completion for Recruiting Company Commander Course, issued by the Recruiting and Retention School, U.S. Army Soldier Support Institute, on 
2 October 1998 is sufficient to make the following administrative correction to the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending on 31 July 2001 without action by the Board: 

* add to item 14 (Military Education) the entry, "RECRUITING COMPANY COMMANDER CRS, 1998"


REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system and provided principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS).  It also provided guidance regarding redress programs including commander inquiries and appeals for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.  

   a.  The evaluation reports accepted by HQDA for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  
   
   b.  Paragraph 5-32 states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is presumed to—

* be administratively correct
* have been prepared by the proper rating officials
* represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation

   c.  Requests that an accepted report be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored. The following will not be used to alter or withdraw a report; neither will they be included in the OMPF:
   
* statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated officer
* statements from rating officials that they did not intend to rate him or her as they did
* requests that ratings be revised
* statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in recording numerical values or block selection indicating professional competence, performance, or potential

   d.  Therefore, it is imperative that rating officials ensure that these evaluations are accurately recorded on the OER prior to signing that report.  An exception to the above is granted only when:
   
* information which was unknown or unverified when the report was prepared is brought to light or verified
* this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation had it been known or verified when the report was prepared

   e.	Paragraph 4-3 (Performance and potential evaluations) states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the officer corps.  That is, performance is evaluated by considering the results achieved, how they were achieved, and how well the officer complied with professional values.  Potential evaluations will be performance-based assessments of the rated officers of the same grade to perform in positions of greater responsibility and/or higher grades/ranks compared to others of the same rank.

   f.  Paragraph 4-20 states that except to comply with this, no person may require changes be made to an OER.  Members of the rating chain and the personnel service center will point out obvious inconsistencies or errors to the appropriate rating officials. After needed corrections are made, the record copy will be sent to HQDA.

   g.  Paragraph 9-2 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.  

      (1)  The rated Soldier or other interested parties who know the circumstances of a rating may appeal any report that they believe is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of this regulation.  Substantive appeals must be submitted within 5 years of the date of completion of the evaluation.

      (2)  Appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error of an OER, NCOER, or AER will normally be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence.  An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.

	(3)  Appeals alleging bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings or any matter other than administrative error are substantive in nature and will be adjudicated by the DCSPER Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) (para 9-8).  Claims of inaccuracy
of a substantive type pertain to parts Ila and c, IV, Vb, c, d, e, VI, and VII of DA Form 67-8; Parts lie, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of DA Form 67-7; and similar items in other evaluation forms, report enclosures, and OER addenda.  These are generally claims of an inaccurate or an unjust evaluation of performance or potential or claims of bias on the part of the rating officials.

   h.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that —
   
* the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 should not be applied to the report under consideration
* action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice
* clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy
      
   i.  Paragraph 9-9 states a decision to appeal an evaluation should not be made lightly. Before deciding whether or not to appeal, the prospective appellant must analyze his or her own case dispassionately.  The prospective appellant should take note of the following:
   
* pleas for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future value to the Army are rarely successful
* the following will provide limited support at best:

* statements from people who observed the appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances)
* letters of commendation or appreciation for specific but unrelated instances of outstanding performance
* citations for awards, inclusive of the same period 

* Once the decision has been made to appeal an evaluation, the appellant should state succinctly what he or she is appealing and the basis for the appeal
* He or she should state:

* whether the entire report is contested or only a specific part or comment
* the basis for his or her belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an erroneous perception of his or her performance

2.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The version of the regulation provides detailed instructions and source documents for completing the following: 

* block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – list awards and decorations for all periods of service in the priority sequence specified in AR 600-8-22; each entry will be verified by the soldier's records (do not use abbreviations)
* block 14, Military Education: 
* from ERB/ORB, list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the 
DD Form 214
* As an exception to full-time attendance, list Command and General Staff College and Senior Service Colleges completed by correspondence courses
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20160015339
0

10


1