ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


		
		BOARD DATE:  23 September 2019

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180016066

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  correction of his DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate 
(O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 
20 September 2013 through 19 September 2014 by removing the "X" in the "Referred" 
block in Part IId (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) and 
changing the "Within Standard" entry from "NO" to "YES" in Part IVa (Performance 
Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes).

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552)
*	DD Form 550 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male)), dated 18 May 2014
*	DA Form 67-10-1 covering the period 20 September 2013 through 19 September 
2014

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, 
U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  His OER covering the period 20 September 2013 through 19 September 2014 
was marked "Referred."  This was an administrative error.

	b.  His rater entered "NO" in Part IVa regarding him being within weight standards 
according to the body mass index.  However, his rater entered the comment, "SM 
[service member] body fat content was measured at 13%.  PASS."  His rater 
misunderstood the question regarding being within weight standards prior to the tape 
measurement, because he has never failed his height and weight standards.  This was 
an administrative error.

	c.  His senior rater rated him as "Most Qualified."


3.  His records contain two DA Forms 5500, signed and approved by his supervisors, 
dated 30 October 2012 and 22 April 2013, that show his actual body fat content as 
17 percent, which was under the 22 percent authorized body fat for his height, weight, 
and age.

4.  He provided a copy of his DA Form 5500, dated 18 May 2014, signed and approved 
by his supervisor, which shows his actual body fat content as 13 percent, which was 
under the 22 percent authorized body fat for his height, weight, and age.

5.  The applicant provided his OER covering the period 20 September 2013 through 
19 September 2014 that shows in:

	a.  Part II (Authentication), the rater signed the OER on 17 October 2014 and both 
the senior rater and applicant signed the OER on 1 November 2014;

	b.  Part IId (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?), the rater 
placed an "X" in the "Yes" box and the applicant did not place an "X" in either the "Yes, 
comments are attached" or the "No" box;

	c.  Part IVa (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and 
Attributes), the rater entered:

*	Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Pass/Fail/Profile – "PASS"
*	Date – 18 May 2014
*	Height – 68
*	Weight – 210
*	Within Standard? – "NO"
*	Comments required for "Failed" APFT, or "Profile" when it precludes 
performance of duty, and "No" for Army Weight Standards? – "SM [service 
member] body fat content was measured at 13%.  PASS."

	d.  In Part IVb (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as:), the rater entered 
"PROFICIENT" and commented:  "[Applicant] showed high potential during that rating 
period and should be promoted to the next grade when eligible.  As a young leader, 
[Applicant] demonstrated to me that he was a very capable officer that [sic] Soldiers 
looked up to.  [Applicant] was highly motivated and clearly enjoyed being a part of a 
learning environment and took it to the next level by becoming a subject matter expert in 
casualty evacuations in order to serve as a lead instructor during Annual Training 
FY2014 [Fiscal Year 2014]"; and

	e.  In Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), the 
senior rater entered "MOST QUALIFIED."

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and 
evidence in the records.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of 
service, the DA Forms 5500 in his record, the rater comments regarding body-fat 
content and the remaining comments on the OER.  The Board considered the 
instruction for completion of evaluation reports when individuals exceed screening table 
weight but pass body fat content standards.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, 
the Board determined that an error occurred and a correction was appropriate.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was warranted.



BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

: X	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by correction of the 
applicant’s DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer 
Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 20 September 2013 through 
19 September 2014 by removing the "X" in the "Referred" block in Part IId (This is a 
referred report, do you wish to make comments?) and changing the "Within Standard" 
entry from "NO" to "YES" in Part IVa (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, 
Competencies, and Attributes).

	 
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):  not applicable.










REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure 
to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be 
in the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), effective 1 April 2014, 
prescribed the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms 
that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 2-12 stated the rater will verify the rated Soldier's APFT results, if 
taken, height and weight data (including compliance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The 
Army Body Composition Program)) for entry on the evaluation report.  The rater must 
provide comments for an APFT failure, a "NO" entry annotated after height and weight 
indicating noncompliance with Army Regulation 600-9, or the absence of APFT or 
height and weight data (refer to Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation 
Reporting System)).

	b.  Paragraph 2-14c(3) stated senior raters will, whenever possible, for referred 
OERs, ensure the rated officer is given an opportunity to review the completed OER 
and provide comments for consideration before authentication and departure from the 
unit or organization.  The senior rater will ensure completion of all necessary referral 
actions and submission of the appropriate documents to Headquarters, Department of 
the Army (HQDA), in as timely a manner as practicable.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a(3)(c) (Rater) stated that for lieutenant colonels (LTCs) and 
below, Part IV will be an assessment of the rated officer's performance during the rating 
period.  This performance is evaluated in terms of the majority of officers in the 
population.  If the performance assessment is consistent with the majority of officers in 
that grade the rater will place an "X" in the "PROFICIENT" box.  If the rated officer's 
performance exceeds that of the majority of officers in the rater's population, the rater 
will place an "X" in the "EXCELS" box.  (The intent is for the rater to use this box to 
identify the upper third of officers for each rank).

	c.  Paragraph 3-7a(3)(c)1 stated Part IVb will be an assessment of the rated officer's 
overall performance when compared with all other officers of the same rank the rater 
has previously rated or currently has in their population.

	d.  Paragraph 3-9a(3)(b)1a stated that if the potential assessment is consistent with 
the majority of officers in that grade the senior rater will place an "X" in the "HIGHLY 
QUALIFIED" box.  If the rated officer's potential exceeds that of the majority of officers 
in the senior rater's population, the senior rater will place an "X" in the "MOST 
QUALIFIED" box.  The intent is for the senior rater to use this box to identify the upper-
third of officers for each rank.  In order to maintain a credible profile, the senior rater 
must have less than 50 percent of the ratings of a rank in the "MOST QUALIFIED" top 
box.  Fifty percent or more in the top box will result in a "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" label.  If 
the rated officer's potential is adequate, but beneath the majority of officers in the senior 
rater's population for that grade and the senior rater believes the rated officer should be 
retained for further development, the senior rater will place an "X" in the "QUALIFIED" 
box.  If the rated officer's potential is below the majority of officers in the senior rater's 
population for that grade and the senior rater does not believe the rated officer should 
be retained on active duty, the senior rater will place an "X" in the "UNQUALIFIED" box.

	e.  Paragraph 4-7 stated an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official 
record of a Soldier 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 rating officials at the time of preparation.  An appeal will be supported by 
substantiated evidence.  An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, 
inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.  The 
determination regarding adequacy of evidence may be made by HQDA Evaluation 
Appeals Branch.  Appeals based on administrative error only will be adjudicated by 
HQDA Evaluation Appeals Branch.  Alleged bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, 
or any matter other than administrative error are substantive in nature and will be 
adjudicated by the Army Special Review Board.  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.  Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) stated:

		(1)  Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report 
"THRU" date.  Failure to submit an appeal within this time would require the appellant to 
submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR.  The Army Special Review Board will not 
accept appeals over 3 years old or appeals from Soldiers who are no longer serving on 
active duty or as part of the USAR or Army National Guard.

		(2)  Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the time that has 
elapsed since the period of the evaluation report and a decision will be made in view of 
the regulation in effect at the time the evaluation report was rendered.  The likelihood of 
successfully appealing an evaluation report diminishes, as a rule, with the passage of 
time.  Prompt submission is recommended.

	i.  Paragraph 4-11 stated to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant 
must produce evidence that established clearly and convincingly that the presumption of 
regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action was 
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.  The burden of proof rests with the 
applicant.

3.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), effective 
31 March 2014, prescribed the policy and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting 
System, including officer, noncommissioned officer academic evaluation reports 
focused on the assessment of performance and potential.  It included policy statements, 
operating tasks, and rules in support of operating tasks.

	a.  Paragraph 2-4 stated Part II is for authentication by the rated officer and rating 
officials after the company grade plate has been completed at the end of the rating 
period.  To facilitate the rated officer in signing the OER after authentication by the 
rating officials, the OER can be signed and dated by each individual in the rating chain 
up to 14 days prior to the "THRU" date; however, the OER cannot be forwarded to 
HQDA until the "THRU" date of the OER.

	b.  Table 2-2 stated that if the referral of an OER is required, the senior rater will 
place an "X" in the appropriate box in Part IId of the OER (before he or she has signed 
and dated the OER).  The OER will then be provided to the rated officer for placement 
of an "X" in the appropriate box in Part IId and signature or validation of administrative 
data ("YES" if the rated officer will provide comments as an enclosure to the OER or 
"NO" if the rated officer will not provide comments).

	c.  Paragraph 2-6 stated Part IV provides an assessment of a rated officer's 
professionalism, performance, and adherence to attributes and core leader 
competencies (including the APFT and the height and weight entries), focusing on what 
a leader is and what a leader does.

		(1)  In the spaces after "HEIGHT and WEIGHT," the rater will enter the rated 
officer's height and weight, respectively, as of the unit's last record weigh-in.  If there is 
no unit weigh-in during the period covered by the DA Form 67-10-1, the rater will enter 
the officer's height and weight as of the "THRU" date of the DA Form 67-10-1.  An entry 
of "YES" or "NO" will also be placed in the space next to the weight to indicate 
compliance or noncompliance with Army Regulation 600-9.

		(2)  For an officer who exceeds the screening table weight, a "YES" entry may 
only be entered after a body composition measurement has been completed and found 
to be within body composition standards, as determined by tape measurement and the 
use of DA Form 5500 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male)) or DA Form 5501 (Body Fat 
Content Worksheet (Female)).

	d.  Paragraph 2-8 stated the senior rater makes an assessment of the rated officer's 
overall potential when compared with all other officers of the same rank the senior rater 
has previously rated or currently has in his or her population and to ensure maximum 
rating flexibility when rating populations change or to preclude a "MOST QUALIFIED" 
top box check from inadvertently profiling as a "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" rating, senior 
raters need to maintain a "cushion" in the number of "MOST QUALIFIED" ratings given 
rather than impending to the line at less than 50 percent.  This is best accomplished by 
limiting the "MOST QUALIFIED" top box to no more than one-third of all ratings given 
for officers of a given rank.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (continued)	AR20180016066


8

1