IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220001236 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of the DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 21 May 2018 through 31 October 2018 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 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) * Attachment 1 – Contested OER * Attachment 2 – Annotated List of Inaccuracies * Attachment 3 – Email Messages between Applicant and His Rater * Attachment 4 – Text Messages between Applicant and His Rater * Attachment 5 – DA Form 67-10-1 Covering the Period 24 September 2017 through 20 May 2018 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame 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 his rater, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) , claimed he repeatedly requested to be released from command, which was false. He only asked him once and made it clear he desired to leave command due to critical family matters. 3. He was commissioned as a Regular Army officer in the Armor branch effective 22- December 2008. He was promoted to rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2 effective 22 June 2010 and to the rank/grade of captain/O-3 effective 19 July 2013. 4. He was honorably released from active duty upon completion of required active service on 22 December 2014 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 6 years and 1 day of net active service during this period. 5. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command memorandum (Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army under Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 12201 and 12203), 23 December 2014, announced his appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the USAR in the rank of captain effective 23 December 2014. 6. He received a change-of-rater OER covering the period 21 May 2018 through 31 October 2018 (5 months) on or about 11 July 2019, which addressed his duty performance as a company commander, 322d Support Maintenance Company, Aden Hills, MN. His rater is shown as LTC., Battalion Commander, and his senior rater is shown as Colonel. Brigade Commander. His rater and senior rater digitally signed the OER on 12 June 2019 and 19 June 2019, respectively. He digitally signed the OER on 11 July 2019. The OER shows in: a. Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes), block b (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), he was rated as "Capable" and his rater entered the following comments: "[Applicant] continued to develop as a Company Commander with emphasis towards the basics of supply accountability. He repeatedly requested to be removed from command during this rating period. His company achieved readiness levels at or below at or below the battalion average, but still well above USAR average and the DA [Department of the Army] standard in medical and dental readiness." b. Part IV, block c2 (Presence), his rater entered the following comments: "[Applicant] devoted considerable time to his command given the AGR [Active Guard Reserve] personnel shortages. He was unable to convert time spent into achievements and required numerous staff assistance visits to re-do physical inventory, maintenance readiness, and housekeeping." c. Part IV, block c4 (Leads), his rater entered the following comments: "[Applicant] repeatedly requested to be removed from Command due to time commitments and personal/professional/family balance. He struggled with the basics of Command Supply Discipline Program due to lack of enforcement of his Supply AGR resulting in numerous hours concentrated in this one aspect of his Command." d. Part VI (Senior Rater), block a (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), he was rated as "Highly Qualified." e. Part VI, block c (Comments on Potential), his senior rater entered the following comments: "[Applicant] is a good company grade officer with growth potential. He should seek broadening assignments and additional PME [Professional Military Education] opportunities. Promote with peers." 7. A review of the applicant's AMHRR shows the contested OER is filed in the performance folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 8. His OMPF does not contain any evidence indicating he appealed the OER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command and the Officer Special Review Board. 9. U.S. Army Human Resources Command Orders D-04-108351, 16 April 2021, honorably discharged him from the USAR effective 16 April 2021. 10. The applicant provided: a. attachment 2 that contains the list of inaccuracies he professes are found in his OER (see attachment); b. attachment 3 that contains an email request to his battalion commander to transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve due to critical family matters and other obligations; c. attachment 4 that contains text messages between himself and his battalion commander; and d. attachment 5 that contains a DA Form 67-10-1 covering the period 24 September 2017 through 20 May 2018 that shows his evaluation as a company commander prior to his contested and final OER. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant's contentions, his military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the contested OER was administratively correct and there is insufficient evidence that supports the removal of the form from her OMPF. ? BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 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. 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 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR members will 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 in the record. 3. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. It also provides guidance regarding redress programs, including commander's inquiries and appeals. The regulation provides that: a. Evaluation reports are assessments of how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army Officer or Noncommissioned Officer Corps. Performance will be 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, counseling forms, and as explained in Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). Consideration will be given to the relative experience of the rated officer, the efforts made by the rated officer, and the results that could be reasonably expected given the time and resources available. 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. Assessment of potential will apply to all officers, regardless of their opportunity to be selected for higher positions or grades. b. The senior rater is the senior rating official in the military rating chain or as officially designated by the academic institution. Senior raters use their positions and experience to evaluate the rated Soldier from a broad organizational perspective, military program of instruction, or civilian academic course standards. Senior raters will ensure support forms are provided to all rated Soldiers they senior rate at the beginning of and throughout the respective rating periods; use all reasonable means to become familiar with a rated Soldier's performance; assess the ability of the rated Soldier; ensure that rating officials counsel the rated Soldier individually and throughout the rating period on meeting their objectives and complying with the professional standards of the Army; consider the information on the applicable support forms when evaluating the rated individual; evaluate the rated Soldier's potential relative to their contemporaries; and ensure that all reports, which the senior rater and subordinates write, are complete and provide a realistic evaluation in compliance with procedures established in Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3. c. Each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered. d. The burden of proof rests with the appellant. (1) Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly 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. (2) 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 practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. e. Paragraph 4-7 states an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the 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. 4. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides 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. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states the performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include the ABCMR. Appendix B states the DA Form 67-9 and DA Form 67-10-1 are filed in the performance folder of the Soldier's OMPF. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220001236 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1