AR20140000020

BOARD DATE: 8 May 2014

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140000020

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, in effect, redaction of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) entry on his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 1 March 2001 through 14 February 2002 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER). In the alternative, he request removal of the contested report from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

2. The applicant states that the contested OER is unjust at this time in his career as it reflects an APFT failure that occurred over eleven years ago. He has been twice non-selected for the Colonel Army Promotion List (APL) Board due to derogatory information in his board file.

3. The applicant provides:

* Officer Record Brief (ORB)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) endorsement
* General Officer endorsement, dated 14 November 2013
* OERs for the period 1 March 2001 through 30 September 2013
* Self-authored statement
* 2 statements of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant is currently a lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-5) serving in the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG).

2. The contested OER, during which period the applicant was a major (MAJ/)-4), shows in Part IVc (APFT) that he failed his APFT in January 2002.

3. On 7 July 2003, the contested OER was filed in his record in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System.

4. On 20 January 2006, he was promoted to LTC.

5. The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he contends that he failed his APFT due to a herniated disk in his lower back and that there have been no subsequent issues. Further, he has been placed in positions of greater responsibility to include battalion command, executive officer of a regional support group, and currently as the surface maintenance manager for the state of Louisiana.

6. In addition, he provides two statements of support, one from a general officer and the other from the NGB, which contend the applicant has maintained his physical fitness and he has long-term leadership capabilities for senior positions in the LAARNG. His progression should not be held back due to this issue.

7. There is no indication the applicant requested a Commander’s Inquiry regarding the contested OER or that he appealed it within a 3-year period.

8. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.

a. Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps.

b. Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted 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.

c. Paragraph 6-11a states the burden of proof rests with the appellant to justify deletion or amendment of a report. The appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration, and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant requests redaction of the APFT entry on the contested OER or to remove it completely from his AMHRR.

2. The applicant’s military achievements, leadership, and potential are not in question; however, by his own admission and confirmed by the evidence of record, he failed his APFT in January 2002. Accordingly, the entry in question appears to be factually correct and should not be redacted.

3. Because the entry is not in error or unjust, there is no basis to remove the report.

4. This document is properly filed in the performance section of his AMHRR and there is no error or injustice. Therefore, the requested relief would not be appropriate.

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 that 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) AR20140000020

3

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000020

2

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1