Department of the Army. Pamphlet –3. Personnel Evaluation. Evaluation. Reporting. System. Headquarters. Department of the Army. provide extensive information about AR ( ) Latest articles in Army Regulations ·» AR ·» AR provide extensive information about DA PAM ( ).
|Published (Last):||10 October 2006|
|PDF File Size:||16.32 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Hinds and Colonel Linda G. Davis’ allegations center around her movement from one Reserve unit to another unit and then back again, and the “personal animus” she claims Lieutenant Colonel Hinds and her friend Colonel Cupit harbored against her.
Harvey is substituted as the defendant in this action in place of Brownlee. Davis further claims that she missed twelve unit training assemblies “UTAs” held while she was out on the hardship discharge she never sought. Davis is concerned that her lack of promotion and the twelve UTAs that she missed while out on hardship discharge will negatively affect the amount of her retirement pay and benefits, which will be based in part upon the number of retirement points Davis earned and the highest rank she achieved.
Except for changing Davis’ rank from captain to major, each of the review boards denied Davis relief. Davis now seeks this court’s review of the ABCMR’s final decision denying her appeal, claiming that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Townes has referred them to me for report and recommendation. Having reviewed the administrative record and considered the submissions of the parties, I respectfully recommend that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and that plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment be denied.
WalkerF. The OERS “largely determines the quality of the officer corps, the selection of future Army leaders, and the course of each officer’s career.
The primary function of the OERS is to provide information for use as a “basis for personnel actions,” including promotion, elimination, retention in grade and assignment, and its secondary function is to “encourage officer professional development and enhance mission accomplishment. See CharetteF. The “evaluation process starts at the beginning of the rating period” when “the rated officer and rater have a face-to-face discussion of duties and objectives.
The purpose of the meeting is to “develop a duty description for the rated officer and major performance objectives for him or her to accomplish during the rating period. A DA Form is “used as a worksheet to record this discussion. At the conclusion of the rating period, a rater and a senior rater prepare an OER for the rated officer. The rater should be the officer “most familiar” with the rated officer’s day-to-day performance for at least 90 calendar days during the rating period, or, with respect to Reserve officers like Davis, calendar days during the rating period.
The rater is usually the rated officer’s immediate supervisor. The senior rater is the senior official in the rated officer’s “rating chain” and is charged with evaluating the rated officer from a “broad organizational perspective.
A rating chain should “correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of command and supervision within an organization” and “ties the rated officer’s performance to a specific senior-subordinate relationship” in order to “allow for the proper counseling to develop. Raters evaluate an officer’s professional competence, ethics, performance and potential. The rater also provides written comments describing specific aspects of the rated officer’s performance, including the rated officer’s duty description, objectives and contributions, and may focus on “what ought to happen to the rated officer in the future, such as assignments and education.
AR 623-105 Officer Evaluation Reporting System
The senior rater evaluates the rated officer’s potential in comparison to other officers of the same rank. This comparison is “based on the premise that in a representative sample of officers of the same grade or grade grouping Army-widethe relative potential of such reguulation sample will approximate a bell-shaped normal distribution pattern.
Accordingly, of officers of the same grade, “only one officer can reasonably be expected to be placed in the top block,” two to rdgulation officers may be ranked in the second block, and so on.
To provide junior officers information on the Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS). PURPOSE.
The majority of officers in a representative sample will be rated in the middle two blocks. The senior rater also provides written comments describing the rated officer’s performance. See ConeF. Plaintiff Davis is a licensed and board-certified adult nurse practitioner and family nurse practitioner. Affidavit of Althea Davis “Davis Aff. Davis earned a masters in nursing and a doctorate in nursing education from Columbia University.
In addition to her work at a clinical practice, Davis has served as an instructor, an assistant professor and an associate professor at a variety of universities and medical facilities. Architects of Integration and Equality and a number of articles related to the nursing profession. Davis joined the Reserves as a captain in August and was assigned to the th General Hospital, a part of the 8 th Medical Brigade.
AR Officer Evaluation Reporting System :: Military Publications – Army Regulations – USAHEC
While on active duty, Davis served as the team leader and evening shift change nurse for a neurology ward, where she cared for wounded and ill service members who served in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and where she supervised nurses and aides.
Davis was honorably discharged from active duty in the summer of and received numerous awards for her service. Upon her return to Reserve status, Davis was again assigned to the th General Hospital and participated in numerous missions, including a deployment to Honduras as a part of a humanitarian initiative which provided medical care to severely undernourished children and for which she received the Army Commendation Medal. Effective January 2,Davis was transferred from the th General Hospital, which was deactivated as a part of an Army reorganization effort, to the rd Combat Support Hospital the ” rd CSH”.
Later that year, Lieutenant Colonel Theo Foralis, Davis’ supervisor at the rd CSH, orally directed Davis to report to the 8 th Medical Brigade to help Lieutenant Colonel Hinds organize a healthcare professional symposium that was to be held in the spring of On April 11,Davis received orders officially attaching her to the 8 th Medical Brigade.
The 8 th Medical Brigade is “subdivided into various subordinate units,” including numerous Combat Support Hospitals.
It is unclear from the parties’ submissions, however, whether the rd CSH is in fact one of the 8 th Medical Brigade’s units, although the parties seem to imply that it is. According to Davis, regulatioon she was informally and then officially attached to the 8 th Medical Brigade, she remained assigned to the rd CSH.
According to Davis, she never participated in a meeting with Lieutenant Colonel Hinds at the beginning of the rating period as the regulations require, and never received a DA Formwhich is the form to be filled out during the initial meeting.
Davis also asserts that although she attended drills with the 8 th Medical Brigade, she did not sign in on the 8 th Medical Brigade’s pay and attendance roster as a soldier drilling with her own unit is required to do, but instead submitted a DA Formwhich is used to indicate that a soldier attended a drill outside of her own unit, to the rd CSH.
Finally, Davis points out that the orders directing her to attend her annual training periods for were generated by the rd CSH. F including order dated May 2,and G including order dated April 26, The administrative record does not contain copies of Davis’ completed DA Form s, and Davis has not submitted them to this court. Although Davis claims in her affidavit that she requested reassignment inDavis asserts in her Complaint that she was reassigned on March 12, More importantly, the administrative record includes an order dated March 12,reassigning Davis to the nd CSH, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, effective March 15, The documentary evidence corroborates Davis’ claim.
In her November evaluation, for example, Davis received a “usually exceeded requirements” rating for her performance and a “promote with contemporaries” for her promotion potential, and was rated in the second of nine blocks; in Davis’ June evaluation, her rater awarded her an “always exceeded requirements” rating for her performance and a “promote ahead of contemporaries” for her promotion potential, and her senior rater rated her in the second of nine blocks; and in Davis’ MarchDecember and March evaluations, she was awarded an “always exceeded requirements” rating for her performance and a “promote ahead of contemporaries” for her promotion potential, and her senior rater rated her in the first of nine blocks.
In their narrative comments, the raters and seniors raters who completed Davis’ previous OERs described Davis in glowing terms and detailed her many accomplishments. Hinds gave Davis a “met requirements” rating the third best of five categories for her performance and a “promote with contemporaries” the second best of four categories for her promotion potential.
In her narrative comments, Hinds wrote that Davis “worked well with guidance,” “demonstrated competence in all assigned tasks,” and “accepted all tasks willingly and performed them satisfactorily,” and stated that Davis had the “potential to function in and meet the requirements of the next higher grade. Cupit noted that Davis “did an excellent job in the objective development process and in tallying the evaluations” and possessed “extensive experience and skill in nursing education and research.
See also Davis Aff. Although being rated in the third of nine blocks would seem to be an above average rating, the Army considers the rating relative to other rankings made by the same evaluator.
More specifically, once a senior rater completes an OER, the Army compares the senior rater’s evaluation of the rated officer’s potential to the senior rater’s rating history for all other officers of the same grade for the same rating period, and then determines how the particular rated officer performed in relation to the “center of mass,” or the median ranking of officers of the same rank who were evaluated by the same senior rater. ConeF.
DAVIS v. HARVEY | E.D.N.Y. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
Also, for the same rating period, Cupit rated one major in the top block, one major regulatjon the second block from the top and one major in the third block from the top. Therefore, although she was rated in the third of nine blocks, Davis was considered below the center of mass when compared to the other captains or majors rated by Cupit during the same rating period.
The defendant claims that when Davis was rgeulation to sign the OER, she refused to do so. Davis further contends that the report was not sent outside the 8 th Medical Brigade until after August 12,in violation of Army regulations that plaintiff asserts require prompter distribution. I indicating that the report was given to Davis on August 12, Davis arky that Hinds and Cupit rated her adversely because Hinds was jealous of her and Cupit was “thick as thieves” with Hinds.
Specifically, Davis hypothesizes that Hinds and Cupit resented Davis because Davis held a doctorate in nursing, a degree that neither Hinds nor Cupit had acquired. Davis also asserts that Hinds resented Davis’ knowledge of how to organize a professional symposium and her past experience regulatin numerous such symposia.
According to Davis, her professional relationship with Hinds deteriorated, and Hinds failed to delegate authority, became overwhelmed by stress, yelled, threw temper tantrums and left abusive messages on Davis’ answering machine. The relationship culminated in a final discussion between Davis, Hinds and Cupit, during which both supervising officers allegedly yelled at Davis and Cupit “became personally nasty. Davis further alleges that despite her “numerous” requests, she did not receive another OER from towhen she asked to be reassigned away from the rd CSH.
In andthe Reserve Components Selection Board considered Davis’ application for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel. According to Davis, she was issued a hardship discharge effective March 24,although she had not requested one.
Davis describes a hardship discharge as a leave “requested by [a] soldier when there is a family emergency that interferes with military service. Although Davis had already been reassigned to the rd CSH when the hardship discharge was issued, the order appears to have been issued by the 8 th Medical Brigade.
Davis had a “strong suspicion” that it was Lieutenant Colonel Hinds who xrmy for the hardship discharge to be issued. A copy of the order allegedly issuing Davis a hardship discharge is attached as Exhibit H to the Complaint, not as Exhibit G to the Complaint as the Complaint indicates, Compl.
While out regulatkon the hardship discharge and before it was revoked, Davis missed twelve UTAs and therefore could not accumulate the retirement points she would have earned by attending those drills.
As both parties stipulated, a Reserve officer “is entitled to a non-regular retirement entitling her to pay and benefits at age sixty when the officer completes a minimum regulstion twenty regulatio years of service.
An officer must earn a minimum of 50 retirement points in a year for it to be a “complete retirement” or “qualifying” year. A Reserve officer earns 15 retirement points for each year of membership in the Reserves and an additional point for each tegulation drill period and each day of annual training that the officer attends. Each year, a unit typically schedules 48 drill periods and one annual training period lasting 14 days.
The amount of retirement pay and benefits that a Reserve officer ultimately receives is based upon a calculation involving the number of retirement points earned and the highest arjy achieved by the officer. Accordingly, Davis’ missed UTA’s and corresponding missed retirement points may adversely impact her retirement pay and benefits. C, revulation the Stipulation states that it is attached as Exhibit B.
However, if one year “has elapsed and the rated officer has not performed the same duty under the same rater for 90 calendar days, a report will not be submitted until the day requirement is met. The importance of the OER to personnel actions, especially those concerning selection boards, makes it necessary that this day suspense be met. The Board observed that Davis “provided no supporting statements from either rating official[s] or any [s]enior officers in [her] chain of command who might support [her] claims.
Ramy Board did instruct, however, that “[i]f additional evidence is gathered, this would significantly increase the validity of [Davis’] appeal and could justify the Board’s acceptance of [Davis’] request. In a letter dated February 13,the ABCMR denied Davis’ appeal, concluding that she ramy failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The ABCMR also denied Davis’ 6233-105 to remove any reference to the hardship discharge from her records, explaining that “a review indicates no record of the [hardship discharge] document” located in Davis’ personnel records.
Apparently armyy the ABCMR’s suggestion that she support her application with additional evidence, Davis resubmitted the paperwork she had prepared for her appeal to the ABCMR and requested the same relief. Additionally, Davis contended that she “never saw a published rating chain,” “was never informed as to who [her] rater and senior rater were” and “never had [a] face-to-face counseling [session].
The Board concluded that Davis had “not ar,y convincing evidence indicating that there was bias regulatikn errors made concerning her OER, other than administrative errors. The ARPERCEN Review Board determined that “[t]here is no evidence that is clear and convincing enough to overcome the presumption of regularity to delete the OER” and “[t]here is no evidence that the rating zrmy failed to execute regulatoin designated responsibility to the rated officer.
The Board interviewed Cupit and Hinds by telephone before issuing its decision, and cited to their statements in support of its conclusions. In her regulaiton, Cupit stated that Davis “arrived” at the 8 th Medical Brigade in November of and not, as Davis claims, in April ofthat “it was not unusual for a soldier to report in and only to have the appropriate orders follow them months later,” and that she Cupit had “made it clear that [Davis] knew who her supervisors were and to whom she reported.