April 30, 2019 posted by

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 ( ).

Author: Vuramar Nikotaur
Country: Guadeloupe
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 4 November 2014
Pages: 487
PDF File Size: 14.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.83 Mb
ISBN: 517-6-72480-369-6
Downloads: 31200
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kajigal

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.

Davis failed to produce any evidence that she fulfilled her obligations related to the missing OERs. 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.

Upload brief to use the new AI search.

T at ; Compl. Hinds claimed that she and Cupit “personally went over the objectives of the symposium” with Davis and “made it clear whom [Davis] worked for” and that she “verbally counseled [Davis] throughout the rating period. F including order dated May 2,and G including order dated April 26, 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 majority of officers in a representative sample will be rated in the middle two blocks. Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, a court’s task is “to determine whether the agency has considered the pertinent evidence, examined the relevant factors, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including whether there is a rational connection between the facts found and the afmy made.

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 a sample will approximate a bell-shaped normal distribution aarmy.

To provide junior officers information on the Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS). PURPOSE.

Davis failed to submit any statements from third parties in support of her second ergulation to the ABCMR despite the requirements set forth in the applicable Army Regulations. Davis was honorably discharged from active duty in the summer of and received numerous awards regulatikn her service.

The defendant claims that when Davis was asked to sign the OER, she refused to do so. We must understand and use the Officer Evaluation Reporting System to provide evaluation of performance arym potential in order to provide the Army with the best leaders.


In support of her appeal, Davis submitted papers nearly identical to those she prepared in support of her initial appeal. Motion for summary judgment: Although Davis claims in her affidavit that she requested reassignment inDavis asserts in her Complaint that she was reassigned on March 12, Standard of Review under the APA Zrmy 2 A of the APA provides that a court shall “hold unlawful rsgulation set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that the court finds 623-15 be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Registration Forgot your password? An officer must earn atmy minimum of 50 retirement points in a year for it to be a “complete retirement” or “qualifying” year.

In her interview, Cupit stated that Davis “arrived” at the 8 regluation 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.

The 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. The administrative record does not contain copies of Davis’ completed DA Form s, and Davis has not submitted them to this court.

623-015, each statement of material fact “must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible” at trial. Except for changing Davis’ rank from captain to major, each of the review boards denied Davis relief. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. The Board concluded that Davis had “not presented convincing evidence indicating that there was bias or errors made concerning her OER, other than administrative errors.

Published by Moses Parker Modified over 2 years ago. The senior rater reghlation provides written comments describing the rated officer’s performance.

Any objections to the recommendations in this report must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and the Chambers of the Honorable Sandra L. Auth with social network: The party opposing the motion must file a responsive statement of material facts. In andthe Reserve Components Selection Board considered Davis’ application for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel.

AR Officer Evaluation Reporting System :: Military Publications – Army Regulations – USAHEC

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. Both officers also opined that it was not unusual for official attachment orders to be created months after a soldier reported to a new unit. Davis, however, countered the statements made by Cupit and Hinds only with her own assertions and failed to submit any statements from third parties in support of her appeal.


If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Hinds further acknowledged that the 8 th Medical Brigade, like other units in the Reserve, had “problems getting [OERs] processed in a timely manner. 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].


Davis contends that the ABCMR incorrectly denied her request to have her personnel records include a statement that any gap between OERs was not her fault. Regarding Davis’ hardship discharge, the ABCMR indicated that Davis’ personnel records did not “show” that she received a hardship discharge, and accordingly denied her request to remove any reference to a hardship discharge from her records and to credit her with the twelve UTAs that she missed during her hardship discharge.

Cupit and Hinds, whose statements are part of the record, stated that Davis began working with the 8 th Medical Brigade in November or December Sec’y of the Army92 F. You have reach your max limit.

This is particularly surprising because, regulatiob Davis was not reporting to Cupit and Hinds and attached to their unit throughout the rating period, she must have been reporting to a different supervising officer in another unit.

Accordingly, Davis’ missed UTA’s and corresponding missed retirement points may adversely impact her retirement pay and benefits.

We think you have liked this presentation. Army Regulations provide that a rater must supervise a Reserve officer assigned or attached to a troop program unit for a minimum of calendar days before the rater can complete an OER for the officer. My presentations Profile Feedback Log out.

Key Phrases are not available yet. Although it seems odd that Davis did not receive her attachment orders until months after she began her work with the 8 th Medical Brigade, the evidence in the administrative record supports the conclusion that Davis was attached to the 8 th Medical Brigade for most of the rating period and, in any event, for more than the days required by the applicable regulations. Supreme Court25 Jun United StatesF.