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: Faurn Fegrel
Country: Anguilla
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 20 February 2007
Pages: 178
PDF File Size: 7.8 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.55 Mb
ISBN: 152-3-89915-503-9
Downloads: 16737
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Jugami

AR 623-105 Officer Evaluation Reporting System

The “primary purpose of the Commander’s Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustice to the rated officer and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent reglation.

Checks to ensure profile is valid.

In her interview, 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 regulatioon knew who her supervisors were and to whom she reported.

Hinds recalled that Davis reported for duty with the 8 th Medical Brigade in November or December of and, like Cupit, stated that “it was not unusual for orders to follow” after an officer reported for duty.

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

Provides evaluation information for use by successive members of the rating chain, emphasizes and reinforces professionalism, and supports the specialty focus of Officer Professional Management System OPMS. As discussed above, evidence of a personality conflict between a rated officer and a rating official “does not constitute grounds for relief” unless the rated officer “show[s] conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate and unjust evaluation.

The administrative record does not contain armu of Davis’ completed DA Form s, and Davis has not submitted them to this court. Published by Moses Parker Modified over 2 years ago.

Auth with social network: At the conclusion of the rating period, a rater and a senior rater prepare an OER for the rated officer. See generally Davis Aff. The rater is usually the rated officer’s immediate supervisor. ResorF.

Defendant complied with the rule by filing a “Local Civil Rule 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. Davis further claims that she missed twelve unit training assemblies “UTAs” held while she was out on the hardship discharge she never sought.


WallaceU. On April 11,Davis received orders officially attaching her to the 8 th Medical Brigade. 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. United States District Court, D. Clear and convincing evidence “must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

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.

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.

The OERS “largely determines the quality of the officer corps, the selection of future Army leaders, and the course of each officer’s career. Davis appears to argue that, contrary to the plain language of the applicable regulations, she should not have been required to produce clear and convincing evidence in support of her claims. It seems logical to conclude that, under those circumstances, Davis would have submitted a statement from her actual other supervisor, and perhaps the other reserve officers who worked with her, confirming her assignment to a different unit for most of the rating period and describing the quality of her work there.

Section 2 A of the APA provides that a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that the court finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. A DA Form is “used as a worksheet to record this discussion. The court resolves any ambiguities and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.


Upload brief to use the new AI search.

Hinds and Colonel Linda G. Standard of Review under the APA Section 2 A of the APA provides that a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that the court finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

According to Davis, although she was informally and then officially attached to the 8 th Medical Brigade, she remained assigned to the rd CSH.

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.

Davis failed, however, to present any evidence from any other officer involved in the symposium she was assigned to help Hinds organize or from any officer otherwise in a position to comment on the quality of her work during the rating rrgulation.

Civilian Force Development Session: R at 5, The majority of officers in a representative sample will be rated in the middle two blocks.

DAVIS v. HARVEY | E.D.N.Y. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

See ConeF. 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 pattern. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. To the contrary, the regulations make it clear that Davis failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the relief she seeks.

Davis regulatuon honorably discharged from active duty in the summer of and received numerous awards for her service.

Plaintiff also concedes that she reglation not attend the training sessions for which she seeks credit.

About project SlidePlayer Terms of Service. Supreme Court09 Mar