LinkedIn Logo

Board for Correction Case No. 120-90

""

Board for Correction Case No. 120-90

124.00 Commissioned Officer Effectiveness Report (COER)-Includes Performance Evaluation - Remove evaluation report

Board Recommendation on Request of: Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxx Case No. 120-90

Xxxxxxxxxxx filed an application with the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records xxxxxx 1990, requesting removal of his 1988 COER from his Official Personnel File. He alleged this COER had been unfairly critical, had not truly represented his performance and had deviated significantly from his 1986 and 1987 COERS without adequate explanation. He was concerned that his 1988 COER would reflect negatively upon his promotion potential.

Xxxxxxxxxxx application and supporting documentation are in Section 2b in the Case Record, attached. The response received from the Commissioned Corps on his application is in Section 2b in the Case Record. He was given an opportunity to comment on or rebut any of the documentation or statements received. His response is in Section 2a in the Case Record.

The Board sought to expedite processing of Xxxxxxxxxxx application to enable a decision prior to review of his record by the Corps' Spring Promotion Board. For this reason, it was not processed through the complete case development cycle including preparation of a full Advisory Opinion. His request was considered on xxxxxxx 1991.

BOARD ACTION ON XXXXXXXXXXX REQUEST:

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:

Chairperson:

Robert W. Mckinney, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Safety
Office of Research Services, NIH

 

OASH

CDC

FINDINGS:

The significant findings were:

  1. Xxxxxxxxxxx COER ratings were lower in 1988 than in 1986 and 1987 and his job performance declined from "well above average" to "competent" while working for the same supervisor;
  2. The largest decrement in ratings was for job elements: planning and organizing and responding to crises going from E in 1987 to B in 1988:
  3. The record was in conflict concerning whether he had been informed of any concerns about his job performance prior to completion of his 1988 COER as well as evidence about his working conditions:
  4. His job performance improved to "well above average" in 1989 and to "exceptional" in 1990 while in another position and working for a different supervisor. However, he did not show significant improvement in the two job elements for which he had the lowest ratings in 1988; and
  5. Concern about job performance had caused not only the supervisor whose 1988 COER ratings he questioned, but also the supervisor who completed his 1989 and 1990 COERS, and gave him a higher rating, to agree he should be assigned to another billet.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Board concluded that Xxxxxxxxxxx concern that his 1988 COER would reflect negatively upon his promotion potential did not seem warranted. His supervisor believed he was qualified for promotion although he changed his opinion over the years about Xxxxxxxxxxx performance and believed he should be placed in another billet. Xxxxxxxxxxx improvement in performance after being assigned to another billet attested to the correctness of his supervisor's conclusion.

Xxxxxxxxxxx satisfaction with his 1986 and 1987 COERS was a matter of record. The Board concluded the fact that his 1988 COER had differed significantly from his 1986 and 1987 COERS was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his supervisor had been less objective in evaluating him in 1988 than he had been in 1986 and 1987. The Board did not conclude, as did Xxxxxxxxxxx, that the deviation from his 1986 and 1987 COERS was evidence of an injustice. The documentation submitted did not provide material evidence demonstrating an injustice to warrant removing his 1988 COER. The burden of proof was on the officer to have provided that evidence.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Board recommended that Xxxxxxxxxxx request be denied. Approval of this recommendation requires no correction to his record.

We certify that this recommendation reflects the views and actions taken by the Board on this officer's request and that it has been concurred in by the Board members.

We also certify that the Case Record contains all of the information received on Xxxxxxxxxxx request and that, in addition to applicable statutes, regulations and policies, it was considered by the Board in arriving at this recommendation.

Finally, we certify that a quorum of Board members was present when Xxxxxxxxxxx request was considered.

If you approve, please sign below.

Robert w. McKinney, Ph.D.
Director
Division of Safety
Office of Research Services, NIH

Attachment:
Case Record

Reviewed and Approved:

I hereby approve the recommendation of the Board for Correction on the request of Xxxxxxxxxxx received and considered in accordance with the authority of Section 22la(a) (12) of the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 96-76, as amended) and 42 U.S.C. 2l3a(a) (12).

Wilford J. Forbush
Director, Office of Management

Date


Anyone wishing to obtain an un-redacted copy of any of the decisions should submit a request for the un-redacted decision under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Such requests should be directed to the PHS FOIA Office, Parklawn Building, Room 17 A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 301-443-5252; fax 301-443-0925.