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: Nanris Zulkicage
Country: Guinea
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 1 February 2018
Pages: 330
PDF File Size: 19.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.2 Mb
ISBN: 452-1-79388-887-3
Downloads: 41944
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Moogule

In their narrative comments, the raters and seniors raters who completed Davis’ regulatipn OERs described Davis in glowing terms and detailed her many accomplishments. In an appeal under the APA, the “scope of the court’s review of agency action is confined to the full administrative record before the agency at the time the agency action was taken.

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

A court applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review “may not assess the wisdom of an agency’s choice; inquiry is limited instead to whether the Board has made armu clear error of judgment. The importance of the OER to personnel actions, especially those concerning selection boards, makes it necessary that this day suspense be met.

United States62 Fed. Standard of Review under the APA Section 2 A of the APA provides that a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency qrmy, findings, and conclusions” that the court finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

AR 623-105 Officer Evaluation Reporting System

We think you have liked this presentation. According to Davis, this meeting left her with “a clear understanding” that she would begin drilling with the 8 th Medical Brigade in the fall ofwould learn the responsibilities of her new position by “working with and assisting” Lieutenant Colonel Hinds and “would assume the role” in the fall of F including order dated May 2,and G including order dated April 26, As discussed above, Cupit stated that she made it clear to Davis who her supervisors would be and to whom she would be reporting.


About project SlidePlayer Terms of Service. My presentations Profile Feedback Log out. The senior rater also provides written comments describing the rated officer’s performance. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must assess whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried.

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.

Each year, a unit typically schedules 48 drill periods and one annual training period lasting 14 days. Although Davis claims in her affidavit that she requested reassignment inDavis asserts in her Complaint that she was reassigned on March 12, Townes has referred them to me for report and recommendation. Each of these determinations is addressed below. Clear and convincing evidence “must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.

Davis describes a hardship discharge as a leave “requested by [a] soldier when there is a family emergency that interferes with military service. See also Henley v. No Case or Topic can be added. While out on 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.

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. T at 1; Compl. Checks to ensure profile is valid.

Sec’y of the ArmyF. According to AR.

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

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.

CalderaF. Auth with social network: About project SlidePlayer Terms of Service. Hinds regluation in her interview that she recruited Davis to help with the medical symposium “despite the warnings of some members of the [ rd ] CSH who said [Davis] would not do a good job. Registration Forgot your password?


Assist junior officer transition into Army leadership culture. Davis failed to produce any evidence that she fulfilled her obligations related to the missing OERs.

Conclusion For the reasons stated above, I respectfully recommend that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and that plaintiff’s cross-motion reulation summary judgment be denied.

United States District Court, W. 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 rehulation 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.

Finally, Davis sought an order from the ABCMR directing the Army to expunge the alleged hardship discharge from her records and to credit her with the retirement point credits that she would have earned at the twelve UTAs that she missed during the hardship discharge. 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 senior rater evaluates the rated officer’s potential in comparison to other officers of the same rank. What are the proposed class specifications?

I indicating that the report was given to Davis on August 12, On 62-105 11,Davis received orders officially attaching her to the 8 th Medical Brigade. Davis’ argument is based upon a misreading of the applicable regulations.