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: Akinokazahn Faulrajas
Country: Serbia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 24 January 2014
Pages: 91
PDF File Size: 13.94 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.70 Mb
ISBN: 419-4-29704-949-4
Downloads: 56886
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shakabei

ConeF. The Regulatiion also denied Davis’ request 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.

United StatesF. In support of her appeal, Davis submitted papers nearly identical to those she prepared in support of her initial appeal. Both Davis’ affidavit and Port’s affirmation include factual allegations, but neither sets forth numbered paragraphs responding to each of defendant’s statements as required by Local Civil Rule A factual dispute is material if ergulation “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and the dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that regualtion reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

We think you have liked this presentation. 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 record.

The OERS “largely determines the quality of the officer corps, the selection of future Army leaders, and the course of each officer’s career.

AR 623-105 Officer Evaluation Reporting System

The Hardship Discharge According to Davis, she was issued a hardship discharge effective March 24,although she had not requested one. Motion for summary judgment: Assist junior officer transition into Army leadership culture.

The documentary evidence corroborates Davis’ claim. Apparently disregarding 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.

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. United States District Court, D. F including order dated May 2,and G including order dated April 26, At the conclusion of the rating period, a rater and a senior rater prepare an OER for the rated officer.


My presentations Profile Feedback Log out. Promote a top down emphasis on leadership communication, integrating rated officer participation in objective setting, performance counseling, and evaluation.

Davis further claims that she missed twelve unit training assemblies “UTAs” held while she was out on the hardship discharge she never sought.

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 qrmy is. What are the proposed class specifications? Accordingly, Davis’ missed UTA’s and corresponding missed retirement points may adversely impact her retirement pay and benefits. 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.

With respect to Davis’ remaining requests, including her application to have a statement added to her file explaining that any gap in her record was not her fault and should not be used against her by a promotion or retention board, the removal of any reference to a hardship discharge and the crediting of the twelve UTAs that Davis missed, the ARPERCEN Review Board determined that these issues were not within its “purview” and referred gegulation items to ARPERCEN for decision.

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

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. 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 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.

The court resolves any ambiguities and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. The ABCMR also concluded that Davis failed to submit “sufficient evidence to support” the placement of a statement in her file explaining that any gap in her record was due to no fault of her own but was a result of her unit’s negligence.


Davis’ Background in Nursing and History with the Reserves Plaintiff Davis is a licensed and board-certified adult nurse practitioner and family nurse practitioner. The administrative record does not contain copies of Davis’ completed DA Form s, and Davis has not submitted them to this court.

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

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 choice made. 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.

Accordingly, of officers of the same grade, “only one officer can reasonably be expected to be placed in the top block,” two to three officers may be ranked in the second block, and so on. This is particularly surprising because, assuming 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.

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

Each year, a unit typically schedules 48 drill periods and one annual training period lasting 14 days. To use this website, regulatipn must agree to our Privacy Policyincluding cookie policy.

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.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors.