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: Garisar Kazimi
Country: Poland
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 16 July 2006
Pages: 349
PDF File Size: 20.38 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.39 Mb
ISBN: 365-9-30527-980-5
Downloads: 83773
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mizshura

According to Davis, her professional relationship with Hinds deteriorated, and Hinds failed to delegate authority, became overwhelmed by stress, yelled, threw temper tantrums and left abusive messages on Davis’ answering machine. Davis now seeks this court’s review of the ABCMR’s final decision denying her appeal, claiming that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policyincluding cookie policy.

Promote a top down emphasis on leadership communication, integrating rated officer participation in objective setting, performance counseling, and evaluation.

Civilian Force Development Session: Supreme Court25 Jun I indicating that the report was given to Davis on August 12, A copy of the order allegedly issuing Davis a hardship discharge is attached as Exhibit H arym the Complaint, not as Exhibit G to the Complaint as the Complaint indicates, Compl.

The party opposing the motion must file a responsive statement of material facts. 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. 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.

Food and Drug Admin. Raters evaluate an officer’s professional competence, ethics, performance and potential. A, although the Stipulation states that it is attached as Exhibit D. The ABCMR 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.

Hinds and Colonel Linda G. Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. See CharetteF. Village of Babylon93 F. 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. Each of these determinations is addressed below. ConeF. Sec’y of the ArmyF. These provisions place responsibility on the rebulation officer to initiate the process of completing an OER for each year.


The defendant claims that when Davis was asked to sign the OER, she refused to do so. Davis appears to argue that, contrary to the plain language of amy applicable regulations, she should not have been required to produce clear and convincing evidence in support ar,y her claims. Arbitrary and capricious review is “narrow” and “particularly deferential.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. Furthermore, each statement of material fact “must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible” at trial. 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. To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors.

The administrative record does not contain copies of Davis’ completed DA Form s, and Davis has not submitted them to this court. 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. Cupit further asserted that “both she and the rater [Hinds] had regular contact” with Davis, and that she had “counseled [Davis] on her job performance on several occasions.

Davis further claims that she missed twelve unit training assemblies “UTAs” held while she was out on the hardship discharge she never sought. T at ; Compl. Davis asserts that Hinds and Cupit rated her adversely because Hinds was jealous of her and Cupit was “thick as thieves” with Hinds. Both Davis’ affidavit and Port’s affirmation include factual allegations, but neither sets forth numbered paragraphs responding to regluation of defendant’s statements as required by Local Civil Rule We think you have liked this presentation.

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 regulatioj between the facts found and the choice made. OK 0 Module 2. In an appeal under the APA, the regulatioon 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.


Davis also asserts that although she attended 623-05 with afmy 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. According to AR.

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

If profile is not valid to be processed through MAR2. The majority of officers in a representative sample will be rated in the middle two blocks.

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 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 it is. VolpeU. Upload brief to use the new AI search.

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.

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

In a letter dated February 13,the ABCMR denied Regulatjon appeal, concluding that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

Davis alleges that despite her “repeated requests and complaints,” Lieutenant Colonel Bernard failed to follow up on, finalize or submit the draft OERs. Having reviewed the administrative record and considered the ABCMR’s denial of Davis’ second appeal in light of the governing regulations described above, I conclude that the ABCMR decision was not arbitrary or capricious. United States62 Fed.

See generally Davis Aff. ResorF.