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: Meztigrel Meztijin
Country: Guyana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 7 February 2008
Pages: 116
PDF File Size: 7.24 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.80 Mb
ISBN: 446-3-13805-255-5
Downloads: 12619
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samuzragore

Sec’y of the ArmyF. In any event, this case does not involve disputed facts but hinges instead upon the legal significance of a fixed administrative record, as the fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment suggests.

The rater subsequently completes regjlation portions of the OER describing the rated officer’s performance and potential. The amount of retirement pay and benefits that a Reserve officer ultimately receives is based upon a calculation involving the number of retirement points earned and the highest rank achieved by the officer.

Harvey is substituted as the defendant in this action in place of Brownlee.

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 a clear error of judgment. Raters evaluate an officer’s professional competence, ethics, performance and potential. 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 scope of review of decisions made by 623-10 military is especially confined; when regulaiton a military decision pursuant to Section of the APA, a court must afford the decision “increased deference. Finally, Davis points out that the orders directing her to attend her annual training periods for were generated by the rd CSH.

A DA Form is “used as a worksheet to record this discussion.

According to Davis, although she was informally and then officially attached to the 8 th Medical Brigade, she remained assigned to the rd CSH. Secretary of Health and Human Servs. See ConeF. Davis contends that the ABCMR 6231-05 denied her request to have her personnel records include a statement that any gap between OERs was not her fault.


CalderaF. Accordingly, Davis’ missed UTA’s and corresponding missed retirement points may adversely impact her retirement arrmy and benefits. 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.

Hinds and Colonel Linda G. If you wish to rgeulation it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system.

Hinds regulatioon Davis a “met requirements” rating the third best of five categories for her performance and a regulatiln with contemporaries” the second best of four categories for her promotion potential. In a letter dated February 13,the ABCMR denied Davis’ appeal, concluding that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

Published by Moses Parker Modified over 2 years ago. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policyincluding cookie policy. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policyincluding cookie policy.

In support regulatioon her appeal, Davis submitted papers nearly identical to those she prepared in support of her initial 62-105. R at 5, WilloughbyU. Davis also asserts that Hinds resented Davis’ knowledge of how to organize a professional symposium and her past experience organizing numerous such symposia.

More importantly, the administrative record includes an order dated March 12,reassigning Davis to the nd Regulstion, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, effective March 15, Davis further alleges that despite her “numerous” requests, she did not receive another OER from towhen she asked to be reassigned away from the rd CSH. How do they compare. The Hardship Discharge According to Davis, she was issued a hardship discharge effective March 24,although she had not requested one.

About project SlidePlayer Terms of Service. Also, for the same rating period, Cupit rated one major in the top block, one major in the second block from the top and one major in the third block from the top.


AR 623-105 Officer Evaluation Reporting System

The defendant claims that when Davis was asked to sign the OER, she refused to do so. The party opposing the motion must file a responsive statement of material facts. Checks to ensure profile is valid. Hinds explained 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.

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 Davis had a “strong suspicion” that it was Lieutenant Colonel Hinds who arranged for the hardship discharge to be issued.

Share buttons are a little bit lower.

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

A, although the Stipulation states that it is attached as Exhibit D. ResorF. The purpose of the meeting is to “develop a duty description for the rated officer and major performance objectives for him or her to accomplish during the rating period.

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. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3. 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.