ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 January 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210007344 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of his DA Form 67-10-1 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 4 December 2016 through 28 June 2017 to remove derogatory information * in the alternative, removal of the OER from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * Self-authored Memorandum (Rebuttal to Relief for Cause Counseling and Request for Commander's Inquiry), 14 July 2017 * Exhibit A – DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling), 28 June 2017 * Exhibit B – Nevada Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and High-yield Explosive Enhanced Response Package (CERFP) External Evaluation Exit Brief, 15 June 2017 * Exhibit C – omitted for redundancy * Exhibit D – Training Records, Hazardous Materials Operations Annual Refresher for CERFP Personnel, 13 November 2016 * Exhibit E – omitted for redundancy * Exhibit F – CERFP Training Calendar, 2017 * Exhibit G – Email correspondence (Nevada CERFP – Medical Element, Fiscal Year 2018 Air National Guard Budget Builder), 28 April through 4 May 2017 * Exhibit H – omitted for redundancy * Counsel's OER Appeal, 12 November 2018 * Exhibit 1 – OER covering the period 4 December 2016 through 28 June 2017 * Exhibit 2 – National Guard Bureau (NGB) Memorandum (NGB Standardization, Evaluation, and Assistance Team (SEAT) Evaluation Results for the Nevada Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-yield Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package), 26 April, 2017 * Exhibit 3 – Nevada CERFP Collective Training Exercise After Action Report, 20 April 2017 * Exhibit 4 – CERFP Personnel Training Records, 28 July 2016 * Exhibit 5 – Draft DA Form 67-10-1A (OER Support Form), undated * Exhibit 6 – Nevada National Guard Memorandum (Nevada CERFP External Evaluation Corrective Action Plan), 22 March 2018 * Exhibit 7 – four OERs covering the periods 29 June 2013 through 3 December 2016 * Exhibit 8 – 13 Supporting Statements, 10 January through 31 May 2018 * NGB Memorandum (Submission of OER Appeal for the Period of 4 December 2016 through 28 June 2017), 19 December 2018 * NGB Appeals and Analysis Email (Inquiry – OER Appeal), 20 October 2020 * Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) Docket Number AR2020000XXXX, 3 November 2020 * Self-authored Memorandum (Appeal for Decision Rendered on OSRB Docket Number AR2020000XXXX), 15 March 20XX FACTS: 1. The applicant states his referred OER covering the period 4 December 2016 through 28 June 2017 was not submitted to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) until October 2017 and was not accepted/entered into his AMHRR until 26 December 2017. The original appeal was submitted through counsel to NGB, but was mishandled by NGB and not timely forwarded to HRC. On 20 October 2020, NGB resubmitted his appeal to HRC for processing and a decision was rendered on 3 November 2020. He believes the evidence provided was not fully examined or understood due to the hasty nature of adjudication once finally received by HRC. a. The OSRB's Record of Proceedings state that because no Commander's Inquiry was made, no additional weight could be given to counsel's argument. The applicant requested an inquiry in writing, but it was never acted upon. As a result, he was left on his own to fight for both his reputation and his career. The evidence submitted, including the numerous third-party statements from those with first-hand knowledge who understood the dynamics of the applicant/rater/senior rater interaction, should have been sufficient to discredit the narrative comments in the contested OER, despite the fact that the request for an inquiry was never acted upon. b. The senior rater comments, such as "His response when confronted by his rater was that it was not his fault, despite being the senior full-time officer," should not have been permissible content, as this comment is hearsay. He never made that statement to the rating chain and due to the 400-mile geographical separation between him and the senior rater, the senior rater relied solely on the rater's input for comments and did not independently verify. The OSRB stated the rater and senior rater comments were similar, but that does not mean the OER was an accurate reflection of his performance or that there was no unjust or unsubstantiated information included. c. The OSRB stated "it was just as much of the Appellant's responsibility to ensure counseling was taking place," but there is no regulatory requirement to support that statement and that does not absolve the rater's responsibility to follow regulatory requirements. His rater neglected to conduct an initial counseling within the first 30 days and the onus is on the rater to conduct the mandatory initial counseling. For majors/ O-4s and above, follow-on counseling is done on an as-needed basis. At no time during the rating period was he in doubt of his excellent performance considering the years of prior experience with OERs stating such. As a result, no counseling was sought. d. The OSRB stated "The counsel nor the appellant provided any proof of the efforts (through his rater, senior rater, or higher leadership) of attempts to ensure he was meeting the expectations or goals of his rating chain." This assertion is disputable since neither the rater nor senior rater set any expectations due to the lack of initial counseling and did not provide their support forms to him as required by regulatory guidance. It would not be possible to provide proof of attempts to ensure the meeting of expectations if those expectations were never established. However, an email from the rater regarding a service award and a plaque/coin for him prior to the external evaluation was indicative of no dereliction of performance during the rating period. e. The OSRB did not address the numerous witness statements that attested to awarding of a plaque and coin to him from the rater upon conclusion of the external evaluation, publicly praising him for his performance throughout the rating period. Six of the 13 third-party letters mentioned this event, but it was omitted from the OSRB review. This is a significant piece of evidence that highlighted the disingenuous nature of the contested OER. f. The OSRB misconstrued a 94-percent score from the NGB SEAT inspection as a failure simply because a corrective action plan was required. Regardless of score, a corrective action plan was a requirement, even if scoring 99 percent. Further evaluation of the submitted exhibit would have revealed the comment of "The NV [Nevada] CERFP received an evaluation in the area of Logistics Management from [1 through 2] March 2017. The CERFP is 94 [percent] compliant and achieved the middle tier rating of "In Compliance with Comments" in this functional area. This represents a sustainment in compliance compared to previous SEAT evaluation conducted in November 2014 then this area was assess as being 93 [percent] compliant." The inspection showed his efforts in managing the full-time actions of the CERFP were exceptional and an improvement over the 2014 score, but was misunderstood by the OSRB. g. The OSRB asserted the previous rating periods did not have any bearing on the contested OER, stating each evaluation is a stand-alone assessment of a particular rating period. While normally true, Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 4-13a(2) states: "Limited support is provided by statements from people who observed the appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances." The OSRB gave no consideration to previous OERs in which he performed the same duty (Plans Officer) in the same unit (CERFP) under the same circumstances (external evaluations and SEAT inspections) from 2013 through 2017. h. The OSRB stated: "All of the letters strongly presented a strong character and job performance, however, it is unknown if those individuals were in a position to fully understand all of the details surrounding the contested OER, and the communication between the appellant and his rating chain and their overall concerns." Regulatory guidance provides that third-party statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing a good opportunity to observe first-hand the issues. In many of the letters he provided, the individuals stated their position and how they were able to observe his interaction with his rating chain, as well as the decisions made by the rating chain that led to the failure of the decontamination element, of which the full weight of failure was placed on him. Specifically, statements provided by Captain M____, Sergeant First Class D____, Captain C____, Staff Sergeant L____, and Master Sergeant W____ all clearly articulated facts surrounding the contested OER and his relationship with his rater and senior rater. It appears the OSRB did not review those specific letters in detail to see that they met the regulatory criteria. i. The OSRB stated: "There are several/many unknown circumstances surrounding the [Relief for Cause] OER," however, the OSRB did not further elaborate as to what information was missing that would have been necessary to support removal of the OER. The OSRB erroneously stated: "There is no evidence the ratings and comments are not the true assessments or judgement of the rating officials," despite the OSRB's acknowledged deviations from regulatory guidance by the rating chain, inaction of his requested Commander's Inquiry, misinterpretation of the SEAT inspection report, previous rating periods in which he performed the same duty with the same unit under similar circumstances, and voluminous amount of third-party statements from those who were well positioned to observe his rating chain relationship and decision making, including the several observations of him being rewarded by the rater after the external evaluation. j. Based on the additional evidence provided and the counterarguments to the OSRB's Record of Proceedings, he requests relief of the derogatory information in his AMHRR and ultimate removal of the OER. 2. On 28 June 2017, he was serving on active duty in the rank/grade of major/O-4 in the Nevada Army National Guard Active Guard Reserve Program under Title 32, U.S. Code. 3. The DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), 28 June 2017, shows he was counseled for relief for cause due to unsatisfactory performance as the Nevada CERFP Administrative Officer and states: a. The key points of discussion described the overall loss of trust and confidence in his abilities, failure of the decontamination element of the CERFP during an external evaluation on 14 June 2017, failure to properly prepare which resulted in three unsatisfactory ratings, failure to act as the battalion level administrative officer responsible for all CERFP full-time actions, and his inflexibility and failure to act with initiative. b. The plan of action stated, in part: * immediate relief and dismissal as the administrative officer for the Nevada CERFP * immediate reassignment and permanent change of station move within the Joint Force Headquarters in Carson City, NV * revocation of orders for his attendance at the resident Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS * he will act with the utmost professionalism as he transitions into his new role and will turn over any CERFP unit shared files to the incoming administrative officer c. In the closing section, he marked the "disagree with the information above" block and stated there is no substantiating evidence or documentation supporting any of the key points of discussion. It is merely conjecture/opinions that are not supported by fact. 4. His records contain his OER covering the period 4 April 2016 through 28 June 2017. a. Part Ii (Reason for Submission) shows the reason as "05/Relief for Cause." b. Part IIa7 (Date, Rater Signature) shows 20 September 2017. c. Part IIc11 (Date, Senior Rater Signature) shows 26 October 2017. d. Part IId (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?" is marked "Yes, comments are attached." e. Part IIe1 (Rated Officer Signature) shows 17 November 2017. f. Part IVd2 (Comments on Performance) shows his rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] was relieved of his duties during this rating period. [Applicant] lost my trust and confidence in his abilities as the CERFP [Administrative Officer/Plans] Officer. He was inflexible and failed to act with initiative. One example of this was with the failure of the [decontamination] unit during the [external evaluation] in June 2017. He failed to properly prepare the [decontamination] unit resulting in the unit receiving three [unsatisfactory] ratings. He also failed to act as the battalion level [Administrative Officer] responsible for all CERFP fulltime actions." g. Part IVe (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as) shows his rater marked "Capable" and entered the comment: "[Applicant] was relieved for cause due to his poor performance as the CERFP [Administrative Officer]. He is in the bottom 50 percent of the [majors/O-4's] I rate as a result of his dismissal. His performance in this broadening assignment as the CERFP [Administrative Officer] has been below standard and below my expectations. He lost my trust and confidence as a result of the poor performance of the unit during [external evaluation] June 2017 and lack of initiative in running the day to day activities of the CERFP. h. Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) shows his senior rater marked "Qualified." i. Part VIb (I Currently Senior Rate __ Army Officers in This Grade) shows his senior rater entered "2." j. Part VIc (Comments on Potential) shows his senior rater entered the comments: "Relieved for cause by rater, [Lieutenant Colonel S____], unsatisfactory performance during this rating period. [Applicant] is directly responsible as the full-time Administrative Officer for the unit's failure to pass [external evaluation.] His response when confronted by his rater was that it was not his fault, despite being the senior full-time officer. [Applicant's] detached attitude toward his responsibilities is concerning. [Applicant] has potential to continue service however it will require direct and involved mentorship." 5. On 14 July 2017, he provided a rebuttal to his rater, the CERFP commander, to his relief-for-cause counseling and requested a Commander's Inquiry. His self-authored memorandum states, in part: a. Regarding his rater's overall loss of trust and confidence in his abilities, there has been no initial counseling (written or verbal) to define expectations, roles, or responsibilities. Nor has there been any periodic counseling that would have led him to believe that his abilities or performance as the administrative officer required adjustment in order to be successful. He was unaware there was an erosion of confidence at any time during this rating period. Instead, it seems this is based on a single event – the external evaluation that took place on 14 June 2017 where five of the six CERFP elements either met or exceeded training standards. At that time, he was praised for his performance in front of approximately 15 Soldiers and Airmen at a hail and farewell dinner, rewarding his performance with a commander's coin and plaque acknowledging his exceptional performance. b. Regarding the failure of the Decontamination Element of the CERFP on 14 June 2017, that unit has their own commander, Captain L____, who is responsible for executing troop-leading procedures at the unit level. As the Plans Officer serving on the CERFP staff, his responsibilities pertained to mission analysis, contribution to the military decision-making process, and orders production, not troop-leading procedures. c. Regarding his failure to properly prepare for the evaluation resulting in three unsatisfactory ratings on 14 June 2017, those ratings only applied to the Decontamination Element. He ensured their personnel received all required training by coordinating a mobile training team to provide the Mass Casualty Decontamination Course in July 2016. Two full-time personnel under his supervision received hazardous materials operations instructor credentials to provide initial and annual refresher training to CERFP personnel in accordance with regulatory guidance. In March 2017, the SEAT inspection rated the operations and training functional area as 99-percent compliant with law, policy, and doctrine. d. Regarding his alleged failure to act as the battalion-level administrative officer responsible for all CERFP full-time actions, his oversight of the full-time staff led to an overall SEAT inspection result of 97 percent which is compliant with law, policy, and doctrine. It is also an improvement over the 2015 evaluation. e. Regarding his inflexibility and failure to act with initiative, that is an unsubstantiated perception and there have been no examples provided to support this accusation. f. Finally, if they cannot reach a consensus on the accuracy of his OER based on these key points of discussion, he requests a Commander's Inquiry regarding the allegations surrounding this relief for cause. 6. There is no evidence showing a Commander's Inquiry was conducted regarding the allegations. 7. On 17 November 2017, he provided comments regarding the derogatory information in his OER covering the period 4 April 2016 through 28 June 2017 wherein he stated, in part: a. The rater's rationale behind the relief for cause is vague and unsubstantiated, which is in conflict with regulatory guidance. He was never counseled during the rating period for his performance and this is the only negative feedback received during his 4 years in this position. He executed his duties and responsibilities to the fullest extent and was never provided any feedback regarding underperforming, being inflexible, or lacking initiative. In order to prepare the Decontamination Element for the external evaluation, he planned and coordinated a detailed series of scheduled training events, exercises, and rehearsals over a 2-year period. b. While his rater stated that he failed to act as the battalion level administrative officer responsible for all CERFP full-time actions, he received a 97-percent compliance rating from the NGB SEAT inspection, and all collective training contracts, logistical support items, inventories, budget reconciliations, and pay/travel orders were executed in a timely fashion. As a result, he led his full-time staff with both efficiency and effectiveness. c. The statement that he was relieved for cause due to his poor performance as the CERFP Administrative Officer is vague. He believes the rater based that assessment on a single event, the external evaluation, that occurred on 14 June 2017. There were no periodic counseling sessions to address any concerns and all of the positive contributions that he made during this rating period were omitted from his OER. Some of these accomplishments included: * developed a training plan and standard operating procedures that were identified as a "best practice" in the CERFP community providing subject- matter expertise * improved one evaluation assessment from "P" (practiced) to "T" (trained) * unit earned 6 of 6 "T" ratings during the external evaluation * SEAT inspection result of 97 percent was an improvement from the previous 96 percent received in 2014 * planned and executed the Nevada CERFP's first deployment readiness exercise * maintained an average score of 276 on the Army Physical Fitness Test * after the external evaluation, received special recognition from the rater for his exceptional performance * after selection for resident Command and General Staff College, completed all prerequisite courses with a 99-percent average d. His rater commented that he is in the bottom 50 percent of all the majors/O-4s he rates as a result of his dismissal. However, his rater only rated two individuals in that rank/grade. e. He did not receive the rater's or senior rater's OER support form, or receive an initial or periodic counseling as required by regulation. As a result, this made it impossible for him to know the expectations of his rater. During the external evaluation, there were a total of six elements evaluated; five of the six met/exceeded standards, which is not symptomatic of a poor performance trend. f. The assessment that he requires direct and involved mentorship after having successfully performed the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances for the previous 3 years, was selected for major/O-4 below the zone, and was selected by a national-level board for the 10-month resident Command and General Staff Officer Course is an unexpected appraisal of his true potential to assume greater responsibilities within the organization. 8. On 12 November 2018, he appealed his OER covering the period 4 April 2016 through 28 June 2017 to NGB wherein his counsel stated, in part: a. The appeal is based on substantive inaccuracy. It contains information that is incorrect, materially inaccurate, and unjust in violation of regulatory intent. As such, the applicant requests removal of the subject OER in its entirety from his AMHRR. b. The various allegations are not supported by the record and represent incorrect, inaccurate, and materially unjust information that must be removed. Evaluation reports must be based upon observed performance and the rated Soldier's potential. The statements that the applicant was "inflexible and failed to act with initiative" and that he "failed to properly prepare the [decontamination] unit resulting in three "U [unsatisfactory]" ratings" is an imprecise and unquantifiable subjective opinion completely unsupported by the evidence of record. Here, the rater failed to properly consider the applicant's efforts with regard to preparing for the external evaluation, which included a 2-year training period. c. At the conclusion of the exercise, the command team appeared pleased with the applicant's performance and preparation; the same evening of the external evaluation, a ceremony was conducted wherein the applicant was congratulated and awarded a commander's coin and plaque for his performance. The rater's very public acknowledgement of the applicant's achievements related to the external evaluation fail to support the positions expounded in the relief-for-cause OER. There is no previous counseling or other documentation that would substantiate any allegations made in the subject OER. The objective evidence is clear and incontrovertible that the applicant went well beyond standard expectations and provided the decontamination element with the tools they needed to be successful. The minor shortfall was not related to the applicant's performance and thus cannot be part of his performance assessment. d. The statements that the applicant "failed to act as the Battalion level [administrative officer] responsible for the CERFP full-time actions" and "was relieved for cause due to his poor performance as CERFP [administrative officer] are similarly unsupported by evidence and clearly constitute incorrect, materially inaccurate, and unjust information regarding removal of the subject OER. e. The absence of either an initial counseling or even a single periodic counseling supports the erroneous nature and this relief-for-cause OER further demonstrates that this action was more akin to "scapegoating" than performance. It is important to note the evidence clearly supports that the applicant exceeded his responsibilities as administrative officer and plans officer. The absence of feedback demonstrates there was never an indication of any issue with his performance despite having several face- to-face opportunities. f. The applicant has a history of stellar performance. His prior OER's offer valuable insight into the efficacy of the negative OER at issue since they address performance of the same duty position with the same unit and under very similar circumstances. Combined with the quality and content of the numerous character-reference and support letters written on the applicant's behalf, it is clear that the OER at issue is not at all reflective of his duty performance throughout the rating period. For all the reasons listed, the OER is incorrect, materially inaccurate, and unjust by a clear and convincing standard. Therefore, removal of the OER from the applicant's AMHRR is warranted. 9. The NGB memorandum (Submission of OER Appeal for the Period of 4 December 2016 through 28 June 2017 for (Applicant)), 19 December 2018, requested that the Department of the Army Special Review Board process the appeal as a third party. The applicant, rater, and senior rater are members of the Nevada Army National Guard. 10. On 3 November 2020 in Docket Number AR20200009311, the OSRB determined the evidence presented did not establish clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Therefore, by majority vote, the OSRB determined the overall merits of the applicant's case did not warrant the requested relief. 11. Nevada Army National Guard Order 0001526581.00, 19 November 2021, promoted him to the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel/O-5 effective 11 June 2011. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant's contentions, his military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Board members noted that when it comes to evaluation reports, the regulation is clear: an evaluation report accepted by HQDA, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. Board members determined that there is no evidence the ratings and comments are not the true assessments or judgement of the rating officials. As such, Board members found insufficient evidence to remove the contested OER. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X: X: X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 1-9 stated Army evaluations are independent assessments of how well a rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army within the period covered by the report. b. Paragraph 3-9 stated senior raters will ensure timely submission to Headquarters, Department of the Army, to arrive no later than 90 days after the "THRU" date of the OER for processing and filing in the rated officer's AMHRR. The senior rater maintains responsibility for the OER until it is filed in the AMHRR. OERs are processed and profiled daily as OERs are received, regardless of the "THRU" date of the OER and the senior rater's signature date. An OER failing to process in the sequence desired by the senior rater is not a basis for appealing the OER. c. Paragraph 3-19 stated any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning an individual. References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation report. d. Paragraph 3-26 stated any comment so derogatory that the evaluation may have an adverse impact on the Soldier's career is a referred or adverse report. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides detailed instructions for handling referred OERs to ensure rated Soldiers know their evaluations contain negative or derogatory information and affords them an opportunity to submit comments, if desired. e. Paragraph 3-36 stated an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, administrative and substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. f. Paragraph 3-54 stated a code 05 (Relief for Cause) OER is required when an officer is relieved for cause. "Relief for cause" is defined as an early release of an officer from a specific duty or assignment directed by a superior authority and based on a decision that the officer has failed in his performance of duty. In this regard, duty performance will consist of the completion of assigned tasks in a competent manner and compliance at all times with the accepted professional standards. The OER must specifically indicate who directed the relief of the rated officer and the rating official directing the relief will clearly explain the reason for the relief. g. Paragraph 4-1 stated the Evaluation Report Redress Program consists of several elements at various levels of command. The program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as correct them once they have occurred. h. Paragraph 4-4 stated alleged errors, injustices, and illegalities in a rated Soldier's evaluation report may be brought to the commander's or commandant's attention by the rated Soldier or anyone authorized access to the report. The primary purpose of a commander's or commandant's inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at Headquarters, Department of the Army. However, in these after-the-fact cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record. i. Paragraph 4-7 again stated an evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. j. Paragraph 4-8 stated requests for administrative appeal or correction, by either the rated Soldier or the rating chain, will submitted and received not later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date for an administrative error so significant as to affect not only personnel management decisions, but selection board proceedings and career decisions. Substantive appeals will be submitted and received no later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date. k. Paragraph 4-11 stated the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210007344 11 1