IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012177 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012177 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. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012177 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the rated period 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested NCOER) from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states: a. His referral to the Quality Management Program (QMP) Board was based on the contested NCOER. This single item on his record has put him in grave danger of being removed from the most prestigious branch of service in the world, the U. S. Army. b. In the contested NCOER, his rater explicitly violated DA Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). His rater used the same specific example (his squad's performance during Company Sapper Stakes) to justify the "Needs Improvement/Some" blocks for both Part IVd (Leadership) and Part IVe (Training). This is a clear violation of DA Pamphlet 623-3, paragraph 3-7d, which states, "a specific example can be used only once; therefore, the rater must decide under which responsibility the bullet fits best (or is most applicable)." c. While he does disagree with his rater’s feelings regarding his leadership abilities, this appeal is more focused on the repeated use of this single event (Company Sapper Stakes) to justify multiple negative ratings. Since DA Pamphlet 623-3 does not allow this, he asks that the Board question the validity of the contested NCOER they are currently considering. 3. The applicant provides the contested NCOER, a memorandum to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), and a statement of support. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 February 2002 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer). He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 April 2007. 2. At the time of the contested NCOER, he was assigned as a squad leader to A Company, 4th Battalion (BN), 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion (BSTB), 4th Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 3rd Infantry Division (ID), Fort Stewart, GA. He served in Iraq with his assigned unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation New Dawn (OND) from on or about July 2010 to July 2011. 3. On 23 January 2012, he was attending the Combat Engineer Advanced Leader Course (ALC) conducted from 23 January to 2 March 2012 at the NCO Academy (NCOA), Fort Leonard Wood, MO. On 1 February 2012, he was dismissed from the course. 4. His record contains a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) he received on 1 February 2012. The AER shows it was a referred report and the applicant declined to submit comments. His rater was the course chief and the reviewing officer was the NCOA commandant. The AER also shows: a. In item 11 (Performance Summary) his rater checked the "Failed to Achieve Course Standards" block and in item 12e (Evaluation of Student's Research Ability) the "Unsatisfactory" block. b. In item 14 (Comments) the rater stated that the applicant was dismissed from the course for academic deficiencies in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development). The applicant demonstrated poor test taking abilities resulting in the failure of the same exam twice. The applicant established that he does not contain the intellectual aptitude to succeed in this course and therefore does not meet the potential for selection to higher-level schooling or training. c. The rater, reviewing officer, and applicant all signed the AER on 1 February 2012. 5. During February 2012, he received the contested NCOER, an annual NCOER covering 12 months of rated time for the period 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011, for his duties as squad leader while assigned to A Company, 4th BN, 3rd BTSB, 4th BCT, Fort Stewart. His rater was SSG LKM, the company platoon sergeant; his senior rater was Second Lieutenant WRF, the company platoon leader; and his reviewer was Captain (CPT) CSB, the company commander. This NCOER shows his areas of special emphasis were route clearance patrols, Sapper Stakes, crew certification, and the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The NCOER also shows: a. In Part IIIc (Duty Description), in part, that his duties were "Leads a light engineer squad in the execution on individual and crew drills in support of a combat engineer squad; responsible for the health, welfare, and training of seven Soldiers." b. In Part IVa (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" blocks for all Army Values. c. In Parts IVb (Competence) and IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing), the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" blocks and entered, in part, the corresponding bullet comments: * served as a primary instructor during a demolition range while deployed leading to improved knowledge and skills for the platoon * relied upon during combat patrols to serve as the truck commander for the lead vehicle during all combat patrols * scored a 279 on the APFT * his appearance set the standard for his Soldiers to emulate d. In Part IVd, the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Improvement/Some" block and entered the bullet comments: * lacked the knowledge and leadership ability to effectively lead his squad through Company Sapper Stakes lanes * developed a company tracking system for motorcycle proficiency throughout the company; ensured all operators were fully qualified * worked after duty hours with a substandard Soldier to bring them back within Army standards e. In Part IVe, the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Improvement/Some" block and entered the bullet comments: * failed to properly train his squad, resulting in failing 14 out of 16 lanes at Company Sapper Stakes * served as NCO in charge (NCOIC) for a platoon convoy live fire range while deployed * developed and implemented a physical fitness plan which resulted in three Soldiers in his squad passing the APFT f. In Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability), the rater placed an "X" in the "Excellence" block and entered the bullet comments: * maintained 100% accountability for one RG-33 [Heavily Armored Ground Ambulance], one husky, one maxxpro, and all sets kits and outfits throughout the deployment * focused on safety and the proper implementation of composite risk management resulting in zero safety related injuries or accidents to occur during the rating period * maintained all assigned equipment resulting in an 87% operational readiness (OR) rate while deployed in support of OND g. In Part Va (Rater - Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the rater placed an "X" in the "Marginal" block. h. In Part Vc (Senior Rater - Overall Performance), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block and in Part Vd (Senior Rater - Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility) he placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block. i. In Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the senior rater entered the bullet comments: * do not promote at this time; requires further training * send to ALC immediately * average performance; requires constant supervision * limited potential for jobs of greater responsibility; requires more education j. The rater and senior rater signed the NCOER on 21 February 2012 and the reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations and signed the NCOER on 21 February 2012. The applicant signed the NCOER on 24 February 2012. 6. There is no evidence the applicant requested a commander's inquiry in reference to the contested NCOER. This NCOER is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. 7. He attended and successfully completed the Drill Sergeant School (DSS) Course conducted from 22 March to 24 May 2012 at the DSS, Fort Jackson, SC. 8. His record contains a DA Form 1059 he received on 22 May 2012. His rater was the drill sergeant leader and the reviewing officer was the DSS deputy commandant. In item 14 of the AER, the rater entered the comment, in part, the applicant satisfactorily achieved the course requirements in accordance with the DSS Program of Instruction. 9. During June 2012, he received a change of rater NCOER covering 6 months of rated time for the period 1 January 2012 through 15 June 2012, for his duties as squad leader while assigned to A Company, 4th BN, 3rd BTSB, 4th BCT. His rater was Sergeant First Class (SFC) JEB, the company operations sergeant; his senior rater was First Lieutenant MDG, the company executive officer; and his reviewer was CPT CSB, the company commander. This NCOER shows his area of special emphasis was the Marne Inspection Program (MIP). The NCOER also shows: a. In Part Iva, the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" blocks for all Army Values. b. In Parts IVb through IVf, the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" blocks and entered, in part, the corresponding bullet comments: * knowledgeable NCO who demonstrated the ability to manage numerous tasks simultaneously * displayed a positive attitude and high level of confidence; set the example for Soldiers through personal appearance * strove to gain knowledge on MOS skills, resulting in a more proficient NCO * trained squad on proper loading and clearing procedures for the M-249, resulting in two gunners thoroughly trained and qualified * received commendable ratings for the equal opportunity (EO) program during brigade MIP * regularly inspected his Soldiers' individual weapons and provided on the spot corrections as needed resulting in first time GO during reflective fire range c. In Part Va, the rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Capable" block. d. In Part Vc, the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Successful/3" block and in Part Vd he placed an "X" in the "Superior/3" block. In Part Ve, he entered the following bullet comments: * promote with peers * send to ALC when slots are available * displays the potential to succeed with further training * accomplished all assigned tasks with satisfactory results e. The rater and senior rater signed the NCOER on 29 June 2012 and the reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations and signed the NCOER on 29 June 2012. The applicant signed the NCOER on 17 July 2012. 10. In or about August 2012, he was assigned as a drill sergeant to the 3rd BN, 13th Infantry Regiment, Fort Jackson, SC. 11. He attended and successfully completed the Combat Engineer ALC conducted from 19 August to 4 October 2013 at the NCOA, Fort Leonard Wood. 12. His record contains a DA Form 1059 he received on 2 October 2013. The AER shows it was referred report and it appears the applicant declined to submit comments. His rater was the first sergeant and the reviewing officer was the NCOA commandant. The AER also shows: a. In item 11 his rater checked the "Marginally Achieved Course Standards" block and in item 12e the "Unsatisfactory" block. b. In item 14 the rater stated, in part, that the applicant earned a marginal rating for failing over 31% of his initial written examinations. The applicant displayed determination in order to finish the course by earning a superior in leadership during garrison and situational training exercise (STX) leadership evaluations. The applicant led a superb discussion, grabbing the attention of his small group while ensuring they stayed involved. c. The rater, reviewing officer, and applicant all signed the AER on 2 October 2013. 13. The applicant is currently assigned in MOS 12B to A Company, 1st Engineer BN, 1st Armored BCT, Fort Riley, KS. In 2016, a board determined he should be involuntarily separated under the QMP. 14. The applicant provides a statement of support, dated 6 June 2016, wherein SFC CB stated: a. He had served with the applicant over 13 years and it was a great pleasure. The applicant served as a sapper team leader for the initial invasion of Iraq (2002 - 2003) as a specialist where he laid down suppressive fire to ensure his fellow comrades would return home safe. He could personally attest that the applicant's skilled set technically and tactically allowed him to surpass all of his peers. b. During the time of this Sapper Stakes, the applicant was in EO class for the unit to be in compliance with the Army standard, so the NCOER should not have reflected this NCO because he was called upon during the same time frame of the training event. The applicant was a great leader and deployed three times for OIF, Operation Enduring Freedom, and OND. During each tour, his combat experience was heavily relied upon. The applicant volunteered for drill sergeant duty and performed his duties in an exceptional manner. He possesses the breadth and depth of doctrinal knowledge seldom seen in an NCO of his rank. c. The applicant has the natural ability to express the most complicated and technical Warrior drills, tasks, and information down to the lowest level clearly and concisely. As demonstrated, his ability in teaching, coaching, and mentoring on the trail resulted in being the best basic rifle marksmanship and drill and ceremony platoon 10 out of 24 months. Even in his current situation, the applicant is using the select, train, educate, and promote model for his Soldiers resulting in two becoming NCOs. The applicant's QMP action should be reversed allowing him to continue serving in the Army as a combat engineer. He is convinced losing an NCO of his caliber would be unjust to the Army. 15. The applicant also provides a self-authored memorandum to HRC, dated 7 July 2016, wherein he stated he was appealing the contested NCOER (1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011) based on the substantive errors he stated above and in addition: a. According to DA Pamphlet 623-3, table 3-4, "quantitative and substantiated bullet comments are used to explain any area where rated NCO is particularly strong or needs improvement." The existing bullet comment that he "lacked the knowledge and leadership ability" is not a quantitative or substantiated comment and therefore cannot support a "Needs Improvement/Some" block. If the comment were to be properly stricken for the reason stated, there would be no negative comments so the "Needs Improvement/Some" block checked in Part IVd should be changed to the "Success" block. b. In Part Va the rater checked the "Marginal" block; this block is invalid as it is based on the two "Needs Improvement/Some" checks he received in Part IV. As his rater used the same event in order to justify two "Needs Improvement/Some" checks at least one of the checks is invalid. Because the rater improperly used his squad's performance to assess both his leadership and training, the evaluation was improper and the "Marginal" rating should be changed to "Fully Capable." c. In Part Vc the senior rater rated his overall performance as a "4." However, this rating was largely based on the "Needs Improvement/Some" blocks checked in Parts IVd and IVe. These blocks are improper for the reasons stated above. If the errors were never included in the NCOER, his overall performance rating would at least be a "3" or higher. d. The senior rater did not address the "Fair/4" rating in Part Ve. According to DA Pamphlet 623-3, table 3-5, "the senior rater must address marginal ratings in Part Va and fair or poor ratings in Part Vc." Because the senior rater does not address the "Fair" rating with a bullet comment, the rating is invalid and should be changed to a "3" and the NCOER should be removed from his OMPF. e. Given the amount of errors and the way they affected the NCOER, he requests the entire NCOER be removed from his OMPF. The removal of the NCOER was the only way to avoid any unjust and/or detrimental impact on his military career and would help him avoid the unjust outcome of his being separated by the QMP board. In the alternative, he asked the corrections he requested above be made to the NCOER. 16. It is presumed HRC returned his appeal of the contested NCOER without action as his request would not have met HRC's appeal criteria. 17. A review of Army Knowledge Online states in the U.S. Army sappers are combat engineers or other personnel who support the front-line infantry and they have fought in every war in American history. A sapper may perform any of a variety of combat engineering duties. 18. A Fort Stewart newspaper article, dated 12 December 2011, reported that combat engineers with A Company, 4th BN, 3rd BTSB, 4th BCT, tested their mettle 6 to 8 December 2011 during a squad-on-squad Sapper Stakes completion at For Stewart. It stated, in part: a. "Sapper Stakes is an annual competition held within engineer units Army-wide to test proficiency of combat engineer skills and to serve as a final qualification on individual and leader tasks," said CPT CSB, commander of A Company, 4th BN, 3rd BTSB. "We are doing this as a 3-day event where we are focusing on physical fitness, a 12-mile road march, and other events which you basically group around mobility, counter-mobility, and reconnaissance skill sets," CPT CSB said. b. The competition began with a physical fitness test that required Soldiers to perform two minutes of sit-ups and push-ups, as well as chin-ups and a 5-mile run. The combat engineers then broke off into squads to participate in various lanes that tested bridge and road reconnaissance skills, demolition preparations, and casualty evacuations. c. A platoon sergeant stated Sapper Stakes tasks change over the years to meet the requirements of modern-day combat engineers. Common tasks in competitions of the past included constructing triple-strand and 11-concertina wire obstacles, and clearing mine fields. While those tasks are still important and are still brushed upon, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have necessitated a shift in combat engineering skills sets to include proficiency in route clearance operations. Sapper Stakes is a tool that Soldiers can use in the real world. The competition is still there but at the same time you have to have that sense of accomplishment that your squad, platoon, and company can accomplish a mission in a time of war. d. Besides building team cohesiveness, Sapper Stakes allowed each Soldier to determine where his battle buddies and leaders stand in their effectiveness of the combat engineer trade. You get to see who is strong in some areas and you get to see who is a little weaker in certain areas so you know how far you can push them. You can see and know what everybody is capable of [doing]. REFERENCES: 1. AR 623-3 prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. The version of the regulation then in effect stated: a. In paragraph 3-2i, that rating officials have a responsibility to balance their obligations to the rated Soldier with their obligations to the Army. Rating officials will make honest and fair evaluations of Soldiers under their supervision. On one hand, the evaluation will give full credit to the rated Soldier for their achievements and potential. On the other hand, rating officials are obligated to the Army to be discriminating in their evaluations so that Army leaders, DA selection boards and career managers can make intelligent decisions. b. In paragraph 3-39, that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes 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. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of an administrative error or factual inaccuracy (emphasis added). The burden of proof rests with the appellant. c. In paragraph 6-11d, that for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type in an evaluation report, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practical, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered. 2. DA Pamphlet 623-3 prescribes the procedures for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System including NCOERs. The version of the pamphlet then in effect stated: a. In paragraph 3-7, Part IV is completed by the rater. Values and NCO requirements/responsibilities are the sole focus for evaluation of performance in Part IV of the NCOER. Box marks and bullet comments are used throughout the evaluation. Bullet comments are mandatory regardless of ratings given. Narrative rules for Part IV, bullet comments will be: * short, concise, to the point * start with action words (verbs) or possessive pronouns; should use past tense when addressing NCO's performance and/or contributions * a specific example can be used only once; therefore, the rater must decide under which responsibility the bullet fits best (or is most applicable) b. In Table 3-4, Part IVb - f, the action required for: * excellence; exceeds standards demonstrated by specific examples and measurable results; such as received physical fitness badge, or qualified entire squad as expert with M-16 * success; meets all standards such as established comprehensive cross training program for his section, or their platoon had only one tank on deadline report (for 10 days) during last 11 months * needs improvement; missed meeting some standard(s) such as had the highest deadline rate in the company due to apathy, or unprepared to conduct formal training on three occasions c. In Table 3-5, Part Va, the rater places an "X" in the appropriate box. NCOs receiving one or more "needs improvement" rating in Part IVb - f cannot receive a rating of "among the best." The following definitions will be used when completing Part Va: * among the best; NCOs who demonstrated a very good, solid performance and a strong recommendation for promotion, and/or service in positions of greater responsibility * fully capable; NCOs who have demonstrated a good performance and strong recommendation for promotion should sufficient allocations be available * marginal; NCOs who demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time d. In Table 3-5, Part Vc, the senior rater evaluates overall performance by placing one or more "X" in the appropriate box. The senior rater box marks are independent of the rater's. There is no specific box mark ratings required of the senior rater based on box marks made by the rater. The following definitions will be used when completing Part Vc: * successful/superior; "1" rating represents the cream of the crop and recommendation for immediate promotion; "2" a very good performance, strong recommendation for promotion; "3"a good performance, recommendation for promotion if allocations available * fair; "4" rating represents NCOs who may require additional training/observation and should not be promoted at this time * poor; "5" rating represents NCOs who are weak or deficient and, in the opinion of the senior rater, needs significant improvement or training in one or more areas; do not promote and consider for DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP e. In Table 3-5, Part Ve, the senior rater bullet comments are mandatory. The senior rater must address marginal ratings given in Part Va and fair or poor ratings given in Part Vc. Bullet comments should focus on potential, and address performance, and/or the evaluation rendered by rater. If the senior rater meets the minimum time qualifications for evaluation, they must make comments on potential and performance. 3. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)) governs the composition of the AMHRR (which includes the OMPF) and states that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. NCOERs are filed in the performance section of the OMPF. 4. Several Military Personnel (MILPER) Messages provide guidance and procedures in support of the QMP. The purpose of the QMP board is to identify selected NCOs for possible involuntary separation, specifically those with a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, conviction by a court-martial or Article 15, relief-for-cause NCOER, a "No" in the Army values on an NCOER, a senior rating of "4" on an NCOER, and NCO Education System failures. * Soldiers selected by the QMP for denial of retention must exercise an option (appeal, accept, retire, etc.) * Soldiers may appeal when reviewed by the board on the basis there is a material error in their records; the chain of command, all the way to a general officer, must recommend approval or disapproval 5. Soldiers who elect to submit a QMP appeal, but fail to do so within 30 days, or provide no compelling justification, will continue to process for discharge. The Director of Military Personnel Management is the final authority for the disposition of appeals. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends the contested NCOER should be removed from his OMPF because the rater used the same bullet comment to justify two "Needs Improvement/Some" blocks and the senior rater did not make bullet comments to address the rater's "Marginal" rating or his own "Fair/4" ratings. 2. Rating officials have a responsibility to balance their obligations to the rated NCO with their obligations to the Army. Rating officials will make honest and fair evaluations of Soldiers under their supervision. On the one hand, this evaluation will give full credit to the rated NCO for his or her achievements and potential. On the other hand, rating officials are obligated to the Army to be discriminating in their evaluations so that Army leaders, selection boards, and career managers can make intelligent decisions. 3. The available evidence shows the applicant, an NCO and squad leader, appears to have performed below standard during the contested rated period; specifically demonstrating poor leadership abilities and failing to properly train the members of his squad. Although both comments the rater entered were examples that occurred during Company Sapper Stakes, they each addressed a different responsibility that is essential to being an effective squad leader. The "lacked the knowledge and leadership ability to effectively lead his squad through Company Sapper Stakes lanes" comment gave a specific example of his deficiency in his leadership ability. The "failed to properly train his squad, resulting in failing 14 out of 16 lanes at Company Sapper Stakes" was a clear example of his failure to properly train the members of his squad. 4. In addition, the contested NCOER shows the senior rater addressed the overall potential rating of "Marginal" by the rater and his rating of "Fair/4" when he entered the bullet comments "do not promote at this time; requires further training" and "limited potential for jobs of greater responsibility; requires more education." He also addressed his overall performance rating of "Fair/4" when he entered the bullet comment "average performance; requires constant supervision." 5. The contested NCOER appears to be correct and appears to represent a balanced, fair, objective, and valid appraisal of the applicant's demonstrated performance and potential during the period in question. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence, to show his rater and/or senior rater did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating him in a fair and unbiased manner. More importantly, he has not shown the rating officials' evaluations represented anything other than their objective judgment and considered opinions at the time they prepared the contested NCOER or that they exercised faulty judgment in evaluating him as they did. 6. In order to justify removal of a report, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature. 7. The applicant's arguments provided in this case address his dissatisfaction with his rating and his belief that it contained substantive errors. However, he did not provide any evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012177 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012177 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2