ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170018034

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  removal of his DA Form 2168-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 13 March through 31 August 2013 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)
* Two NCOERs
* DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard (APFT))

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant states he believes that his NCOER was altered after he signed it.  He has his original NCOER which is attached to this document.  It is signed by his rater and senior rater and has all positive bullets, four successes, and one excellence with a passing APFT score.  The NCOER that is in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (IPERMS) has three successes, two needs improvements and a failing APFT with a marginal overall.  The APFT referenced as failing is really a passing APFT and the DA Form 705 is in IPERMS.

3.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Letter from his counsel to the Adjutant General (AG), Joint Force Headquarters, Indianapolis, IN dated 4 April 2017 states:

This memorandum (i.e. letter), and its supporting exhibits (i.e. enclosures), accompanies the applicant's petition that you grant his request to remove an improperly filed NCOER from his AMHRR and re-instate him in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR).  Counsel provided a detailed letter which has a preliminary statement, facts, arguments, and a conclusion (detailed letter enclosed in packet).  The following are enclosures:
	b.  Enclosure 1 – Counsel’s power of attorney for the applicant.

	c.  Enclosure 2 (Good NCOER) – A 6 month change of rater NCOER, for the period covering 15 March 2013 through 31 August 2013, as a Recruiting and Retention NCO (RRNCO).  Signed by his rater and senior rater.

	(1)  Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing), the applicant received a "Success (Meets standards)" and the following bullet comments:

* increased overall APFT score by 40 points by utilizing a strict physical fitness program
* his stamina to go the distance despite the rigorous RRNCO work schedule 

	(2)  Part IVd (Leadership), the applicant received a "Success (Meets standards)" and the following bullet comments:

* meets challenges head on; displays courage. conviction and professionalism daily
* superb leader who was selected to instruct White Phase I on RSD Drill weekends because of his enthusiastic leadership style
* solid leader, genuinely cares for Soldiers; motivates them to accomplish all missions

	(3)  Part IVe (Training), the applicant received an "Excellence (Exceeds standards)" and the following bullet comments:

* maintained a 100% first time pass rate for all Soldiers who took the Stripes for Skills White Phase I test during RSD Drill weekend
* trained and mentored 3 RRNCOs who achieved mission while also accomplishing his assigned recruiting mission
* possesses the skills, knowledge, and abilities to train future recruiting NCOs

	(4)  Part Va (Rater - Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Fully Capable" rating.

	(5)  Parts Vc and d (Senior Rater - Overall Performance and Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Successful2/Superior 2" rating.

	(6)  Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the bullet comments read:

* new AGR recruiter who is innovative and resourceful I: accomplished his mission during the rated period: must retain on AGR and continue to groom
* a great trainer and coach; excels in interactions with warriors in preparing them for Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training (BCT/AIT)
* enroll NCO in additional military and civilian schools to enhance his promotion opportunities

	d.  Enclosure 3 (Bad NCOER) – The applicant did not see the NCOER before it was filed and did not know his file contained a bad NCOER.  He had no opportunity to submit rebuttal matters prior to the decision of the AGR selection board, which was based on the irregular NCOER.  He respectfully requests that (AG, Joint Force Headquarters) consider these matters in rebuttal now.

	e.  Enclosure 4 – The applicant’s rater sworn declaration dated 9 January 2017:  Sergeant First Class (SFC) X___ X___ is a Recruiting Platoon Sergeant with the Recruiting and Retention Battalion (R and R BN), Indianapolis, IN.  SFC X___ X___ was the [applicant's] rater during the period from March 2013 to August 2013.  Although it was 3 years ago, SFC X___ X___ recalls writing an NCOER for the [applicant].  SFC X___ X___ sent it to his first line supervisor, Master Sergeant (MSG) X___ X___.  They both agreed that the NCOER was fair, [applicant] was meeting his recruiting targets and doing everything he was supposed to be doing.  MSG X___ X___ sent the NCOER to the reviewer, First Lieutenant (1LT) S___.  The reviewer sent the NCOER back.  1LT X____ pointed out two incidents that happened during the rated period.  One was a failure of an APFT and the other was disrespecting a commissioned officer, who was the R and R BN Commander (CDR).  It was pushed down from his chain of command that those two incidents needed to be included in the NCOER.  SFC X___ X___ changed the NCOER as directed.  SFC X___ X___ believes that he signed both versions of the [applicant’s] NCOER.  SFC X___ X___ was not present when [applicant] was disrespectful toward the BN CDR.  The BN executive officer told them that [applicant] had remained seated while the BN CDR was standing in the room.  SFC X___ X___ counselled [applicant], who told him that the person who had remained seated was a recruit, not [applicant] himself.  Prior to [applicant’s] deployment, he was seriously injured in a car accident.  [Applicant] had a profile, but got off the profile to deploy to Iraq.  When [applicant] returned, [applicant] went to the Recruiting BN where [applicant] tried to continue without a permanent profile.  The [applicant’s] injury made him struggle on the APFT.

	f.  Enclosure 5 - The applicant’s sworn declaration dated 31 Match 2017:  He was on an AGR tour with the Indiana Army National Guard (INARNG), R and R BN in Indianapolis, IN from August 2012 to March 2016, when a tour continuation board did not select him to continue his AGR tour.  During the time he was a recruiter, he reviewed an NCOER with a thru date of August 2013.  He signed the NCOER.  After he was not selected to continue his AGR tour with the Recruiting BN, he learned that the NCOER with a thru date of August 2013 was not the one he had been shown.  He had not seen the. NCOER in his file until after the Board met and decided not to select him to continue his AGR tour.  The NCOER in his file contained comments that were untrue.  He did pass the APFT prior to the evaluation, and he was never disrespectful or failed to demonstrate proper customs and courtesies to the BN CDR.  Both of these statements were in the signed NCOER in question.

		(1)  He was in a car accident in October 2010.  As a result, he had reconstructive surgery which involved his pelvis and fractures in his lower back, but he was told by the doctors that he may be paralyzed if they attempted surgery at that location.  He is currently on a permanent physical profile, however, during the rating period covered by this NCOER, March through August 2013, he was not.  His ability to perform sit ups, and to run has been limited following the surgery.  When he performed sit ups, it was very painful, but currently it has been a significant improvement due to slow rehabilitation over the years. When he would run after the sit-up portion of the APFT, he would feel an increase of pain in his lower back which would hinder him.  His platoon sergeant, SFC X___ X___ was well aware and knew that he was trying to rehabilitate himself.  1LT X___ had him doing practice APFT’s almost every two weeks prior to August 2013 knowing his struggle.  He did not pass all of the practice APFT’s 1LT X___ administered to him because it did not give his body time to heal.  He did however, pass the record APFT given on 10 May 2013.

		(2)  The NCOER in his file also states: "failed to show professionalism when approached by senior R and R officer at a public event" and "lack of military bearing is unacceptable."  He believes these comments refer to an incident where the BN CDR attended a reception for Medal of Honor recipients at a meeting hall in Indianapolis.  He attended the reception and brought a recruit who had not yet finished the recruit sustainment program (RSP), they call them Warriors.  The recruit was dressed in the Army combat uniform (ACU) as he was.  When the BN CDR came up to him on the patio outside wearing civilian clothes, [recruit] did not stand up.  Private (PVT) X___ did not recognize the BN CDR because he had just came into command and hadn't been to their RSP site for the cadre to introduce the new BN CDR.  The BN CDR asked PVT X___ a simple question, and since the CDR was in civilian attire and didn't address who he was, PVT X___ simply replied with "yup" and the CDR felt disrespected.  When SFC X___ verbally counseled [applicant] about this incident, [applicant] informed him that it was the recruit who did not address the CDR and told him that they could counsel him at the next RSP drill.  He also asked if it would be possible to speak to his first sergeant or company CDR on the issue to clear the air, but he was given the answer of not to worry about it and drive on.  He understands that he may have been confused for PVT X___ because his height is 6 feet 1 inch tall and he weighs about 215 pounds with dark brown hair and hazel eyes.  PVT X___ is a similar height and has brown hair, but he is much thinner.  

		(3)  He was on a promotion list in 2015.  There was an administrative error and his record did not show that he had completed structured self-development level two.  When he provided documentation of this training, he was told it was too late to promote him because he had been removed from the list.  He filed an inspector general (IG) complaint on this matter and they also agreed that he shouldn't have been removed from the list and promoted with his peers.  Since there wasn't anything that the IG could do however, they said that there would be a supplementary list later in the year and that he would be placed on that list for promotion under the grandfathered rules of not needing the advanced leader course to be pinned Staff Sergeant.  Since he was not retained by the continuation board and removed from the AGR program he was never afforded the opportunity of the secondary list.  He was told that in order to be promoted on the current list, he would need to change his military occupational specialty (MOS).  He had to change his MOS because his current medical status and PULHES (Physical Profile System) would not allow him to attend advanced courses for MOS 11B (Infantryman) and 19D (Cavalry Scout).  He has subsequently retrained as a 74D Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield Explosive (CBRNE) NCO including attending resident training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO in January 2017.

	g.  Enclosure 6 – Physical profile record, dated 12 December 2016.  Shows he has a permanent profile for lower back injury/pain under lower extremities.  He cannot perform the two mile run and sit-ups.  He could perform the push-ups, walk, swim or bike.

	h.  Enclosure 7 – APFT dated 10 May 2013, shows he passed with a total score of 195.

	i.  Enclosure 8 – Statement (email) from senior rater, MSG X___.  On 5 January 2017, his counsel emailed MSG S___ and asked if he recognized the signature on the attachment.  On 6 January 2017, MSG X___ responded with “Ma'am, per our conversation that is my signature on [applicant’s] PT card, as I remember that was the run time I was given by the grader and the time I heard being called out as he crossed the line.  As you can see I was not his grader the initials next to his event scores are not mine I was merely the NCOIC of the event so my signature is on the whole companies from that day.”

	j.  Enclosure 9 – Statement was not included in the packet.

	k.  Enclosure 10 – Email from the IG to the applicant.  On 30 November 2015, MSG X___ X___, assistant IG NCO informed the applicant that he conducted interviews with his command and the J3.  There was an error within a system that kept the [applicant] from getting enrolled.  He may be considered for a supplemental board.  

	l.  Enclosure 11 – Letter of recommendation from MSG X___ X___ dated 12 January 2016.  The purpose of this letter of recommendation is to identify that the [applicant] is a highly qualified candidate for the Nebraska Army National Guard (NRARNG) R and R BN.  [Applicant] is a highly motivated individual that has the ability to be successful in any training the Army has to offer.  MSG X___ X___ feels that the [applicant] has the necessary skills and attributes to be a successful RRNCO.  [Applicant] always demonstrates the Army Values and lives by the NCO Creed.  MSG X___ X___ has personally worked with the [applicant] and he has the ability and determination to be successful.  [Applicant] wants to learn and wants to be the best RRNCO possible.

	m.  Enclosure 12 - Letter of support from SFC X___ X___ date unknown.  SFC X___ has known and worked with the [applicant] on both a personal and professional level for the last 5 years.  [Applicant] always displays an enthusiastic attitude no matter how difficult task he is given.  [Applicant] has worked in recruiting as an RRNCO and a primary instructor for the recruit sustainment program.  [Applicant’s] instructional ability and attention to detail has resulted in zero deficiencies in his recruits paperwork and attitude when they arrive at basic training.  [Applicant] is very detail orientated and self-driven.  His pride in his physical and mental abilities as well as his appearance speak for themselves.  He strives to excel in his mission and the welfare of his Soldiers.  [Applicant] leads from the front in all of his assigned tasks.  The Nebraska National Guard would definitely benefit from his abilities. 

	n.  Enclosure 13 – Image of the coin the applicant received from the INARNG TAG, Major General (MG) X___ X___ at the end of Operation Slovak Shield for his leadership and professionalism as the acting first sergeant for the 19th CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP).

	o.  Letter of endorsement from the INARNG TAG, MG C___ to the National Guard Bureau (NGB), Evaluations Appeals, dated 20 June 2017.  

	(1)  The [applicant] is a former INARNG R and R BN AGR Soldier, and the NCOER at issue was given to him in the fall of 2013.  An internal review of the factual circumstances has indicated the NCOER possessed both administrative and substantive errors as those terms are defined in Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), and the relief sought by the [applicant] is necessary to correct an injustice on his behalf.

	(2)  The NGB review showed the two alleged deficiencies in the second NCOER were not sufficiently supportable under the facts.  With respect to the alleged APFT failure, the NCOER gives a date for failing an APFT on the date of 10 May 2013, however a review of APFT records shows that the [applicant] in fact passed his APFT on that date (see exhibit #3).  The recording of this inaccurate information created an administrative error to which the [applicant] is entitled to correction.  With respect to the alleged failure to follow military customs and courtesies, the NGB review indicated that the agency only had one example that did not justify derogatory evaluation during the rated period.  This incident occurred at an informal unit social event where attendees were in civilian attire, and [applicant] failed to rise from his chair and address his BN CDR as “Sir" when he entered the event.  To address this incident, [applicant] was tasked to prepare a written paper discussing military customs and courtesies (see exhibit #4). " It is my belief that changing the NCOER to reflect a "Needs Improvement" on this solitary instance was a substantive error.  An error that when added to the improper notation of a failed APFT, resulted in [applicant’s] NCOER being changed to show he was only a "Fair Soldier" (as opposed to the first NCOER which characterized him as "Successful") and caused him a manifest injustice in his career as an NCO."

	(3)  In the [applicant’s] appeal to the NGB, Evaluations Appeals, he simply asks that the above referenced second NCOER currently in his IPERMs be removed, and that it be replaced with his original NCOER that is also referenced.  Since being non-retained in AGR, the [applicant] has gone on to continue to serve the INARNG in their CERFP mission and has proven to be an invaluable asset.  Please consider this letter the INARNG's full endorsement for his requested relief and they strongly encourage that the NGB, Evaluations Appeals grant such relief under the circumstances.  MG X___ provides a detailed letter with exhibits (detailed letter enclosed in packet).

	p.  NGB, Evaluations Appeals response to the applicant’s evaluation appeal, dated 16 August 2017.  Under the provisions of AR 623-3, the evaluation report for the period stated (14 March 2013 through 31 August 2013) is returned without action.  Evaluation report appeals must be submitted within 3 years of the through date of the report.  Failure to submit an appeal within this time may be excused only if exceptional justification to warrant this exception is provided.  In the [applicant’s] case, there was not enough evidence to provide an exception to this policy.

4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

	a.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 13 September 2007, having served in a variety of assignments, mainly in Indianapolis, IN. 

	b.  He was promoted to sergeant on 15 March 2012.

	c.  He received a 6 month change of rater NCOER that is in his AHMRR, for the period covering 15 March 2013 through 31 August 2013, as an R and R NCO.  

	(1)  Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing), the applicant received a "Needs Improvement (Some)" and the following bullet comments:

* failure of the two mile run and just meeting minimum in the other two events shows lack of motivation; must change attitude toward APFT and the total Soldier concept
* maintained his stamina to go the distance despite the rigorous RRNCO work schedule 

	(2)  Part IVd (Leadership), the applicant received a "Needs Improvement (Some)" and the following bullet comments:

* failed to show professionalism when approached by senior R and R officer at a public event; lack of military bearing displayed often during rated period
* solid leader, genuinely cares for Soldiers; motivates them to accomplish all missions

	(3)  Part IVe (Training), the applicant received a "Success (Meets standard)" and the following bullet comments:

* maintained a 100% first time pass rate for all Soldiers who took the Stripes for Skills White Phase I test during RSD Drill weekend
* possesses the skills, knowledge, and abilities to train future recruiting NCOs

	(4)  Part Va (Rater - Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Marginal" rating.

	(5)  Parts Vc and d (Senior Rater - Overall Performance and Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the applicant received a "Successful 3/Fair 4" rating.

	(6)  Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the bullet comments read:

* lack of military bearing is unacceptable; NCO knows what right looks like, but often fails to adhere to proper courtesy and customs
* new AGR recruiter who failed APFT shows a lack of motivation; did not set the proper example for others to follow; must establish a regimental fitness program
* a great trainer and coach; excels in interactions with warriors in preparing them for BCT/AIT

	d.  He was honorably released from active duty, not by reason of physical disability, and transferred to Company Bravo, R and R BN, Indianapolis, IN on 2 March 2016.  He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 24 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was awarded or authorized: 

* Army Commendation Medal
* Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award)
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal with M Device
* Combat Infantry Badge

5.  By regulation, AR 623-3, advised that appeals based on substantive inaccuracy must include the basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an erroneous perception of the performance.  A personality conflict between the appellant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal; it must be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust evaluation.

	a.  An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to (1) Be administratively correct; (2) Have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications; and (3) Represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	b.  A completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier’s OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored if the request is based on the following:  statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier; statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did; requests that ratings be revised; or statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, performance, or potential; therefore, it is imperative that rating officials ensure evaluation reports are accurately recorded prior to signing. 

	c.  Reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier’s OMPF, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an OER, NCOER, or AER “THRU” date.  Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time reports were rendered.

	d.  Burden of proof and type of evidence states 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 (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration; and (2) 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.  If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions

6.  AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), all Soldiers must attain a score of at least 60 points on each test event or receive a “GO” on the alternate aerobic event.  If a Soldier does not attain a minimum of 60 points in each event or a “GO” on an alternate aerobic event, the Soldier is an event failure.  When a Soldier fails one or more events, the Soldier is a test failure.



BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is warranted.  One potential outcome discussed was to deny the requested relief, as a result of the applicant authenticating the NCOER and acknowledging his APFT data was correct and there being no evidence the document was forged after he signed as a result of the CAC signatures are in sequence with him signing last.  However, based upon the sworn statements showing the rating chain encouraged making changes to the NCOER and the rater and senior rater did, the Board concluded there was an injustice which warranted correcting the applicant’s record.  The process should have been for them to keep the ratings, and have the reviewer non-concur and add an addendum.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

X	:	X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	X	:	DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:	

• deleting from his record the 2168-8, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), covering the period 13 March through 31 August 2013
• replacing a statement in his record for the rating period 13 March through 31 August 2013 as non-rated time
 		
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.  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to previously submitted evaluation reports) states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army (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 represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	b.  Paragraph 4-7 states an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence (paragraph 4-11).  An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.  The determination regarding adequacy of evidence may be made by HQDA, Evaluation Appeals Branch (AHRC–PDV–EA), NGB–ARP–C (Appeals Section), or the appropriate State Adjutant General (Army National Guard)

	c.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of proof and type of evidence) states the burden of proof in the appeal process rests with the appellant.  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  

	(1)  For a claim of administrative error, appropriate evidence may include a substantive type, evidence may include statements of military personnel officers or other persons who know about the situation pertaining to the report in question, results of a commanders (CDR) or Commandant’s Inquiry or other documents bearing on the point of question.

	(2)  For a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, 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 practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered.  The results of a CDR’s or Commandant’s Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request.

	d.  Paragraph 4-13 (Appeals based on substantive inaccuracy) a decision to appeal an evaluation report will not be made lightly. Before deciding whether or not to appeal, the prospective appellant will analyze the case dispassionately. This is difficult but unless it is done, the chances of a successful appeal are reduced.

	(1)  Once the decision has been made to appeal an evaluation report, the appellant will state succinctly what is being appealed and the basis for the appeal.  For example, the appellant will state—

(a)  Whether the entire report is contested or only a specific part or comment.

(b)  The basis for the belief that the rating officials were not objective or had an 
erroneous perception of his or her performance.  Note that a personality conflict between the appellant and a rating official does not constitute grounds for a favorable appeal; it will be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust evaluation.

      (2)  Most appellants will never be completely satisfied with the evidence obtained.  A point is reached, however, when the appellant will decide whether to submit with the available evidence or to forgo the appeal entirely.  The following
factors are to be considered:

(a)  The evidence must support the allegation.  The appellant needs to remember 
that the case will be reviewed by impartial board members who will be influenced only by the available evidence.  Their decision will be based on their best judgment of the evidence provided.

(b)  Correcting minor administrative errors or deleting one official’s rating does 
not invalidate the report.

3.  AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), prescribes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for developing, managing, and conducting Army training and leader development.  Appendix F-5 (Physical readiness training program), paragraph l (6), all Soldiers must attain a score of at least 60 points on each test event or receive a “GO” on the alternate aerobic event.  If a Soldier does not attain a minimum of 60 points in each event or a “GO” on an alternate aerobic event, the Soldier is an event failure.  When a Soldier fails one or more events, the Soldier is a test failure.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20170018034


10


1