ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008108 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of two DA Forms 67-10-2 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) (contested reports) covering the periods 2 July 2010 through 1 July 2011 and 2 July 2011 through 1 July 2012 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 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) * Brief in Support of OERs Appeal, X___ X. X___, Attorney At Law * Enclosure 1 – OER, dated through 1 July 2011 * Enclosure 2 – OER, dated through 1 July 2012 * Enclosure 3 – Memorandum U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 24 February 2014, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal (20100702- 20110701) (20110702-20120701) * Enclosure 4 – OER, dated through 1 July 2010 * Enclosure 5 – Memorandum, Army Reserve Counter Terrorism Unit, U.S. Department of State, dated 13 July 2015, subject: Evaluation Reports (X___, X___ X. (Applicant), 2 July 2010-1July 2011, 2 July 2011-1 July 2012) * Enclosure 6 – Memorandum, 363rd Civil Affairs Command (ABN), dated 8 June 2015, subject: Evaluation Reports (Applicant, XXX-XX-XXXX, 2 July 2010-1July 2011, 2 July 2011-1 July 2012) * Enclosure 7 – Memorandum, 485th Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Battalion, dated 5 June 2015, subject: Report of Applicant Receiving OERS during his time with the 411th Civil Affairs Battalion (CABN) * Enclosure 8 – Draft OER, dated through 1 July 2012. (without signatures) * Enclosure 8a – Memorandum for Record, dated 8 June 2015, Applicant, subject: Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT), Applicant, 411th CABN * Enclosure 9 – Letter, undated, subject: Applicant * Enclosure 10 – OERs, Officer Record Brief, Applicant’s file * DA Form 71 (Oath of Office-Military Personnel), dated 29 May 2006, 16 July 2010 * OERs dated through 14 January 2007,15 June 2007, 14 June 2008, 11 March 2009, 2 October 2009, and 1 July 2011 (a draft report) * ORB dated 12 May 2010 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 20 July 2011 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. The counsel states: a. This appeal renews all issues raised in the applicant’s 9 January 2014 appeal to the HRC, which was rejected on 24 February 2014. Throughout this petition, the current ranks of Soldiers will be referenced unless previous ranks were used in quoted materials. (The applicant and counsel did not provide and the applicant’s OMPF does not contain a copy of the applicant’s appeal to HRC). b. The applicant’s last active duty OER covering the period 3 October 2009 through 1 July 2010, was a stellar report. Upon completion of two-years in the Unites States Army Reserve (USAR), unit officials issued the applicant the two contested OERs which were replete with administrative and substantive errors and extremely late. c. In the rejection letter from HRC, an official stated, in part: “Your signature on both reports verifies the rating chains in Part II. Major (MAJ) X was assigned to another unit until August 2011, as revealed by his OER with a through date of 18 August 2011. According to MAJ X ’s official file, she was assigned to your unit in December 2008. Colonel (COL) X ’s request is not in accordance (IAW) Chapter 4, Army Regulation 623-3. HRC does not replace reports posted to a Soldier’s official file with corrected copies. In order to clarify and substantiate your claims, the following documents are recommend: supporting memoranda from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) X , MAJ X , and MAJ X ; certified rating schemes, and a complete Commander’s Inquiry (CI) IAW Chapter 4, Army Regulation (AR) 623-3. The results of the inquiry would greatly enhance your appeals. I have corrected the rank of MAJ X , however the senior rater’s ran is unchanged per table 2-2, Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (PAM) 623-3.” (MAJ X and MAJ X held the rank of MAJ during the periods in question, however they will be further referred to in their current ranks of LTC throughout the remainder of these proceedings.) d. The applicant indicated in his appeal to HRC dated 9 January 2014, that neither of the contested OERs reflect the correct rating chain in place during the period in question. This statement is important and directly addresses a number of points raised by HRC in their memorandum dated, 24 February 2014. e. The statement “Your signature on both reports verifies the rating chains in Part II” does not reflect the state of affairs in the applicant’s unit at the time, as evidenced in the statements from the rater, LTC X ,and LTC X _. (To alleviate significant repetition, each of these statements will be further detailed later in these proceedings.) f. LTC X ’s statement dated 13 July 2015, indicates “I was retroactively appointed as the rater for this period as I was one of the few officers, of the right grade, belonging to the 411th CABN during of the duration of this period” is a cavalier departure from the requirements of AR 623-3 on a number of grounds. * First, paragraph 3-4, specifically requires initial and follow-up counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier that is documented on a support form or counseling and support form that assures a verified communication process throughout the rating period. * Second, paragraph 3-7 clearly establishes, in part, the rater’s responsibility to immediately counsel the rated Soldier and direct his or her performance. The rater’s responsibilities are further detailed in paragraph throughout this entire paragraph. * Third, paragraph 3-3k(2) [sic] (should read paragraph 3-34k(2)) states the rated Soldier will always be the last individual to sign the evaluation report to verify the accuracy of Parts I and II and to ensure he has seen the completed report. This will normally preclude an appeal by the rated Soldier based on inaccurate administrative data. g. Based on the processing dates listed on the contested OERs, the applicant could not make an informed decision as to whether he should sign the reports validating the administrative data well after a year following the close out date of the event. While the purpose and clear intent of the regulation is for the rated Soldier to validate he seen the report, seeing it more than a year after he left the unit has virtually no meaningful purpose. Technically, the applicant was still with the unit, but had been remote for nearly a year and no one made an effort to reach him. Howbeit, he was available at all times by telephone and email. h. HRC’S comment that LTC X was assigned to another unit until August 2011 as revealed by his OER with a through date of 18 August 2011, is questionable based on the record keeping and manipulation of the rating schemes in the 411th CABN and can be addressed by: * the applicant consistently maintained LTC X was not his rater during the times she erroneously signed his OER as rater * in his 8 June 2015, statement, LTC X unequivocally states, “It was my express understanding that I was X ’s (the applicant’s) rater beginning February 2011” * LTC X ’s assignment elsewhere proves the 411th CABN did not see fit to follow proper procedures or regulations regarding the assignment of rating officials and was comfortable conducting business in a hap hazard, although well intentional manner as the moment required i. There is no justification why the contested OER with the through date of 1 July 2011 was signed by the rater (LTC X ) on 11 December 2012 and three days later by the senior rater, COL X ; more than 17 months later. This issue is more pronounced when viewing the OER with the through date of 1 July 2012, as it contains the same date (11 December 2012) and signatories. These facts confirm the administrative impropriety in this case. j. Paragraph 3-33l [sic] (paragraph 3-34l (1) states evaluation reports will be forwarded error-free to reach Headquarters, DA, no later than 90 days after the “thru” date of the report. The senior rater is responsible for ensuring the timely submission of reports. Once again, the regulation was ignored. k. HRC’s comment regarding LTC X ’s assignment to the unit in December 2008, is of no consequence. The issue is not when she was assigned to the unit, but rather, whether or not she was at any time the rater of the applicant.“ l. HRC recommended the applicant provide supporting statements from LTC X , LTC X , and LTC X . These statements have been obtained. LTC X does not address any gross missteps or substitution of the applicant’s rating officials by the 411th CABN. In addition, now five years after the fact, he candidly cannot recall if he was the applicant’s rater or not. Based on his remembrance of the applicant, had he prepared his OER, it would have been favorable. m. As it relates to the contested report dated through 1 July 2012, the remark in block 5b regarding the applicant’s failure to take an APFT during the rating period, caused significant harm to his career and undoubtedly contributed to this less than stellar report. The applicant’s failure to take an APFT never took place. LTC X states he was given incorrect “thru” dates and therefore believed the applicant had not taken and APFT during the rated period. Therefore, he believed he was required and did issue the applicant a referred report. A copy of this referred report is attached to substantiate this statement. n. The HRC official states LTC X was assigned to another unit until August 2011, as evidenced by his OER with a thru date of August 2011. It is likely LTC X ’s OER, among others at the time, were prepared with no thought to the regulatory rating requirements just to get the paperwork completed well after the fact. This situation would not come to light in cases where the recipients receive satisfactory ratings without reason to “rock the boat.” o. MAJ X served at the 411th CABN with the applicant and indicates, following his abrupt departure from the unit, there was significant disagreement over who would write his OER when it was sought from his new command. It was proposed that the new commander of the 411th CABN, of whom he never met, would write it. While he had the utmost respect for the acting battalion commander, battalion commander, and the vast majority of officers with whom he served with at the 411th CABN, it was clear that some arbitrary and inequitable decisions were made at some level, that caused the applicant a promising Army career. p. The senior rater listed on the two contested OERs is correct and he provided a memorandum in support of the applicant admitting the unit failed to comply with Army Regulation 623-3. The applicant included this memorandum with his appeal to HRC. However, HRC officials requires the results of an administrative investigation to complete its review. Based on the applicant’s distant departure from the unit, this is not practical or realistic. The applicant requested the Civil Actions Command, SJA conduct an investigation, but this request resulted in his referral to the Inspector General (IG). The IG stated this matter is out of investigation purview. q. The applicant’s career is marked with distinction. He served in Africa, completed a full combat tour, was selected to lead Civil Affairs Soldiers, he was a JAG Corp officer, and served as the lawyer for a SEAL team in Iraq. His OERs attest to his outstanding service and he was heartily endorsed by his commanders in the 411th CABN to branch transfer to Civil Affairs due to his abilities in that field. It is ironic that at the same time the Civil Affairs unit was endeavoring to have the applicant branch transfer, his career through his OERs was being handled in such a cavalier fashion. 3. Review of the applicant's records shows on 29 January 2006, the applicant was appointed as a commissioned officer of the Army. He entered active duty in the JAG corps and held the rank of first lieutenant 1LT/O-2. 4. His OMPF contains the six OERs that contain only favorable comments and reflect his excellent character and performance completed during his active duty service from 1 September 2006 to 1 July 2010. His rater marked the “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” block in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) and his senior rater marked the “Best Qualified” block in Part VII (Senior Rater) on all six reports. 5. On 15 July 2010, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty and transferred to the USAR. The DD Form 214 issued him at that time shows he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 411th CABN. It also shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: * Army Commendation Medal * Army Achievement Medal * U.S. Navy Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon 6. His OMPF contains the contested reports. Part II (Authentication) lists “MAJ” X (currently a LTC) as his rater and LTC-X (promotable) X (currently a COL) as the senior rater on both reports. These reports additionally include the following: a. The contested OER covering the period 2 July 2010 through 1 July 2011, contains all favorable comments, identifies his excellent character, and shows the following: * Part IVc (APFT) - he completed and passed the APFT on 23 October 2010 and met the height and weight requirements * Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) – the rater marked the “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” block * Part VII (Senior Rater) – the senior rater marked the “Best Qualified” block b. The contested OER covering the period 2 July 2011 through 1 July 2012, primarily contains favorable comments, identifies the applicant’s excellent character, and includes the following evaluations: * Part IVc (APFT) – is blank * Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) – “Satisfactory Performance, Promote” and the rater comments included “The rated officer was unable to take a record APFT during this rating period due to civilian employment (deployment) conflicts with the Department of State.” * Part VII (Senior Rater) – the senior rater marked the “Fully Qualified” and “Center of Mass” blocks 7. On 24 February 2014, a Human Resources Assistant, Appeals and Corrections Section, HRC, returned the applicant’s appeal of the contested reports without action. a. IAW paragraph 4-11, AR 623-3, to justify removal or modification of a contested report an appellant must provide, clear, convincing, strong, and compelling evidence that the report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust. b. Your signature on both reports verifies the rating chains in Part II. “MAJ” X was assigned to another unit until August 2011 as revealed through his OER with a thru date of 18 August 2011. According to “MAJ” X ’s official file, she was assigned to your unit in December 2008. COL X request is not IAW chapter 4, AR 623-3 and HRC does not replace reports posted to a Soldier’s OMPF with corrected copies. c. Third party statements must be the original and any copies of documentation supplied must be certified true. Responses from the IG, equal opportunity investigations, or CI could result in an approval of the appeal. In order to clarify and substantiate your claims, recommend you provide supporting memoranda from LTC X , “MAJ” X , and “MAJ” X ; certified rating schemes, and a completed CI IAW AR 623-3. 7. The applicant and his counsel provided the following memorandums and OER. a. On 5 June 2015, LTC X wrote he was the commander of the applicant’s unit from July 2010 to February 2011, but at that time, had no knowledge he had been identified as the applicant’s rater. The applicant was very responsible and professional. There were no negative aspects in his performance and he had no reason to believe, had he prepared his evaluation, it would have been unfavorable. b. On 8 June 2015, LTC X wrote, he was the commander of HHC, 411th CABN from February 2011 to October 2012, and at all points during this time, the applicant reported to him and it was their understanding that he was his rater. (1) The applicant completed a record APFT in June 2011. In the fall of 2012, he was incorrectly advised to complete an OER for the applicant with a thru date of July 2012. This date was incorrect because he became the applicant’s rater in February 2011. Therefore, the thru date for first annual OER should have been February 2012. (2) Because he was given the incorrect thru date, he believed the applicant had not completed a record APFT during the rating period. As such, he believed he was required to give him a referred report. After he provided the applicant the referred report, the battalion leadership replaced him as the applicant’s rater with LTC X . (3) During the period February 2011 thru February 2012, the applicant performed commendably and complied with all specific objectives as discussed at the outset of the rating period. Had he been properly advised of the correct thru date, he would have provided the applicant with an OER that reflected his excellent performance. (4) It is extremely unfortunate the applicant’s fine performance has not been accurately reflected in his personnel file due to an administrative error. It is his opinion, because he was the applicant’s actual rater from February to February 2012, any OER showing any other officer as his rater is invalid. c. On 8 June 2015, the applicant prepared a memorandum for record indicating he completed three record APFT’s while assigned with the 411th CABN, as indicated. * October 2010 – with the unit at Camp Niantic * 30 June 2011 – administered by Sergeant First Class (SFC) X___ X___ * 14 December 2012 – administered by SFC X___ X___ d. On 13 July 2015, LTC X_ prepared a memorandum to clarify the facts related to the applicant’s service with HHC, 411th CABN from July 2010 – July 2012. She states: (1) She was the commander of Company A, 411th CABN from the time of the applicant’s arrival to the unit in July 2010 through June 2011. Due to an overall shortage of qualified officers, she became the executive officer of the battalion in March 2011, and served in both roles for 4 months. (2) LTC X was the commander of the applicant’s unit (HHC, 411th CABN) from July 2010 and his original rater until he departed the unit for mobilization in February 2011. LTC X was the commander from February 2011 through October 2012. (3) In 2012, the unit’s administrative informed the battalion leadership that the applicant had not yet received an OER during his entire tenure with the unit. (4) LTC X did not prepare an OER for the applicant prior to his departure. Battalion leadership and the administration decided to complete an annual report for the applicant for the period July 2010 – July 2011. She was retroactively appointed as the applicant’s rater for this period, as she was one of the few officers of the right grade assigned to the 411th CABN during this period. (5) LTC X arrived to the unit in the middle of the proposed rating period from July 2011 – July 2012, and therefore would not complete the OER, with or without unrated time. It was decided she would again retroactively step in as the rater for this proposed rating period replacing LTC X as the applicant’s actual rater and supervisor for this period. (6) The retroactive decision to create a rating period from July 2010 to July 2011 created the appearance that the applicant’s next annual OER should be from July 2011 to July 2012. From a regulation standpoint, based on the new commander’s arrival in February 2011, the applicant should have received his next annual report for the period February 2011 – February 2012. (7) The applicant completed record APFTs in October 2010, June 2011, and December 2012, and thus was in compliance with the two amended rating periods. In understanding the constraints of his civilian employment training, we attempted to accommodate the applicant with flexible training schedules and limited unit engagement. As a result LTC X did not have an opportunity to meet the applicant in person and subsequently proposed a referred OER which they did not feel was appropriate. (8) She was not the applicant’s rater in the sense that he did not report to her. Due to administrative errors, the applicant’s evaluations from the 411th CABN are technically inaccurate. The two contested OERs, wherein she is listed as the rater should be removed from the applicant’s personnel file. Although she was not his supervisor, she experienced his exemplary service to the unit. Had he not missed an APFT during the rating periods, his OERs would be a positive reflection of these periods. e. On an unknown date, MAJ X wrote a statement summarizing his service with the applicant while assigned to HHC, 411th CABN from February 2011 to April 2012. (1) As the “senior international law officer” he was in a position to observe and supervise the applicant, although not in his rating chain. The applicant was a judge advocate with stellar credentials and experience. He went above and beyond expectations to continue his service to his unit as he undertook an important federal government position, with the Department of State, as a “diplomatic security agent.” He understood the applicant would participate to the extent possible and then return to drilling status upon completion of training, subject to his initial assignment. This type of arrangement is not unheard of and benefits the unit significantly in terms of retention and continuity. (2) Upon rotation back from deployment, there were significant personnel changes at all levels, including the battalion and some company commands. Understandably, the rating chain was in flux, he was unaware of his rater, and would be very surprised if the applicant had any better understanding of his rating chain at that time. (3) Following his abrupt departure from the unit, there was significant disagreement over who would write his OER when it was sought from his new command. It was proposed that the new commander of the 411th CABN, of whom he never met, would write it. (4) If the applicant’s required assembly participation was not satisfactory, the command should have followed the regulation, advised him of such, and sought to set him on the productive path, as required. Instead it appears that representations were made to facilitate flexible participation, no negative action was taken for several months, a dramatic change occurred, and a punitive OER was issued. It is clear that some arbitrary and inequitable decisions were made at some level at the 411th CABN and those decisions caused the applicant a promising Army career. (5) The interest of justice demand reconsideration of the contested OER(s) and the applicant’s restoration to status. Moreover, the USAR deserves to have leaders like the applicant in their ranks, rather than squander his dedication and waste the training and experience he acquired through his dedicated service. f. An undated and unauthenticated OER (draft report) covering the period 2 July 2011 to 1 July 2012, shows: * Part II (Authentication) - lists LTC X as the rater and COL X as the senior rater * Part IVc (APFT) – is blank * Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) – the rater marked the “Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote” block and his comments included a statement indicating during this rating period the applicant joined the U.S. Department of State to hat to begin training in the Diplomat Security Service. As a result, he missed numerous battle assemblies and was unable to take an APFT. * Part VII (Senior Rater) – the senior rater marked the “Do Not Promote” block and commented the applicant needs to focus on passing the APFT during his next rating period. 8. By regulation (AR 623-3), evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. 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 the HQDA Evaluation Appeals Branch. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within the applicant’s military service record, the Board made the following findings: * the first OER (2 July 2010 through 1 July 2011) was properly filed in his official records and, in the opinion of the Board members, is not a bad OER with Best Qualified and No rating (he was a CPT at the time). * The second OER (2 July 2011 through 1 July 2012) also was properly filed in his official records is also, in the opinion of the Board members, not derogatory in nature with a Fully Qualified and Center of Mass ratings. * The Board acknowledged the OER timeliness of submission was late but felt this did not invalidate either OER. Based upon those findings, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s military record. 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. X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: X 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) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 3-4 (The Support Form Communication Process) states initial and follow-up counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier that is documented on the DA Form 67-10-1A (Support Form) assures a verified communication process throughout the rating period. The initial face-to-face counseling assists in developing the elements of the rated Soldier’s duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives. The follow-up counseling enhances mission-related planning, assessment, and performance development. b. Paragraph 3-7 (Rater) states the rater has immediate responsibility for counseling a rated Soldier and directing their performance. The rater will provide a copy of their support form to the rated Soldier at the beginning of the rating period. The DA Form 67-10 series is utilized for officers. (1) Beginning of the rating period. Shortly after the rated officer assumes their duties, the rater will provide the rated officer copies of the rater’s and senior rater’s DA Form 67–10–1A, mission, and/or objectives. This action ensures the rated officer knows their rating chain and has the necessary input to properly determine and prioritize responsibilities and performance objectives. (2) The rater will conduct a face-to-face counseling session with the rated officer within the first 30 days of the rating period. This initial discussion will focus on duties, responsibilities, and performance objectives of the rated officer. The rater will discuss and establish goals that promote and support a healthy workplace environment conducive to the growth and development of the rated officer. The rater will also discuss and establish goals for supporting the EO and EEO programs, fostering a climate of dignity and respect, adhering to the SHARP Program, preventing and eliminating sexual harassment and sexual assault. While correspondence and telephone conversations may be used as an alternative because of geographic separation, these will be followed by a face-to-face discussion between the rated officer and rater at the earliest opportunity. Simply requiring the rated officer to submit written performance objectives on DA Form 67–10–1A at the beginning of the rating period without a follow-up face-to-face meeting is an unacceptable shortcut of this provision. c. Paragraph 3-34k (Authentication of Evaluation Reports) states proper sequencing of evaluation report authentication provides credibility in the evaluation process. The rated Soldier will always be the individual to sign the evaluation report last after rating officials. d. Paragraph 4-7 (Policies) states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. 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 the HQDA Evaluation Appeals Branch. e. Paragraph 4-7g(4) states periods of time when an evaluation was required but failed to be rendered (for example, missing evaluation reports) require special consideration. A period of time for which an evaluation report should have been prepared by rating officials, but was not, will be left as a gap between completed evaluation reports in a Soldier’s record. The Soldier should make every effort to obtain the missing required evaluation report from the rating officials through appropriate command level involvement. f. Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) states substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time would require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR. The Army Special Review Board will not accept appeals over 3 years old or appeals from Soldiers who are no longer serving on active duty or as part of the U.S. Army Reserve or ARNG. g Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) states to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that established clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action was 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 administrative error or factual inaccuracy. The burden of proof rested with the applicant. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides procedural guidance for completing and submitting evaluation reports and associated support forms to HQDA that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.