IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  19 August 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180015844


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  expungement of a Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) 
Inspector General (IG) case (TXIG Case number NTX 15-0078) and Headquarters, 
Department of the Army, Inspector General (DAIG) case (DAIG Case number DIH16-
1247), further referred to as the contested reports, from the Inspector General Action 
Request System (IGARS)

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Self-authored statement
*	Chronology of Significant Relevant Events
*	Privacy Act Information Release Statement
*	Extract, Army Regulation (AR) 20-1 (Inspector General Activities and 
Procedures)
*	Extract, DAIG “The Assistance and Investigations Guide”
*	DAIG letter to the applicant, 21 August 2017
*	DAIG letter to the applicant, 18 January 2018
*	Army Directive 2018-01 (Inspector General Investigations), 26 January 2018
*	DAIG Memorandum for all Inspectors General, 31 January 2018
*	TXARNG Memorandum for the DAIG, 30 May 2018

FACTS:

1.  In a self-authored letter, the applicant states, in effect: 

     a.  She respectfully requests that the ABCMR exercise its equitable authority and 
issue a decision expunging the contested reports from IGARS.

     b.  First and foremost, and contrary to the conclusory assertions made by the DAIG 
in their dismissal of her request for reconsideration, the TXIG had no jurisdiction to 
conduct the investigation that resulted in derogatory information, in the form of a 
substantiated investigation, being placed in the IGARS database. Further, the Secretary 
of the Army has revised IG policy and no longer permits duplicative command and IG 
investigations without justification and the DAIG has implemented this change in Army 
policy by revising AR 20-1, combined with the fact that her Command's investigation 
was fully dispositive of the matter. Finally, on 18 January 2018, the DAIG notified her 
that the DOD Inspector General approved a determination that she did not take action 
against the accuser for his complaint regarding the lateness of his officer evaluation 
report (OER), and dismissed his whistleblower complaint. Therefore, she has been 
cleared of any reprisal action in this matter, evidencing that no malevolent intent was 
present in the underlying facts and circumstances, supporting the propriety of equitable 
expungement. Accordingly, she respectfully requests expungement of the contested 
reports from the IGARS database so that she may have an unblemished military record 
that will not interfere with her opportunity to advance to the general officer ranks.

       (1)  TXIG’s lack of jurisdiction and authority:  The initial IG investigation into the 
accuser's OER exceeded the scope of the IG Office's regulatory authority and was an 
inappropriate use of the IG's equitable powers. Therefore, the investigation and its 
results were void ab initio and should be expunged. 

       (1a)  The IG is a commander's confidential advisor and finder of fact with plenary 
equitable authority to ensure fundamental fairness and justice. However, that authority 
is limited by and must be exercised within the greater relevant regulatory scheme 
designed to ensure the good order and discipline of a unit that supports command 
authority. The relevant regulation in the present circumstance is AR 623-3 (Evaluation 
Reporting System). AR 623-3 provides for a remedy for any injustices or regulatory 
violations as well as correcting them, if it is determined under the regulation that they 
have occurred. See AR 623-3 Chapter 4. The regulatory redress mechanism under AR 
623-3 includes the authority to request a commander's inquiry by the rated Soldier. See 
AR 623-3 Chapter 4, Section II. The service member did not avail himself of the 
regulatory redress mechanism under AR 623-3. Instead the service member 
immediately went to the TXIG Office complaining about his OER. The IG office is 
governed by AR 20- 1, and the IG' s assistance function is governed by Chapter 6 of the 
regulation. Paragraph 6-3 sets forth matters where IG action is inappropriate or limited. 
Subsection g of para 6-3 of the regulation expressly states: 

Soldiers must seek and exhaust the prescribed redress or remedy before 
an IG can provide assistance. Once the Soldier has used the available 
redress procedures, the IG is limited to a review of the redress process to 
determine if the Soldier was afforded the due process provided by law or 
regulation.

       (1b)  Subsection g of para 6-3, then provides a non-exhaustive list of matters where 
the service member must first seek redress through other means before the IG can take 
any action. That list expressly states and includes OERs. Therefore, IG jurisdiction to 
conduct an investigation in this matter was not ripe, as the OER was in its nascent 
phase of drafting and submission. However, that does not mean the TXIG was 
completely unavailable in the matter as The DAIG Assistance and Investigation's Guide 
provides specific guidance on what an IG can do in such a circumstance. Section 3-4 of 
the guide states as follows in pertinent part:

*	As a matter of policy, the Inspector General does not normally become involved 
in complaints where an established avenue of redress is available to resolve a 
problem. The Inspector General's primary concern is that the complainant is 
afforded an opportunity for redress and that the redress was conducted IA W the 
applicable standard.

*	If the complainant, after pursuing the established avenues of redress, still feels 
an injustice has occurred, the Inspector General could address the individual’s 
concerns. However, the involvement would be limited to ensuring the 
complainant's rights were protected and he or she received due process.

*	The Inspector General will still complete a DA Form 1559 to capture the 
complaint or request for information, thoroughly analyze the complaint for all 
issues and allegations to ensure that the entire matter is not appropriate for the 
Inspector General, open a case in the IGARS database, and annotate any action 
taken such as teach and train or referral to the appropriate agency or regulation 
governing the redress

       (1c)  Accordingly, as an established avenue of redress was available, a referral and 
advisory role was the extent to which the TXIG should have been involved. The IG 
should not have conducted an investigation, until after the redress process was 
complete (i.e. through the appeal process) and even then the investigation should have 
been limited to ensuring the rights of the Soldier were protected, i.e. a due process 
review. 

       (1d)  It appears that initially the TXIG served in a command referral, Soldier 
assistance role by bringing the OER complaint to the attention of the command, 
triggering an AR 15-6 based CI. Presumably the TXIG was advising the Soldier and 
ready to perform the IG's limited jurisdictional role of due process review once the 
regulatory redress process was complete. However, the IG's due process review 
jurisdiction never attached during the time the OER was under AR 15-6/CI inquiry as 
regulatory redress had not yet been exhausted, i.e. the appeals process. The TXIG 
expressly states in his 5 October 2015 letter that, "The Inspector General received two 
allegations against you for violating provisions of AR 623-3, Evaluation Reporting 
System. We {sic-The TXIG} conducted an investigative inquiry into the allegations and 
made the following determinations:". The letter further notes that the investigation was 
now closed. Opening, conducting and closing an IO investigation into an OER matter 
where the redress process was still available is completely contrary to DAIG guidance 
and itself in violation of AR 20-1, para 6-3(g). Further, the TXIG's authority in the matter, 
even if redress had been complete was limited to determining whether the 
complainant's due process rights had been protected, not to render the determinations 
as made in the present circumstance. The irony being that her due process rights were 
violated by the TXIG performing this investigation without giving her notice, an 
opportunity to be heard in addition to going beyond regulatory authority and with no 
justification to exercise any equitable authority.

       (1e)  Ultimately a regulatory compliant OER was rendered for the Soldier, and the 
delay, even though exacerbated by parallel Command and IG investigations, resulted in 
nothing more than harmless error, i.e. mere delay that did not violate his due process 
rights. However, with the imprimatur of a substantiated IG investigation attached to her 
and caused actual harm. Her state denied her a board review to obtain a general officer 
certificate of eligibility for promotion. Had the TXIG limited his actions to those outlined 
at the end of Section 3- 4 of The DAIG Assistance and Investigation's Guide, she would 
most likely be a general officer today. Furthermore, this harm will quickly become 
permanently irreversible as her mandatory retirement date is quickly approaching, which 
will cement this injustice forever if not rectified before her last chance for promotion. 
Thus resulting in the exact opposite of the foundational purposes and principles for the 
existence of the IO in such matters, namely fairness and equity. Accordingly, she 
respectfully requests that TXJG Case No. NTX- 0078 be vacated and the resulting 
DAIG investigation be expunged from the IG database.

       (2)  Change in Army Policy:  The Army and the DAIG have recognized the injustice 
of having a Command investigation reach a final disposition for all parties involved only 
to then have the very same investigation used as the basis for an IO investigation, 
referred to the DAIG for entry into its database CIGARS), which then triggers a myriad 
of unintended consequences that undermines the Command's intent for resolution of 
the matter. The de facto effect of this violation of the principle of double jeopardy is to 
cause further harm to the career of parties involved after the Command had already 
rendered a final decision and implemented all necessary and appropriate action in a 
manner that respected the due process rights of all parties involved.

       (3)  TXARNG Intent:  From Winter 2014 thru Spring of 2015, the TXARNG 
appointing authority initiated and completed a command investigation regarding the 
accuser's concerns over the content and rating of his OER IAW ARs 623-3 and 15-6. 
The appointing authority implemented appropriate remedial actions in light of all the 
attendant facts and circumstances determined by the investigation. The TXIG was a 
participant during the investigation, ensuring that the due process rights of the accuser 
were preserved. Further in light of the above dismissal of the Whistleblower Complaint 
the Inspector General's conclusion that the due process rights of the accuser were not 
violated has been implicitly affirmed. Between the transition to the new web-based 
evaluation reporting system, the holidays and the investigation, what was a de ninimis 
delay in submission of the OER became a protracted delay. Despite this delay, the 
rated Soldier was not harmed as he was not coming up for promotion, he was already in 
a command, and the OER was not needed for any other immediate career progression 
need. However, her due process rights were violated and she has suffered almost 
career ending harm when the command investigation was used as a basis for an IG 
investigation and referring it to DAIG for entry into the IGARS database. Nowhere in the 
intent expressed by the command when implementing remedial actions in response to 
the results of the investigation was denying her future promotions for an OER intended. 
Such a punishment is usually the result of the issuance of a General Officer Letter of 
Reprimand, and as can be seen by the letter of support from The Adjutant General for 
the state of Texas, no such negative action against her was ever recommended, 
warranted or justified.

       (4)  Conclusion:  As the TXIG exceeded the scope of its authority and jurisdiction 
and in light of the Army and DAIG policy change in regards to duplicative investigations, 
coupled with the fact that the accuser's due process rights were never violated, and the 
command's intent regarding all necessary and appropriate corrective actions where 
contemporaneously implemented, she respectfully requests expungement of the 
contested IG reports within IGARS.

     c.  Chronology of significant events:

       (1)  On 16 August 2014, she received an e-mail from the newly fielded Electronic 
Evaluation System (EES) designating that she was the Senior Rater for CPT F_'s 
annual OER.

       (2)  Sometime in September of 2014, she received CPT F_'s OER via EES for 
completion of the Senior Rater portion. As the rater's portion contained negative 
content, she conferenced with the rater to insure there was support for the negative 
content and that positive information was not being precluded.

       (3)  In October 2014, after being satisfied that the rater has support for the rater 
portion of the OER, she completed the Senior Rater potion of the OER, signed it and 
EES forwarded it to the rated officer. The turnaround time for this OER from notification 
was approximately 60 days.

       (4)  Sometime from October 2014 to January 2015, CPT F_ contacted the TXIG 
wanting to file a complaint regarding his recent OER.

       (5)  On 14 January 2015, the Chief of Staff (CoS) of the TXNG, at the behest of the 
TXIG and IAW AR 623-3 initiated a Commander's Inquiry (Cl) using AR 15-6 and 
appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) to conduct an investigation regarding CPT F_'s 
OER.
       (6)  On 17 March 2015 the Cl was winding down and the TXNG-CoS wanted to 
expedite its recommendations regarding the OER's content. Those changes were 
immediately implemented, the OER signed and forwarded to CPT F_ via EES.

       (7)  On 27 April 2015 the Cl was complete noting that the OER was late and 
recommending changes at the command level to ensure OERs were handled in a 
timelier manner. The IO recommended no action be taken against any individual as no 
punitive regulation was violated and in light of the circumstances. She did not have 
access to or a copy of the investigation.

       (8)  From May to September 2015, CPT F_ continued to attempt to modify the 
OER's content. At this time, CPT F_ still had the regulatory redress appeal process 
available to him IAW AR 623-3.

       (9)  On 5 October 5 2015, she received a letter from the TXIG stating that an IG 
investigation regarding CPT F_'s OER substantiated that she failed to complete her 
duties as senior rater IAW AR 623-3, the administrative regulation governing officer 
evaluations.

       (10)  On 23 October 2015, she formally requested in writing a copy of the IG 
investigation regarding CPT F_'s OER for which she was never notified of nor 
interviewed about by the TXIG. To date, she has not received a copy of this 
investigation.

       (11)  On 15 March 2016, a Request for Reconsideration IAW AR 20-1, paragraph 
3-12 regarding the Texas Inspector General's Case Number NTX-0078 due to a mistake 
of law was filed with the NGB-IG's Office.

       (12)  On 24 October 2016, the DAIG's Office dismissed her request for 
reconsideration due to insufficient showing of evidence to change the TXIG's findings.

       (13)  On 27 March 2017, a conference call with LTC V_ (point of contact for the 
24 October, 2016 dismissal decision) was conducted and directed our attention to The 
DAIG's Assistance and Investigation's Guide regarding IG jurisdictional and authority 
issues when we inquired about such issues regarding OERs. LTC V_ also expressed a 
willingly to reconsider the matter once they had further developed the issues in light of 
the DAIG's guidance.

       (14)  In mid-April of 2017, after a thorough study of The DAIG's Assistance and 
Investigation's Guide, specifically the guidance set forth in Section 3-4 conformational 
inquiry regarding any other written policy for DAIG OER investigations was sought with 
and received from the Office of the DAIG that the expression in Section 3-4 was the 
extent of DAIG jurisdiction and authority.
       (15)  In May 2017, she submitted a Renewed Request for Reconsideration 
clarifying that her basis for reconsideration was due to a lack of jurisdiction on the part 
of the TXIG regarding the initial investigation.

       (16)  In August 2017 the DAIG issued a decision dismissing her renewed request 
for reconsideration.

       (17)  In January 2018 the DAIG informed her that DOD-IG approved the DAIG's 
determination that no violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act had occurred.

       (18)  Also in January 2018 the Department of the Army and DAIG implemented a 
change in policy to minimize unnecessarily duplicative Command and IG investigations.

2.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of brigadier general on 21 November 2019, 
and is currently serving.

3.  The applicant provides:

     a.  DAIG Assistance Division letter, dated 21 August 2017 that shows the DAIG 
concluded an inquiry concerning her request for reconsideration of the allegation 
against her.  The DAIG considered both contested reports, and determined that no 
violation of law occurred.  The applicant was informed the allegation would remain 
substantiated in IGARS.  She was also told to submit a petition to the ABCMR if she felt 
the findings are in error or an injustice.

     b.  DAIG Assistance Division letter, dated 18 January 2018 that shows the DAIG 
completed its investigation into the military whistleblower reprisal allegations made 
against her.  Both allegations were not substantiated, and the Report of Investigation 
was approved by the DOD-IG.  She was also informed the case was considered closed, 
and that the ROI would be maintained by the DAIG.

     c.  TXARNG Memorandum Subject: Endorsement of Expungement Request: [the 
applicant], dated 30 May 2018, which shows the TX Adjutant General strongly endorsed 
the applicant’s expungement request of the contested reports.

     d.  Additional IG regulatory guidance and procedures enclosed in the supporting 
documents.



BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief 
is warranted.

2.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's arguments and agreed that the IG 
investigation in this case was premature, having been initiated without using other 
available remedies such as a commander's inquiry or the OER appeal process.  Based 
on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the record of the investigations 
should be expunged from IGARS.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:XX	:XX	:XX	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	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 expunging TXIG Case 
number NTX 15-0078 and DAIG Case number DIH16-1247 from IGARS.

		  
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.  AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies 
and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting 
through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Chapter 2, 
Section I, contains guidance on the establishment and functions of the ABCMR.  
Paragraph 2-2 states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR considers individual 
applications that are properly brought before it, and in appropriate cases, it directs or 
recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.  Chapter 2, 
Section III, of the ABCMR regulation contains guidance on ABCMR actions.  Paragraph 
2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof and states, in pertinent part, that the 
ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative 
regularity, that is, that what the Army did was correct.  The applicant has the burden of 
proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

2.  DOD Directive 7050.06 (Military Whistleblower Protection), implements the 
provisions of Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA) as codified at Title 10 
United States Code (USC) § 1034.  It establishes that no person shall restrict the right 
of members of the Armed Forces to make protected communications with specified 
leaders and government officials.  The MWPA prohibits restricting communications with 
a Member of Congress, an IG, or a member of a DOD audit, inspection, investigation, or 
law enforcement organization.  It also prohibits personnel actions against members in 
retaliation or reprisal for making or preparing a protected communication.  

     a.  Protected communication is defined as:

       (1)  Any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG;

       (2)  A communication in which a member of the Armed Forces communicates 
information that the member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or 
regulation, including a law or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful 
discrimination, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an 
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, when 
such communication is made to a Member of Congress, an IG; a member of a DOD 
audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization;  or any person or 
organization in the chain of command;  or any other person designated pursuant to 
regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such 
communications.

     b.  Reprisal is defined as "taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel 
action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel action, for making 
or preparing to make a protected communication."  

     c.  A "personnel action" is any action taken that affects, or has the potential to affect, 
the military member’s current position or career.  Personnel actions include promotions; 
disciplinary or other corrective actions; transfers or reassignments; performance 
evaluations; decisions on pay, benefits, awards, or training; referrals for mental health 
evaluations; and any other significant changes in duties or responsibilities inconsistent 
with the military member’s grade.  

     d.  According to the DOD Whistleblower Program, Guide to Investigating Military 
Whistleblower Reprisal and Restriction Complaints, there are four elements that must 
be established to make a finding of reprisal: 
	
       (1)  Element 1, Protected Communication:  Did a Complainant make or prepare to 
make a protected communication, or was Complainant perceived as having made or 
prepared to make a protected communication?

       (2)  Element 2, Personnel Action:  Was an unfavorable personnel action taken or 
threatened against the Complainant, or was a favorable personnel action withheld or 
threatened to be withheld from Complainant?

       (3)  Element 3, Knowledge:  Did the responsible management official(s) have 
knowledge of Complainant's protected communication(s) or perceive Complainant as 
making or preparing protected communication(s)?

       (4)  Element 4, Causation:  Would the same personnel action(s) have been taken, 
withheld, or threatened absent the protected communication(s)? 

3.  Army Regulation 20-1 prescribes policy and procedures concerning the mission and 
duties of TIG.  It prescribes duties, missions, standards, and requirements for IGs 
throughout the Army.  

     a.  Paragraph 1-13 (Prohibited Activity), sub-paragraph b. (Prohibitions against 
reprisal) (2) (Military whistleblower) provides that persons subject to this regulation will 
not take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action or withhold (or threaten to 
withhold) a favorable personnel action with respect to a member of the armed forces for 
making or preparing a (lawful) protected communication.  Lawful communications are 
those communications made to an IG; Member of Congress; member of a DOD audit, 
inspection, or investigation organization; law enforcement organization; or any other 
person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command 
starting at the immediate supervisor level) designated under regulations or other 
established administrative procedures to receive such communications.  The term 
"lawful communication" encompasses information that the Soldier reasonably believes 
provides evidence of a violation of law or regulation, including a law or regulation 
prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, gross mismanagement, a 
gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 
specific danger to public health or safety.  

     b.  Paragraph 3-1 (Nature of IG Records) provides that all IG records, including 
USAR IG records, are the property of the Secretary of the Army.  IGs maintain these 
records on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.  The Secretary's designated authority for 
all IG records is TIG.  TIG, Deputy TIG, the Principal Director to the Inspector General 
for Inspections, and their designated representatives (DAIG’s legal advisor and deputy 
legal advisor) have the authority to release IG records.  Army IG records are any written 
or recorded IG work-product created during the course of an IG assistance inquiry, 
inspection, investigative inquiry, or investigation.  An IG record includes, but is not 
limited to, correspondence or documents received from a witness or a person 
requesting assistance, IG reports, IGNET data, or other computer automatic data 
processing files or data, to include IG notes and working papers.

     c.  Paragraph 3-3 (Use of IG records for adverse action) provides that IG records will 
not be used as the basis for adverse action (see glossary) against any individual unless 
specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary of the Army, 
the Army Chief of Staff, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, or TIG.  Requests must be 
submitted to TIG.  Any request to use the results of an IG investigation for adverse 
action must state why the command did not initiate a command investigation into the 
alleged misconduct and why a follow-on command investigation would be unduly 
burdensome, disruptive, or futile.  Command investigations preclude the necessity of 
using IG records for adverse action and thereby safeguard the integrity of the IG 
system.  An exception to this rule is the use of DOD-IG-approved reports of 
investigation or investigative inquiry containing substantiated non-senior official 
allegations of violations of Title 10, USC, section 1034 (reprisal) as a basis for adverse 
action.

     d.  Paragraph 3-8 (Release of records and reports under the military whistleblower 
reprisal statute) provides that an IG may provide information relating to complaints of 
whistleblower reprisal and improper mental health evaluation (MHE) referral directly to 
DOD-IG Military Reprisal Investigations upon request without TIG or DAIG’s Records 
Release Office approval.  This information includes, but is not limited to, the original 
complaint with supporting documentation; IG records or investigation material; official 
personnel and medical records (orders, evaluations, and so forth); Army Regulation 15–
6 investigations, commander’s inquiries, or equal opportunity investigations; and any 
other information deemed relevant to resolving an official complaint.  This exemption 
only applies when DOD-IG Military Reprisal Investigations requests the information in 
support of a preliminary inquiry or investigation.  

     e.  Paragraph 3–12 (Requests for reconsideration of IG findings, opinions, 
judgments, or conclusions) provides that all requests to add or delete a subject, alter a 
function code, and/or alter an allegation determination in an IG record will be forwarded 
or directed to DAIG’s Assistance Division for referral to the appropriate divisions within 
DAIG for review prior to action by TIG, the DTIG, or the Principal Director to the 
Inspector General for Inspections.  Only TIG may approve or disapprove requests to 
amend determinations in IG records.  All requests to amend determinations in IG 
records will include one copy of the record for which the amendment is sought; any 
documents in support of or related to the disputed record; acknowledgement to the 
requester; and recommendations, with supporting rationale, concerning whether the 
amendment should be approved or disapproved.  Requests for amendments concerning 
opinion, judgment, or conclusion may be granted upon a showing of fraud, mistake of 
law, mathematical miscalculation, or newly discovered evidence.	

     f.  The Glossary provides the following definitions: 

       (1)  Assistance inquiry:  this is an informal fact-finding process used to address or 
respond to a complaint involving a request for help, information, or other issues but not 
allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing.

       (2)  Command IG:  this is the senior, detailed IG of a Modified Table of Organization 
and Equipment (MTOE) or Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) organization of 
the active Army, Army National Guard or USAR. The command IG works directly for the 
commander, who is normally a CG, installation commander, State Adjutant General, or 
director of an organization.

       (3)  Directing authority:  this is an Army official who has authority to direct an IG 
investigation or inspection.  Commanders or directors who are authorized detailed IGs 
on their staffs may direct IG investigations and IG inspections within their commands.  
Although command and State IGs may direct IG investigative inquiries, they are not 
considered directing authorities.  

       (4)  Founded/Unfounded:  "Founded" is one of two final dispositions for an IG issue 
to be used when the IG’s inquiry into the matter determined that the problem had merit 
and required resolution.  "Unfounded" is the second of two final dispositions for an IG 
issue to be used when the IG’s assistance inquiry into the matter yields no evidence 
that a problem existed for the IG to resolve.

       (5)  Not substantiated:  this is a conclusion drawn by an IG at the close of an 
investigative inquiry or investigation when the preponderance of credible evidence 
suggests that the subject or suspect did not do what was alleged in the allegation.

       (6)  IG investigation:  this is a formal fact-finding examination into allegations, 
issues, or adverse conditions of a serious nature that provides the directing authority a 
sound basis for making decisions and taking action.  An IG investigation involves the 
systematic collection and examination of evidence that consists of testimony recorded 
under oath; documents; and, in some cases, physical evidence.  Only the directing 
authority can authorize IG investigations using a written and signed directive.  IGs 
normally do not resolve allegations using this methodology but instead rely on the 
investigative inquiry.  IGs report the conclusions of their investigations using a Report of 
Investigation (ROI). Occasionally, IG investigations may examine systemic issues, 
especially when the possibility of some wrongdoing exists.  For example, an IG might 
investigate an allegation that the development of a weapon system is fraught with fraud, 
waste, and abuse.  
		
       (7)  IG investigative inquiry:  this is an informal fact-finding examination into 
allegations, issues, or adverse conditions that are not significant in nature—as deemed 
by the command IG or directing authority—and when the potential for serious 
consequences (such as potential harm to a Soldier or negative impact on the Army’s 
image) are not foreseen.  The IG investigative inquiries involve the collection and 
examination of evidence that consists of testimony or written statements; documents; 
and, in some cases, physical evidence.  Command IGs direct investigative inquiries and 
provide recommendations to the directing authority or subordinate commanders as 
appropriate.  The directing authority reserves the right to direct an investigative inquiry if 
he or she feels an investigation is not appropriate.  Inspectors general resolve most 
allegations using this methodology and report their conclusions using the ROII.

       (8)  Report of Investigative Inquiry: this a written report used by IGs to address 
allegations, issues, or adverse conditions to provide the directing authority, command, 
or State IG a sound basis for decisions.  The directing authority or command or State IG 
approves the Report of Investigative Inquiry.  

       (9)  IG records: this is any written, recorded, or electronic media information 
gathered and produced by an IG.  These include, but are not limited to, any 
correspondence or documents received from a witness or a person requesting 
assistance; IG reports of inspection, inquiry, and investigation; IG Worldwide Network 
(IGNET) or other computer Automated Data Processing (ADP) files or data; and DA 
Form 1559 when entries are made on either side.  IG records may contain documents 
that an IG did not prepare.

5.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 1 March 2014, prescribed 
the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the 
basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. It provided principles of support, 
standards of service, and policy governing all work required, including Army evaluation 
policy and guidance regarding redress programs, which include Commander's Inquiries 
and appeals.

     a.  Paragraph 1-11 (Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry) stated when it is 
brought to the attention of a commander or commandant that a report rendered by a 
subordinate or a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation 
of this regulation, that commander or commandant will conduct an inquiry into the 
matter.

     b.  Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for 
personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that 
an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget 
and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a 
successful appeal becomes more difficult. Substantive appeals will be submitted within 
3 years of an OER's "THRU" date.

     c.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of 
proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an 
evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and 
convincingly that:

       (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.

     d.  Paragraph 4-11d stated 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. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if 
they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias.

     e.  Paragraph 4-13 (Appeals Based on Substantive Inaccuracy) provided that once a 
decision has been made to appeal an evaluation report, the appellant will state 
succinctly what is being appealed and the basis for the appeal. 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.


//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180015844


2

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1