IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 August 2021
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210006088 


APPLICANT REQUESTS: 

•removal of the DA Form 2166-9-2 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) EvaluationReport (NCOER) (Staff Sergeant (SSG)-First Sergeant (1SG)/Master Sergeant(MSG))) covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016 and signed on19 September 2016 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)

•in the alternative, deletion or mask of the senior rater comments and rating

•a personal appearance hearing before the Board



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)•NCOER covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016, 19 May 2016•NCOER covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016, 3 August 2016•NCOER covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016, 19 September 2016•Email from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) . to the Applicant (Follow-Up to Informal Investigation), 2 August 2016•Email from the Applicant to 1SG .  (Request for Command Inquiry), 9 August 2016•DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) from MSG , 21 October 2019


FACTS: 

1.The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10,U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in theinterest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.The applicant states the basis of this request is multiple substantive errors per ArmyRegulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 4 November 2015 (effective 1 January2016), resulting in unverified derogatory comments placed on the NCOER filed in hisOMPF by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA).



a. Per Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-5h, he requested a Commander'sInquiry through 1SG . Command Sergeant Major either did not complete the commander's inquiry, or if completed, he was not provided the results. b. Per Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-19b, he was not contacted by an unbiased investigating officer or presented any findings of the senior rater's investigation. c. Per Army Regulation 623-3, subparagraph 3-25(a)(7), he was not counseled or made aware of behavior inconsistent to good order and discipline during the rating period. Also, he was not contacted by an investigating officer as required by regulation to justify behavior being inconsistent to good order, conduct, and discipline. d. On 15 May 2018, his original appeal to the Enlisted Special Review Board was denied, in part, due to not having substantial supporting documents, such as the Commander's Inquiry, which he requested but was not provided to him. 



3.He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) for the period13 August 2012 through 12 August 2015 for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal service.4.The DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), 3 March 2016, shows he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for the period 1 October 2015 through31 December 2015 for being selected as the Instructor of the First Quarter for Fiscal Year 2016 while assigned to the Human Resources and Readiness Training Center.5.The DA Form 638, 6 June 2016, shows he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for the period 12 November 2013 through 5 May 2016 for meritorious service while serving as an instructor for the Human Resources and Readiness Training Center. He contributed to the overall success, graduation, and induction into the Army National Guard (ARNG) for over 3,200 Soldiers.6.This copy of his DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016 was signed by the rater, MSG  on 26 May 2016; by the senior rater, LTC , on 19 May 2016; and by the applicant on 17 June 2016. It was not filed in his OMPF. It shows in:a.Part Ic (Rank), SFC (Sergeant First Class);b.Part Ii (Reason for Submission), Change of Rater;c.Part IIIa (Principal Duty Title), Instructor;

d.Part IVc (Character), the rater marked "Met Standard" and entered the followingbullet comments: 

•"a [sic] NCO of high standards who is an asset to the unit"

•"promoted a climate of dignity and respect by fully supporting the unit EO[Equal Opportunity] and SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response andPrevention] programs"


e.Part IVd (Presence), the rater marked "Exceeded Standard" and entered thefollowing bullet comments: 

•"challenged self and others to do better in their fitness level"

•"maintained a professional stance under circumstance"

•"can be relied upon to ensure APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test] standardsare met and maintained"


f.Part IVe (Intellect), the rater marked "Exceeded Standard" and entered thefollowing bullet comments: 

•"spent many hours of self-study to better enhance job skills"

•"instructed NCO's that, as a whole, helped the Army National Guard achievea high medical readiness rating of 82%"


g.Part IVf (Leads), the rater marked " Exceeded Standard" and entered thefollowing bullet comments: 

•"selected by leadership to assume course manager duties of ATTRS [ArmyTraining Requirements and Resources System] course"

•"outstanding leader, went above and beyond normal workload to ensure allstudents were supported"


h.Part IVg (Develops), the rater marked "Far Exceeded Standard" and entered thefollowing bullet comments: 

•"instructed 1180 students throughout 41 HRRTC [Human Resources andReadiness Training Center] course iterations; accomplishing 100% studentthroughput"

•"successfully graduated from Training Officer/Operations NCO and MedicalReadiness Transformation courses"


i.Part IVh (Achieves), the rater marked "Exceeded Standard" and entered thefollowing bullet comments: 

•"selected above others as PEC [Professional Education Center] medicalsupport for AWT [Army Warrior Tasks], APFT, PRT [Physical ReadinessTraining], Best Warrior Competition"

•"constantly given outstanding ratings on instructor quarterly and annualevaluations"


j.Part IVi (Rater Overall Performance), the rater marked "Exceeded Standard" andentered the following bullet comments: 

•"an exceptionally talented NCO; will continue to excel in all positions"

•"clearly demonstrates the drive to achieve success in all endeavors"


k.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked "HighlyQualified"; and 

l.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments: "Highlyknowledgeable medial SME [subject matter expert]; trusted advisor to SR [senior] Leadership in developing strategic vision for medical course at HRRTC. Unlimited potential within NGB [National Guard Bureau] Surgeon's Office/medical community; strategic-thinker dedicated to improving medical readiness. In 30-years of service, [Applicant] is one of the best NCO's under my command. Promote at first eligibility." 


7.LTC 's email to the applicant (Follow-Up to Informal Investigation), 2 August 2016, states: "We have completed the informal investigation in regards to your actions specifically related to test control procedures during your tenure here at HRRTC. During this investigation you have made statements direct [sic] to my leadership team and provided a written statement as well. As I wrap this up and prepare to make recommendations to [the] CG [Commanding General], I wanted to offer you the opportunity to speak direct [sic] to me in order to explain your actions. I offer this as a courtesy, not a requirement. I have availability this morning between the hours of 0900-1200 if you so desire; otherwise, I'll move forward based on what [sic] your thorough written explanation. Please advise your intentions."8.This copy of his DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 29 May 2015 -13 May 2016 was signed by the rater, MSG ,  on 26 May 2016 (no change to signature date); by the senior rater, LTC , on 3 August 2016; and the applicant did not sign. It was not filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. The rater's ratings and comments are the same as in paragraph 3 above. The senior rater's comments changed as shown below:a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked "NotQualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"Completed informal investigation concludes [Applicant] doesn't have [the] maturity to serve as [a] senior NCO; professional development in ethics/Army Values is a must for future success. Soldier is exceptionally talented but hindered by inability to put team before self and general lack of respect of leadership demonstrated by his personal actions. I can't recommend promotion or further NCOES [Noncommissioned Officer Education System] at this time." 


9.On 9 August 2016, the applicant sent an email (Request for Command Inquiry) to 1SG , ARNG Professional Education Center.a.He requested a Commander's Inquiry due to the discrepancies with his original



NCOER that was signed on 19 May 2016 and the revised NCOER signed on 3 August 2016. He received the NCOER signed on 3 August 2016 after the events outlined below. The senior rater comments were changed after his departure from the organization. The original NCOER was signed by all parties; however, due to signatures being out of sequence, he had to remove his signature. This allowed his senior rater to change his evaluation to reflect negatively on his potential. b. On 12 July, LTC informed him that he requested the staff to conduct an internal investigation regarding his file management. Also, he informed him that the outcome would be reflected in his NCOER. The applicant feels this evaluation was unjust due to the manner in which the information received by LTC was obtained. c. After his departure from the organization, he informed LTC via e-mail of his outlined plan for file management. On 3 August 2016, he received his newly signed NCOER with negative senior rater comments and a poor rating. d. The internal investigation was conducted after his rating period ended and his NCOER was already prepared to send to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Per Army Regulation 623-3, chapter 3, paragraph 3-23e (should read 3-19e), "e. Reports will not be delayed to await the outcome of a trial or investigation. Reports will be done when due and contain what information is verified at the time of preparation." However, no formal investigation was conducted, providing due process. 


•9-11 July – he reported and began to in-process at Regional Health Command-Central, Fort Sam Houston•12 July – LTC informed him that his NCOER was being held, pending an informal (internal) investigation and recommended he contact Captain(CPT) •13 July – he spoke with CPT  and MSG about LTC  holding his NCOER and MSG  asked him to complete a sworn statement


•15 July – MSG contacted him about the sworn statement•19 July – after receiving legal counsel, he refrained from submitting a sworn statement and informed LTC , CPT , and MSG •20 July – instead of a sworn statement, he provided his plan for file management to LTC , CPT , and MSG •2 August – LTC informed him he concluded his informal (internal) investigation and he could speak with him; however, the applicant was in the Casualty Assistant Officer/Casualty Notification Officer training that week and didn't get the email until the following week•3 August – LTC  "moved forward' and adjusted the senior rater portion of his NCOER•8 August – he returned to the office and checked the Evaluation Entry System to see changes had been made to his NCOER


10.On 27 October 2016, this copy of his DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016 was filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. This DA Form 2166-9-2 was signed by the rater, MSG , on 26 May 2016 (no change to signature date); by the senior rater, LTC , on 19 September 2016; and the applicant did not sign. The rater's ratings and comments are the same as in paragraph 3 above. The senior rater's comments changed as shown below:a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked "NotQualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"[Applicant] doesn't have [the] maturity to serve as [a] senior NCO; professional development in ethics/Army Values is a must for future success. Soldier is exceptionally talented but hindered by inability to put team before self and general lack of respect of leadership demonstrated by his personal actions. I can't recommend promotion or further NCOES [Noncommissioned Officer Education System] at this time. NCO Refuses to sign." 

11.The DA Form 638, 26 January 2017, shows he was awarded the ArmyAchievement Medal for the period 16 May through 20 May 2016 for meritorious serviceas the Fiscal Year 2016 medical team training event liaison.

12.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 16 July 2016 through 11 July 2017shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"[Applicant] ranks in the top 10% of all NCOs I have served with in 16 years. He consistently functioned at the E8 [Master Sergeant] level. He has unlimited potential and consistently exceeded all expectations. He took strategic level guidance and integrated it into successful plans. Improved overall readiness tracking and mobilization capabilities of all reserve component units in over 19 States. Promote ahead of peers." 

13.On 15 May 2017, the applicant petitioned the Enlisted Special Review Board forremoval of his DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May2016 and replacement with the DA Form 2166-9-2 that was signed by the senior rateron 19 May 2016.

14.On 15 May 2018, the Enlisted Special Review Board determined the evidencepresented did not establish clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularityshould not be applied to the report under consideration or that action was warranted tocorrect a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. By unanimous vote, the EnlistedSpecial Review Board determined the overall merits of his case did not warrant therequested relief.

15.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 12 July 2017 through 11 July 2018shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments: "Promoteahead peers. [Applicant] is an extremely knowledgeable NCO with unlimited potential. His ability to quickly and effectively execute tasks along with his skill to anticipate critical requirements, his dedication and proficiency demonstrates that he will excel at a higher rank." 

16.The DA Form 638, 30 September 2018, shows he was awarded the MeritoriousService Medal for the period 11 July 2016 through 1 November 2018 for meritoriousservice while serving as the ARNG Senior Medical Readiness NCO for Regional HealthCommand-Central. His hard work improved the overall medical readiness of all19 ARNG States and the majority of the U.S. Army Reserve units in the Region.

17.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 12 July 2018 through 26 October 2018shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"[Applicant] is an invaluable asset to the unit. Must send to MLC [Master Leader Course] now. [Applicant's] adaptiveness, resiliency, attention to detail, and quality of work will allow him to succeed in any position assigned. He is dedicated to physical and mental readiness; his dedication and proficiency demonstrates that he will excel at a higher rank." 

18.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 10 October 2018 through 23 March2019 shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments: "Select[Applicant] now for promotion to Master Sergeant and continue to assign him to duties of greater responsibility. He clearly performed above his peers during this brief rating period and possesses unlimited potential. His mission accomplishment underscores his daily contributions to the Region's mission." 

19.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 24 March 2019 through 1 October 2019shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments: "Promoteahead of peers. Send to MLC ahead of peers. Ranks #2 of four E7s [Sergeant First Class] on a two-star staff. [Applicant] functioned flawlessly as the command NG [National Guard] representative in lieu of a LTC [Lieutenant Colonel] for 6 months demonstrating his unlimited potential at higher levels of responsibility, authority, and rank. He is morally sound with unmatched work ethic. His ability to lead outshines his peers. Ready for 1SG duties now." 


20.MSG 's DA Form 2823, 21 October 2019, states:a.During the period from 15 June 2013 through 23 May 2016, she served as theNCO in Charge and senior instructor in the National Guard Professional Education Center, Human Resources and Readiness Training Center. In that position, she observed the applicant daily. He often was commended for his outstanding performance of duty and loyalty to his students and leadership. 

b.At no time during the applicant's rating period was his character, behavior,dedication to duty, or support for the chain of command anything other than exceptional. 

At no time were complaints regarding his adherence to Army values and professional ethics seen nor brought to her attention. Therefore, the applicant was never counseled nor in need to be counseled on character, behavior, or professional Army bearing. c. The applicant constantly displayed initiative, imagination, and willingness to assist, which was so essential to the accomplishment of their mission. He remained loyal, unselfish, dependable, technically and tactically proficient, and most of all set the example in whatever he did. His tact and professional competence and spirit of cooperation did much to enhance the image of the Professional Education Center and Human Resources and Readiness Training Center. Thus, he proved himself to be an outstanding NCO of the highest caliber. He earned the respect of his superiors, peers and subordinates alike. d. LTC contacted her during her retirement transition leave and recommended she change her assessment in the applicant's NCOER. When she told him she would need to speak with the applicant, LTC  told her that she could not do that as there was an ongoing investigation. She did not change her assessment of the applicant. 

21.He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award) for the period13 August 2015 through 12 August 2018 for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelityin active Federal service.

22.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 2 October 2019 through 1 October 2020shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"[Applicant] ranks #2 of the eight E7s within the RHC-P [Regional Health Command-Pacific] G3. He continues to be the most influential and high performing NG NCO I have worked with in my career. He clearly possesses unlimited potential for higher rank and responsibility. Promote ahead of peers and place in a 1SG position immediately. He is ready to lead troops at the next level." 

23.His DA Form 2166-9-2 covering the period 2 October 2020 through 2 April 2021shows in:

a.Part Va (HQDA Senior Rater Profile Comparison), the senior rater marked"Highly Qualified"; and 

b.Part Vb (Comments), the senior rater entered the following comments:"Absolutely unlimited potential! [Applicant] is as agile as he is intelligent as demonstrated by his ability to facilitate unprecedented readiness across the Pacific National Guard force as well as promote resiliency in the HQs [headquarters] staff by leading phenomenal training. He ranks in the top 10% of SFCs with which [sic] I have served. Promote to MSG now and assign him to strategic positions where he will excel." 

24.The DA Form 638, 15 June 2021, shows he was awarded the Meritorious ServiceMedal for the period 27 November 2018 through 6 July 2021 for meritorious service asthe ARNG Senior Enlisted Medical Advisor. His leadership, proficiency, ingenuity, andselfless service were vital to the expansive success of the organization throughturbulent operational dynamics.

25.The applicant is currently serving in the ARNG Active Guard Reserve.

BOARD DISCUSSION: 


1.The applicant's request for a personal appearance was carefully considered. In thiscase, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As aresult, a personal appearance before the Board is not necessary to serve the interest ofequity and justice in this case.2.After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence foundwithin the military record, the Board determined that relief was warranted. TheBoard carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, military record, andregulatory guidance. The Board determined a preponderance of evidencesupported a finding that, in contravention of regulation, the applicant’s evaluationreport was improperly delayed to await the outcome of an investigation despitehim not being removed from his position or in a suspended status. The Boardfurther noted it was unclear from the evidence as to whether the requestedCommander’s Inquiry was ever conducted, but found nothing to contradict theapplicant’s statement that he was never provided the findings of the requestedinquiry. The evidence of record is void that he was afforded opportunity toaddress the discrepancies in the senior rater’s comments made before and afterthe internal investigation. Based on the preponderance of evidence available forreview, the Board determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant arecommendation for relief.


BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

:X    :X    :X      GRANT FULL RELIEF 

:     :     :       GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

:     :     :       DENY APPLICATION 


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 

The Board determined the evidence presented 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 removing DA Form 2166-9-2 Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report covering the period 29 May 2015 through 13 May 2016 from Official Military Personnel File. 

Microsoft Office Signature Line...
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, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction ofmilitary records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error orinjustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure totimely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be inthe interest of justice to do so.

2.Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), 31 March2006, prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by theSecretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individualapplications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on theevidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its considerationof each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has theburden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

3.Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRR)Management), effective 7 May 2014, prescribes policies governing the Army MilitaryHuman Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is notlimited to, the official military personnel file, finance-related documents, and non-servicerelated documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 providesthat once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removedfrom the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency.

4.Army Regulation 623-3, effective 1 January 2016 and in effect at the time, prescribedthe policies and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

a.Paragraph 3-19b stated references will be made only to actions or investigationsthat have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report to HQDA. 

b.Paragraph 3-19e stated evaluation reports will not be delayed to await theoutcome of a trial or investigation unless the rated Soldier has been removed from his or her position and is in a suspended status. Upon completion of the trial or investigation, processing of evaluation reports will resume. Evaluation reports will be completed when due and will contain what information is verified at the time of the "THRU" date of the evaluation report. 

c.Paragraph 3-25 (Evaluation of Adverse Actions) stated adverse actionsencompass a variety of situations that are not in accordance with Army Values, Leadership Requirements Model, and/or good order and discipline, which need to be addressed appropriately in evaluation reports. Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy) allows that the following items may be mentioned in a Soldier's evaluation report, when substantiated by a completed command or other official investigation (for example, commander's or commandant's Inquiry, Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, equal opportunity investigation, and/or investigations by officialmilitary or civil authorities):

(1)criminal acts;

(2)conviction of a driving under the influence charge;

(3)acts of sexual misconduct or physical or mental abuse;

(4)inappropriate or unprofessional personal relationships;

(5)involvement in extremist organizations and/or activities;

(6)acts of reprisal;

(7)behavior that is inconsistent or detrimental to good order, conduct, anddiscipline; and 

(8)activities or behavior otherwise prohibited by Army Regulation 600-20.

d.Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports)stated 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 theminimum time and grade qualifications, and 

(3)represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the ratingofficials at the time of preparation. 

e.Paragraph 4-5h stated if the commander finds no fault with the evaluation, thenthe Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry is filed locally and a copy given to the rated Soldier. There is no requirement to send the Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry forward to HQDA. 

f.Paragraph 4-7f stated an appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence. Anappeal 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, National Guard Bureau Appeals Section, or the appropriate State Adjutant General (Army National Guard). 
 
 g.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated 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 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 commander's or commandant's inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. 
 
 h.  Paragraph 4-13 (Appeals Based on Substantive Inaccuracy) stated 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; and 
 
  (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 must be shown conclusively that the conflict resulted in an inaccurate or unjust evaluation. 
(2)Most appellants will never be completely satisfied with the evidenceobtained. 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 rememberthat 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 doesnot invalidate the report. 

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//