ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 June 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210013063 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel, removal of the DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 8 March through 13 October 2016 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * Legal Brief, undated * Exhibit 1 – Officer Record Brief, 8 June 2021 * Exhibit 2 – OER covering the period 18 April 2015 through 7 March 2016 * Exhibit 3 – Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery, Memorandum (Officer Elimination Initiation, Matters Relating to Retention of (Applicant)), 17 December 2016 * Exhibit 4 – County District Court Diversion Agreement, 21 October 2016 * Exhibit 5 – County District Court Order of Dismissal, 8 May 2017 * Exhibit 6 – Headquarters, Fort Riley, Memorandum (Initiation of Elimination, Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), (Applicant)), 22 November 2016 * Exhibit 7 – Self-Authored Memorandum (Officer Elimination Initiation), 17 December 2016 * Exhibit 8 – OER covering the period 8 March 2016 through 13 October 2016 * Exhibit 9 – Headquarters, Fort Riley, Memorandum (Recommendation – Officer Elimination, (Applicant)), 8 March 2017 * Exhibit 10 – OER covering the period 24 October 2016 through 13 June 2017 * Exhibit 11 – OER covering the period 13 June 2017 through 12 June 2018 * Exhibit 12 – OER covering the period 13 June 2018 through 11 February 2020 * Exhibit 13 – OER covering the period 12 February 2020 through 15 May 2020 * Exhibit 14 – DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) covering the period 18 July 2018 through 22 January 2019 * Exhibit 15 – OER covering the period 16 May 2020 through 15 May 2021 * Exhibit 16 – Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) Docket Number AR20170006955, 31 May 2018 * Exhibit 17 – Self-Authored Memorandum (Evaluation Report Appeal), 18 April 2017 * Exhibit 18 – Self-Authored Memorandum (Rebuttal to Delay of Promotion and Referral to Promotion Review Board), 13 June 2017 * Exhibit 19 – Secretary of the Army Memorandum (Promotion Review Board AP1708-17, Fiscal Year 2016 Captain, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board), 15 November 2017 * Exhibit 20 – OER covering the period 10 May 2013 through 17 April 2014 * Exhibit 21 – OER covering the period 18 April 2014 through 19 May 2015 * Exhibit 22 – OER covering the period18 April 2015 through 7 March 2016 * Exhibit 23 – Medical Opinion, 5 December 2016 * Exhibit 24 through Exhibit 40 – Letters of Support, 13 November 2016 through 15 June 2021 * Exhibit 41 – Combat Action Badge Certificate, 20 December 2015 * Exhibit 42 – Bronze Star Medal Certificate, 9 April 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states the applicant's OER covering the period 8 March through 13 October 2016 and all related materials should be removed from the applicant's AMHRR. The applicant's chain of command committed a material error in discretion when they issued the referred OER and the applicant continues to suffer a material injustice because of it. a. On 18 May 2013, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Army as a field artillery officer. He completed the Basic Officer Leader Course and went on to serve honorably throughout his next duty assignments. He was deployed to Kuwait from 11 October 2015 through 3 July 2016. b. On or about 3 July 2016, the applicant returned from deployment in support of Operation Spartan Shield in Kuwait and Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. After the redeployment ceremony, the applicant's mother and roommates met him and they returned to his home and had an alcoholic drink around 1630 hours. The group then went to dinner and the applicant had a beer with his meal. The applicant made plans to have breakfast with his mother the following morning. The applicant and his roommates returned to their home, while his mother returned to her hotel room. c. After returning home on the evening of 3 July 2016, the applicant had another alcoholic drink. The applicant and his roommates decided to go to, a six-block area close to Fort Riley with bars and restaurants. Due to his commitment to meet his mother for breakfast the following morning, the applicant had no intention to drink much more. He recalls ordering a round of drinks at approximately 2330 hours, and this was his last memory of the evening. He went from being in complete control to having zero recollection in the span of an hour. His next memory was waking up in jail and learning he was arrested and charged by civilian authorities with the crime of criminal damage to property. d. The execution of a diversion order stayed the charge of criminal damage to property. The applicant completed the requirements of the order and the civilian charges against him were dismissed. In response to his arrest, an officer elimination proceeding commenced on 22 November 2016, to which he submitted a written statement on 17 December 2016. In this statement, he accepted full responsibility for his actions and noted he made amends and paid restitution to the individual whose property he damaged. e. On 16 February 2017, the applicant received a referred OER for the reporting period 8 March through 13 October 2016. He received a rating of "Unsatisfactory" for overall performance with the rater's comment: "Did not demonstrate discipline during the performance of duties and did not maintain Army Values. His relief was directed by his senior rater." The OER also contains derogatory statements in the Character block, stating the applicant "did not adhere to the Army Values in a recent incident which resulted in his arrest. Due to intoxication and poor decision making, [Applicant] was arrested for breaking and entering and damage to property." Additionally, the senior rater rated the applicant as "Not Qualified" for potential compared with officers the senior rater rated in the same grade. In support of this rating, the senior rater commented: "Brilliant, hard working officer with unlimited potential who made a series of poor decisions that resulted in conduct unbecoming an officer. [Applicant] poses innate capacity to recover and function at a high level. His previous actions, however, are not in line with Military standards for Good Order and Discipline." f. On 10 March 2017, the Acting Senior Commander, Headquarters, Fort Riley, directed the applicant's retention on active duty after reviewing his written statement and consulting with the applicant's chain of command. The applicant had since been moved to another duty position where he received high praise from his direct supervisors, achieving "Most Qualified" OERs since that time period, as well as attending the Field Artillery Captain's Career Course where he exceeded the course standards and moved on to take command of a battery. It is important to note the applicant excelled at command, achieving a "Most Qualified" OER as a battery commander. g. The applicant appealed his referred OER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command on 18 April 2017 and the OSRB denied his request on 6 June 2018. The applicant was, however, successfully promoted to the rank/grade of captain/O-3 upon approval of the Secretary of the Army after submitting a written rebuttal to the Promotion Review Board. h. The referred OER as drafted does not correctly reflect the applicant's excellent leadership capability and his dedicated and outstanding service. Furthermore, it hinders an exemplary officer in furtherance of his career and realizing his full potential. The applicant's chain of command at the time, and later the OSRB, did not fully consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the isolated incident on the night of 3 July 2016, nor has the applicant's performance since that time been taken into account. i. It is evident that the applicant fully embraces and lives by the Army Values and that he is a man of honor and irreproachable integrity. Therefore, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty that the applicant was forthright in his recollection of the events that transpired the night of 3 July 2016. As stated in the OER, the applicant weighed 155 pounds. He states he had three drinks over roughly 7 hours, which yields a blood alcohol content of .0 percent when he arrived at the restaurant in Aggieville. He had a blood alcohol content of .196 percent when tested after his arrest. He texted his roommate, asking for help. The applicant estimates that he went from complete control to no recollection in an hour; that would require him to have consumed 6.5 drinks in 1 hour. He recalls ordering one round of drinks. Since the applicant has been described in every OER and every character-reference letter as a man of impeccable honorable, it is not incredible that a drug was placed in his drink. j. Aggieville is a 6-block area of college-oriented bars and restaurants in Manhattan, KS, with the local college having a total enrollment of 21,719 students. A survey of college students found that 8 percent have had drugs placed in their drinks, and of that 8 percent, 20 percent were men. This data indicates that drugging is more than an urban legend. Since the applicant was in a restaurant located in the area where college students go to drink and party, it is reasonable to believe he was in an environment conducive to the possibility of his drink being spiked. After his drink was spiked and the applicant unknowingly ingested the drugs, anything could have happened, including someone providing him more alcohol without his recollection or consent. k. One of the letters in support of the applicant is from Dr. an emergency room physician in who has practiced and trained in college towns since 2006. Dr. states the police reports note applicant was very aggressive, destructive, delusional, and suicidal. He adds that this behavior is "rarely a result of alcohol alone" and the "possibility that [Applicant] was unwillingly given another illicit substance the night of 3 July" should be considered. Dr. continues that while he cannot guarantee this possibility, he can confidently say it was a possibility, and explains that none of the drugs which cause amnesia, hallucinations, paranoia, and aggression are tested by a routine emergency room test. This explains why the applicant's blood screen was negative for drugs. Given the applicant's impeccable record, it is a reasonable conclusion that the applicant was the victim of having a drug or drugs placed in his drink without his knowledge. l. Numerous letters of support have been provided by senior leaders, attesting to the applicant's distinguished performance of duty and character. In light of the facts, arguments, and evidence showing the applicant's drink in all probability was spiked on the evening of 3 July 2016, the referred OER should be removed from his record. The applicant's chain of command committed a material error. Considering his exemplary record, tip-of-the-spear performance, outstanding character references, and the significant future value he will continue to contribute to the United States and the Army, dramatically outweighs the out-of-character referred OER. 3. On 8 March 2016, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2. 4. The applicant's records contain his OER covering the period 8 March through 13 October 2016. a. Part Ii (Reason for Submission) shows the reason as "05/Relief for Cause." b. Part IVb (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes) shows his rater marked "Unsatisfactory" and entered the comments: "Did not demonstrate discipline during the performance of duties and did not maintain the Army Values. His relief was directed by his senior rater." c. Part IVc1 (Character) shows his rater entered the comments: "[Applicant] did not adhere to the Army Values in a recent incident which resulted in his arrest. Due to intoxication and poor decision making, [Applicant] was arrested for breaking and entering and damage to property." d. Part VIa (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) shows his senior rater marked "Not Qualified." e. Part VIb (I Currently Senior Rate __ Army Officers in This Grade) shows his senior rater entered "38." f. Part VIc (Comments on Potential) shows his senior rater entered the comments: "Brilliant, hard working officer with unlimited potential who made a series of poor decisions that resulted in conduct unbecoming an officer. [Applicant] poses innate capacity to recover and function at a high level. His previous actions, however, are not in line with Military standards for Good Order and Discipline." 5. The district court diversion agreement, 21 October 2016, states the State of filed a criminal complaint on 19 July 2016 wherein the applicant was charged with the crime of criminal damage to property. The county attorney's office stated it is in the best interest of all parties concerned and the community that prosecution of this matter not proceed, and that the applicant be diverted from the criminal justice systems on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. Once the applicant's obligations are completed, charges will be dismissed with prejudice. The applicant acknowledged and agreed to the following terms for a diversion period that extended for 12 months. He will: * not violate the laws of any other jurisdiction while agreement is in effect * not associate with individuals known to be involved in criminal activity * meet with the diversion officer as required and comply with all requirements * report any change in address, phone number, or employment * maintain full-time employment * make monetary payments in the amount of $158.00 for court costs and $100.00 for diversion fees * complete a drug and alcohol evaluation within 90 days * refrain from the consumption/possession of alcohol and illicit drugs * submit to random testing of urine * not enter the District during the duration of his diversion * spend at least 50 hours in a community service program * verify all information contained in the application for diversion is correct 6. The Headquarters, Fort Riley, memorandum (Initiation – Officer Elimination (Applicant)), 22 November 2016, directed the applicant to show cause for retention on active duty for acts of personal misconduct and conduct becoming an officer. The action is based on the following specific reasons: a. On 3 July 2016 while intoxicated, the applicant forced his way into two apartments, damaged civilian property, resisted arrest, and assaulted law enforcement officers and civilians rendering assistance. He was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.196 percent. b. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated in the above-referenced misconduct. 7. The medical opinion, 5 December 2016, shows Dr. is a board-certified practicing emergency physician and has been practicing emergency medicine in since 2006. Dr. stated that because he has trained and practiced in college towns, he has dealt with a very large number of intoxicated patients. a. He reviewed the applicant's police records and his blood work. Upon review, he noted the applicant had a blood alcohol content of 0.196 percent and had drug screens at Via Christi and Irwin Army Hospital that were both negative. A blood alcohol content level under 0.08 percent is considered by to be a safe level to operate a car. Alcohol intoxication can vary at different blood alcohol levels based on multiple factors, such as body weight, tolerance, and coingestion. b. The police records noted the applicant was very aggressive, destructive, delusional, and suicidal. However, it is uncommon to see patients who are solely intoxicated on alcohol that exhibit this extreme behavior. To put it in perspective, if this were common, he would see multiple patients similar to the applicant's case every weekend in. There are multiple illicit drugs that are not detected in routine screens that could contribute or cause the kind of behavior the applicant exhibited on the evening of 3 July 2016. For example, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), ketamine, and methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) (commonly known as Ecstasy) are a brief list of drugs that can cause amnesia, hallucinations, paranoia, and aggression. All of these drugs can be taken orally and therefore could be slipped in a liquid or powder form into someone's drink. c. A possibility the applicant was unwillingly given an illicit substance on the night of 3 July 2016 should be considered. While he cannot guarantee this possibility, he can confidently state it was a possibility given that none of these drugs listed are tested for during routine emergency room drug tests. 8. The applicant's OER letter of referral, 15 December 2016, states the specified reason for referral is relief for cause. 9. On 17 December 2016, the applicant submitted his resignation in lieu of elimination. He stated the initiation of his involuntary elimination comes as the result of his arrest on 3 July 2016. While he does not deny responsibility for his actions, he believes there is mitigating information that should be considered. a. The night of the incident was his first night back from his deployment in support of Operation Spartan Shield in Kuwait and Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. After the redeployment ceremony where his mother and roommates met him, they exchanged greetings and returned to his house. After arriving at home, they had one drink at approximately 1630 hours and then proceeded to dinner. At dinner, he had another beer with his meal and made plans to meet his mother for breakfast the following morning. His mother returned to her hotel and he returned to his house with his roommates. They proceeded to have another drink before deciding to go to Aggieville. In total, he had approximately 3 drinks over a period of 7 hours. Because he had made a commitment to meet his mother in the morning, he did not intend to drink much more. When he and his roommates arrived at a restaurant at 2330 hours, he recalls ordering a round of drinks. However, this is his last memory of the evening. His next memory was waking up in jail the following day. His text messages show he sent a message to his roommate at 0038 hours, which appear to be him asking for help. He went from having complete control to having no recollection of events in the matter of an hour. It is unlikely that solely consuming alcohol would cause this. b. While he chose to voluntarily drink alcohol, his failure to recall any events of the evening has never happened before. He believes he consumed a spiked drink. As part of his arrest, his blood was drawn and tested for alcohol, as well as some commonly tested drugs. The tests came back with a blood alcohol content level, but no readings were present for other commonly tested drugs. Seeking to understand what happened, he consulted with doctors in an attempt to uncover why he behaved the way he did that night and why he could not remember any events. He was informed that it is possible that, unbeknownst to him, he ingested some uncommonly tested drugs, such as LSD, GHB, ketamine, and MDMA. He attached a letter from a medical doctor that memorializes the possibility that he was under the influence of some uncommonly tested drug(s). His behavior on the night of the incident is not in character and he has never acted with such a blatant disregard for his welfare or anyone else's. c. During his recent deployment to Iraq, he served as platoon leader. His platoon pioneered new mission processing techniques and developed a strategy to eliminate a target without any forward observers. They were so successful that the Center for Army Lessons Learned interviewed everyone in his battery and published an article memorializing this newly developed strategy for fire support. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his leadership and his unit was commended by the Marine Corps for providing counter-battery fire. d. Since the incident, he continued working as a fire support officer and moved to his next scheduled position. He continues to show the same zeal and enthusiasm for the team. Additionally, he has volunteered to be a driver for the unit's driving under the influence prevention program. Every available weekend, he volunteers to be on call and to ensure Soldiers get home safely. Thus far, he has dedicated roughly 150 hours and has ensured countless Soldiers arrived home safely. He has made amends with the individual whose property was damaged and paid restitution. He is wholly committed to the Army and is dedicated to being a good leader and continuing to serve honorably. 10. The Headquarters, Fort Riley, memorandum (Recommendation – Officer Elimination (Applicant)), 10 March 2017, directed the applicant's retention on active duty and closed the case. 11. On 18 April 2017, the applicant appealed his referred OER covering the period 8 March through 13 October 2016 to HRC. The appeal was based on both administrative and substantive errors. He stated: a. The relief-for-cause reason for submission is in error because his movement in the battalion was part of a calculated and predetermined mass movement of officers. The reason claimed for his relief occurred on 3 July 2016, months before the ending period of this OER. He was never suspended or relieved from his duty position. Instead, his movement was in accordance with the published battalion memorandum regarding preplanned rotations. b. The rater comments regarding his character refer to charges for an arrest. However, regulatory guidance seeks to prevent unproven derogatory information from being included in an evaluation report. At the time of the OER, no final adjudication had been taken and the civilian case remained open. Therefore, the narrative comment is not only premature, but also inaccurate. Additionally, a letter recently authored by his rater states the rater was wrong when he wrote the evaluation report because he had prematurely judged the applicant. His rater confirmed the OER was written prior to any ruling or adjudication. Finally, the rater also stated he was simply wrong is his statement regarding the applicant's character – the applicant was and continues to be a leader with exceptional character and integrity. 12. Captain memorandum for record (Supporting Statement for Evaluation Report Appeal of (Applicant)), undated, states that during the period of June 2015 through September 2016, he served as a battalion fire support officer. In that position, he served with the applicant on a daily basis as his supervisor and rater. The applicant was an exceptional leader and fire support officer whom he could always count on to complete any task. a. On the morning of 4 July 2016, he was informed the applicant had been arrested the previous night. He was instructed he would need to write a relief-for-cause OER by leadership when the final police report became available. The applicant was moved to another position, but it was part of a consolidated effort by the battalion to reassign all lieutenants in the battalion. He wrote the evaluation once he obtained the police report, but at no point was he directed to suspend the applicant from his actual position or actually relieve him from his duties. The applicant continued to perform all the duties assigned to him since the date of the arrest. This OER was completed prior to any ruling or adjudication by a civilian or military court. b. He further stated he was wrong when he wrote the applicant's evaluation report for two reasons. Firstly, he prematurely judged the applicant's guilt and concluded that he had not adhered to the Army Values and did not display the professional character of a commissioned; however, the applicant is one of the most professional officers whom he has worked with in the Army. After the incident, the applicant took accountability and he has always exhibited the Army Values. Secondly, he was simply wrong in his statement of the applicant's character – the applicant was and continues to be a leader with exceptional character and integrity. 13. On 1 May 2017, the applicant was promoted to the rank/grade of captain/O-3. 14. On 8 May 2017, the county district court dismissed the case against the applicant. 15. The Secretary of the Army memorandum (Promotion Review Board AP1708-17, Fiscal Year 2016 Captain, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board), 15 November 2017, shows the applicant was retained on the promotion list. 16. On 31 May 2018 in Docket Number AR20170006955, the OSRB determined the overall merits of the applicant's appeal did not warrant the requested relief. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show the OER was not processed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, he did not provide sufficient evidence to show the ratings in the contested report were in error or were not the considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating officials at the time the report was rendered. As directed by the board, the decision memorandum would be filed in the applicant's AMHRR with the evaluation report in question and the appeal documentation would be filed in the restricted folder of his AMHRR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered through counsel the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. The Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical purposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. One potential outcome was to deny relief based on the actions of the applicant and the nature of the offenses of disorderly conduct and holding officers to a higher standard. However, upon review through counsel of the applicants petition and available military records, the Board determined the applicant’s counsel did demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that there was an injustice to the applicant and by a preponderance of evidence that the contents of the referred Officer Evaluation support removal. The Board found the witness statements /character letters to be compelling as a testament of his leadership and his commitment to his Soldiers. The Board found that removal of the OER, dated 13 October 2016, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is warranted. 2. The purpose of maintaining the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the AMHRR serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the AMHRR. Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by an appropriate authority. There does not appear to be any evidence the contested OER was unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's AMHRR. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 8 March through 13 October 2016. 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), in effect at the time, prescribed the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 1-9 stated Army evaluations are independent assessments of how well a rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army within the period covered by the report. b. Paragraph 2-5 stated the rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rated Soldier responsible for directing and assessing the rated Soldier's performance. c. Paragraph 2-7 stated the senior rater will be the immediate supervisor of the rater and a supervisor above all other rating officials in the rated officer's chain of command or chain of supervision. d. Paragraph 3-9 stated senior raters will ensure timely submission to Headquarters, Department of the Army, to arrive no later than 90 days after the "THRU" date of the OER for processing and filing in the rated officer's AMHRR. The senior rater maintains responsibility for the OER until it is filed in the AMHRR. OERs are processed and profiled daily as OERs are received, regardless of the "THRU" date of the OER and the senior rater's signature date. An OER failing to process in the sequence desired by the senior rater is not a basis for appealing the OER. e. Paragraph 3-19 stated any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning an individual. References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation report. f. Paragraph 3-26 stated any comment so derogatory that the evaluation may have an adverse impact on the Soldier's career is a referred or adverse report. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides detailed instructions for handling referred OERs to ensure rated Soldiers know their evaluations contain negative or derogatory information and affords them an opportunity to submit comments, if desired. g. Paragraph 3-36 stated an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, administrative and substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. h. Paragraph 4-1 stated the Evaluation Report Redress Program consists of several elements at various levels of command. The program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as correct them once they have occurred. i. Paragraph 4-4 stated alleged errors, injustices, and illegalities in a rated Soldier's evaluation report may be brought to the commander's or commandant's attention by the rated Soldier or anyone authorized access to the report. The primary purpose of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at Headquarters, Department of the Army. However, in these after-the-fact cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record. j. Paragraph 4-7 again stated an evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. k. Paragraph 4-8 stated requests for administrative appeal or correction, by either the rated Soldier or the rating chain, will be submitted and received not later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date for an administrative error so significant as to affect not only personnel management decisions, but selection board proceedings and career decisions. Substantive appeals will be submitted and received no later than 3 years after an evaluation report "THRU" date. l. Paragraph 4-11 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 the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or other authorized agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210013063 1 1