IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 14 June 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220009961


APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal of his DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate Officer 
Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 12 March 2018 through 1 November 
2018 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552)
*	Abstract, Department of Orthopedics, Hospital, , undated
*	DA Form 67-10-2 covering the period 12 March 2018 through 1 November 2018 
with enclosures
*	Memorandum (Evaluation Report Appeal (Applicant)), 1 August 2022
*	Memorandum (Remarks Regarding Referred OER (Applicant)), 24 August 2022

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 the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  The contested OER was not submitted to the Headquarters, Department of the 
Army (HQDA), by the rater and senior rater following its return for corrections for 
3 years, as directed by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). In the past 
6 months the OER was returned twice for corrections. The current version filed in his 
AMHRR still contains uncorrected issues and does not comply with Army Regulation  
600-9 (The Army Body Composition Program (ABCP)).

	b.  The rater and senior rater's negative ratings and comments are based solely 
upon failure of his height and weight standards.

		(1)  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 
paragraph 3-7a(3)(b), an officer's rating is holistic and based on the rated officer's 
professionalism, performance, and adherence to the attributes and core leader 
competencies of all aspects of the Army Leadership Requirements Model, not just the 
physical performance competency.

		(2)  On 2 February 2022, he underwent a hip replacement due to osteoarthritis of 
his left hip. This procedure is documented and was performed by Ortho. The surgery's 
long-term recovery involves the complete healing of surgical wounds and internal soft 
tissues and a return to normal life activities; typically, patients can return to normal life 
activities within 3 to 6 months. His weight gain was directly related to osteoarthritis and 
the hip replacement. Weight increase is common following total hip replacement despite 
the improved function.

		(3)  A medical exception to policy should have been initiated by his unit 
commander (rater) in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9, paragraph 3-11 
(Temporary Medical Condition) and paragraph 3-17 (Exception to Policy Authority), to 
include enrollment in the ABCP.

		(4)  The rater does not cite the medical condition in Part IV (Performance 
Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and Attributes) in accordance with Army 
Regulation 600-9 and Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting 
System).

	c.  The rater's overall performance rating is inconsistent with the rater's comments 
regarding the rating period.

		(1)  The rater's comments state he is a "competent" officer and contains no 
derogatory information; however, the rating is "Unsatisfactory."

		(2)  There is no basis to rate him as "Not Qualified," "bottom 50% of the two 
Majors I currently rate," and "bottom 10% of majors with whom I have served" based on 
the positive comments provided in Part IVd2. These items contradict each other.

	d.  The rater's and senior rater's ratings and comments are punitive and violate Army 
Regulation 600-9, paragraph 3-11b. He is healing from a major surgery; is subject to the 
provisions of Army Regulation 600-9, paragraph 3-11(b); and must not receive a 
negatively rated OER based solely on the physical performance competency.

3.  HRC Orders B-10-706698, 17 October 2017, promoted him in the U.S. Army 
Reserve to the rank/grade of major/O-4 effective 29 September 2017.

4.  His OER covering the period 12 March 2018 through 1 November 2018, shows in:?
	a.  Part II (Authentication), the rater and senior rater both digitally signed the form on 
27 July 2022 and the applicant digitally signed the form on 22 August 2022 (nearly 
4 years after the rating period);

	b.  Part IId (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?), the rater 
marked this block and "Yes" is marked indicating comments are attached;

	c.  Part IVa (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Pass/Fail/Profile), his height as 
75 inches and his weight as 290 pounds. The rater entered "No" indicating he is not 
within standards and commented: "Soldier is flagged for HT/WT [height/weight)]. Soldier 
does not have a passing APFT for this rating period. Soldier is not enrolled in the ABCP 
program";

	d.  Part IVe (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater rated his 
overall performance as "UNSATISFACTORY" and commented: "As a field grade officer 
it is unacceptable to fail to meet basic Soldier standards of physical fitness. Officer is in 
the bottom 50% of the two Majors I currently rate and the bottom 10% of majors with 
whom I have served"; and

	e.  Part VI (Senior Rater), his senior rater rated his potential as "NOT QUALIFIED" 
and commented: "[Applicant] is in the bottom 1/3 of Majors I senior rate. Consider for 
promotion when Rated Officer is in compliance with AR [Army Regulation] 670-1 [Wear 
and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia]. Consider for additional schools. 
[Applicant] poses [possesses] some degree of potential to serve in key leadership 
positions."

	f.  Enclosed with the referred OER is the applicant's memorandum for record 
(Evaluation Record Letter of Referral Rated Officer Response), 7 July 2022, wherein he 
states:

		(1)  On 22 February 2018, he received a left hip replacement due to osteoarthritis 
of the left hip. This procedure is documented and was performed by OrthoVirginia.

		(2)  At the time of writing this OER, he was renewing his physical profile rating 
because the surgery's long-term recovery involves the complete healing of surgical 
wounds and internal soft tissues, and a return to normal life activities; typically, patients 
can return to normal life activities within 3 to 6 months.

		(3)  Additionally, the weight increase is common following total hip replacement 
despite the improved function. The weight gain was directly related to his osteoarthritis 
and hip replacement.

		(4)  A medical exception to policy should have been initiated by the unit 
commander in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9, paragraph 3-17.

	g.  Additionally enclosed is the applicant's memorandum (Remarks Regarding 
Referred OER from 12 March 2018 through 1 November 2018 for (Applicant)), 1 August 
2022, wherein he states his contentions described in his request to this Board and in his 
memorandum for record, 7 July 2022.

5.  The applicant provided no medical records related to his diagnoses of depression, 
anxiety, osteoarthritis, or left hip replacement surgery for review.

6.  His records  contain the Circuit Court Final Decree of Divorce, 17 June 2019, 
showing he separated from his spouse on or about 7 March 2018 and divorced on 
17 June 2019.

7.  His OER covering the period 2 November 2018 through 5 October 2019, shows in:

	a.  Part II (Authentication), the rater, senior rater, and the applicant all digitally 
signed the OER on 11 January 2020;

	b.  Part IId (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?), the rater 
marked this block and "Yes" is marked indicating comments are attached;

	c.  Part IVa (APFT Pass/Fail/Profile), his height as 75 inches and his weight as 
312 pounds. The rater entered "No" indicating he is not within standards and 
commented: "Noncompliant with the standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9 but 
making steady progress in the ABCP";

	d.  Part IVe (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater rated his 
overall performance as "PROFICIENT" and provided positive comments on his 
performance; and

	e.  Part VI (Senior Rater), his senior rater rated his potential as "HIGHLY 
QUALIFIED" and provided positive comments on his potential.

	f.  Enclosed with the referred OER is the applicant's memorandum for record 
(Evaluation Record Letter of Referral Rated Officer Response), 26 December 2019, 
wherein he states: "Weight issues may be related to side effects of prescribed 
medication and depression diagnosis. Family care provided has prescribed phentermine 
and I am currently seeing an increase in weight loss. This should help in maintaining 
weight while dealing with depression and anxiety resulting from traumatic past events."

8.  His Officer Record Brief, prepared 27 June 2022, show his birth date as August 
1979.

9.  His next three OERs covering the periods 6 October 2019 through 28 June 2022 all 
show his senior raters rated his overall potential as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" and entered 
outstanding comments on his potential and recommendations for Senior Service 
College and promotion to lieutenant colonel.

10.  His records do not contain and he did not provide copies of his DA Forms 705 
(Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) or DA Forms 5500 (Body Fat Content 
Worksheet (Male)).

11.  The Department of Orthopedics, Hospital, , Abstract, undated, reports the result of 
a study of weight changes and functional outcome in obese and non-obese patients 
following total hip arthroplasty. The conclusion states weight increase is common 
following total hip replacement despite improved function, but the magnitude of weight 
increase appeared to be greater in patients who are obese. Obesity was also 
associated with lower functional hip scores, but the differences were small and unlikely 
to be of clinical significance.

12.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review 
this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA 
electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the 
Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) 
application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System 
(iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and 
recommendations:  
    b.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a referred Field Grade Plate 
(04-05; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) (DA Form 67-10-2) be removed 
from his official military personnel file (OMPF).  He states the referred OER was not 
written IAW AR 623-3, Evaluation Reporting System as the only basis for referral was 
his failures to maintain height / weight standards and to have a passing Army Physical 
Fitness Test (APFT) during the rated period of 12 March 2018 thru 1 November 2018.  
He states this was due to osteoarthritis of the left hip which was treated with a total hip 
arthroplasty in February 2022.
    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.     
    d.  This medical advisory will not address the preparation and processing of this 
OER.  It will only address his claims that his failures to maintain height / weight 
standards and to pass an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) were medically justified by 
his osteoarthritis of the left hip. 
    e.  Documentation addressing the applicant’s APFT failures (e.g., DA form 705, Army 
Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) and height / weight issues (e.g., command and 
medical personnel memorandums; DA Form 5500, Body Fat Content Worksheet, etc.) 
were not submitted with the application nor uploaded into iPERMS.
    f.  After a Soldier not on active duty is determined to be above their height /  weight 
standard and allowable body fat percentage, they may undergo a medical evaluation 
prior to entrance into the Army weight control program and the medical provider notifies 
the commander of their findings.  (Table 3-1 of AR 600-9, The Army Body Composition 
Program).  It is unknown if the applicant had such an evaluation. 
    g.  Paragraph 2-16a of AR 600-9 lists the responsibilities health care personnel have 
in the execution of Army Body Composition Program (ABCP).  These include ensuring 
the Solider receives dietary counseling,  identifying those individuals who have a 
pathological condition requiring medical treatment, and referring the Soldier for health 
coaching, weight management, sleep education, exercise prescription, and 
fitness/performance training, if indicated.  In addition, paragraph 2-16a(4) states they 
will:
“Advise Soldiers that while various medical conditions, environmental conditions, 
functional limitations (temporary or permanent physical profiles), and/or 
medications may contribute to weight gain, they are still required to meet the 
body fat standard established in this regulation. The DCS, G–1 is the exception 
to policy approval authority for special considerations (see para 3–17).
		From the applicant’s 1 August 2022 memorandum for record:
“A medical exception to policy should have been initiated by the unit commander 
(Rater) in accordance with AR 600-9, para 3-17 and para 3-11 enacted, including 
enrollment into the ABCP program.”
    h.  Paragraph 3-11 of AR 600-9 does authorize a Soldier to exceed the allowable 
bodyfat standard for up to 12 months while they undergo treatment to resolve “a 
temporary medical condition that directly causes weight gain or prevents weight or body 
fat loss.”  However, paragraph 3-11c reveals the applicant’s chronic left hip 
osteoarthritis would not be eligible for such an exception:
“The provisions of this paragraph are not applicable to medical conditions or 
injuries based solely on a prescribed reduction in physical activity.  The inability 
to exercise does not directly cause weight gain.  Health care personnel will 
advise Soldiers to modify caloric intake when reduced physical activity is 
necessary as part of a treatment plan.
		Paragraphs 3-17a – 3-17c of AR 600-9:
“3–17. Exception to policy authority
*	The DCS, G–1 is the approval authority for all exceptions to this 
regulation. All requests for an exception to this policy will include an 
endorsement from a medical professional and be processed through the 
Soldier’s chain of command, with recommendations as to disposition from 
the company, battalion, and brigade-level commanders, reviewed by the 
servicing staff judge advocate, and submitted directly to Deputy Chief of 
Staff, G–1 (DAPE–HR), 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–
0300 for final determination.
*	The use of certain medications to treat an underlying medical or 
psychological disorder or the inability to perform all aerobic events may 
contribute to weight gain but are not considered sufficient justification for 
noncompliance with this regulation. Medical professionals should advise 
Soldiers taking medications that may contribute to weight gain, or Soldiers 
with temporary or permanent physical profiles that they are still required to 
meet the body fat standard established in the regulation; the Soldier may 
be referred to an appropriate specialist for nutrition and exercise 
counseling as indicated.
*	Chronic medical conditions will not be used to exempt Soldiers from 
meeting the standards established in this regulation.
    i.  As seen in paragraph 3-17c, the applicant’s chronic left hip osteoarthritis was 
ineligible for such an exemption.
    j.  Review of the applicant’s medical records in MEDCHART shows the applicant was 
on a non-duty limiting permanent profile for left hip pain/injury during the rating period in 
question.  No other conditions were listed on the profile.  The applicant was marked as 
capable of performing all the functional activities required of all Soldiers, including live in 
an austere environment.  The profile simply allowed the applicant to perform an 
alternate aerobic event in lieu of the 2-mile run event for his Army Physical Fitness Test 
(APFT).  
    k.  MEDCHART shows the applicant was placed on two duty limiting permanent 
profiles during the rated period in question, one with a thru date of 17 March 2018 and 
the second with a thru date of 31 October 2018.
    l.  While the applicant’s left hip osteoarthritis may have prevented him from 
successfully completing his APFT during the rated period in question, it neither 
mitigated, excused, or authorized the applicant to exceed height and weight standards.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that 
relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered 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 Board found insufficient 
evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction of the applicant’s 
record. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical 
review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding applicant’s left hip 
osteoarthritis may have prevented him from successfully completing his APFT during 
the rated period in question, it neither mitigated, excused, or authorized the applicant to 
exceed height and weight standards.  Additionally, the Board agreed that all due 
process protections were afforded the applicant and that the processing of the 
DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) was done within 
regulatory guidelines and standards. For that reason, the Board recommended that 
denying the requested relief was appropriate.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION


?
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

	 

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 of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to 
timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 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 ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are 
properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is 
not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of evidence.

3.  Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia), 
25 May 2017, stated the Army is a profession. A Soldier's appearance measures part of 
his or her professionalism. Proper wear of the Army uniform is a matter of personal 
pride for all Soldiers. It is indicative of esprit de corps and moral within a unit. Soldiers 
have an individual responsibility for ensuring their appearance reflects the highest level 
of professionalism. Paragraph 3-1 (Personal Appearance Polices) stated Soldiers will 
present a professional image at all times and will continue to set the example in military 
presence, both on and off duty. Pride in appearance includes Soldiers' physical fitness 
and adherence to acceptable weight standards in accordance with Army Regulation  
600-9.

4.  Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Body Composition Program), 28 June 2013, 
established policies and procedures for the implementation of the ABCP).

	a.  Chapter 3 (ABCP) stated Soldiers are subject to many demands and challenges 
that may impact individual readiness. The ABCP provides commanders a systematic 
approach to enforce military standards across the unit, while supporting Soldiers with 
the resources they need to return to an optimum level of individual readiness.

	b. Paragraph 3-2 (Standard) stated Soldiers are required to meet the prescribed 
body fat standard. Soldiers will be screened every 6 months, at a minimum, to ensure 
compliance with this regulation. Commanders are authorized to use the weight for 
height table as a screening tool in order to expedite the semi-annual testing process. 
Soldiers identified as exceeding the body fat standard will be flagged in accordance with 
Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) and 
enrolled in the ABCP. They must meet the body fat standard in this regulation in order 
to be released from the program.?
	c.  Paragraph 3-11 (Temporary Medical Condition) stated all Soldiers found to 
exceed the allowable body fat standard will have a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend 
Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) initiated and be enrolled in the ABCP. Soldiers 
found to have a temporary medical condition that directly causes weight gain or 
prevents weight or body fat loss will have up to 6 months from the initial medical 
evaluation date to undergo treatment to resolve the medical condition. The medical 
specialty physician may extend the time period up to 12 months if it is determined more 
time is needed to resolve the medical condition. During this time, the Soldier will 
participate in the ABCP, to include initiation of a DA Form 268, nutrition counseling, and 
monthly body fat assessment, but will not be penalized for failing to show progress.

	d.  Paragraph 3-17 (Exception to Policy Authority) states the Department of the Army 
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, is the approval authority for all exceptions to this regulation. 
All requests for an exception to this policy will include an endorsement from a medial 
professional and be processed through the Soldier's chain of command, with 
recommendations as to disposition from the company, battalion, and brigade-level 
commanders, reviewed by the servicing staff judge advocate, and submitted directly to 
the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, for final determination.

		(1)  The use of certain medications to treat an underlying medical or 
psychological disorder or the inability to perform all aerobic events may contribute to 
weight gain but is not considered sufficient justification for noncompliance with this 
regulation. Medical professionals should advise Soldiers taking medications that may 
contribute to weight gain or Soldiers with temporary or permanent physical profiles that 
they are still required to meet the body fat standard established in the regulation.

		(2)  Chronic medical conditions will not exempt Soldiers from meeting the 
standards established in this regulation.

	e.  Table B-1 (Weight for Height Table) shows the maximum weight for males 
40 years and older with a height of 75 inches as 220 pounds.

5.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for 
completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the 
Army's Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 2-10 (The Rated Soldier) states the rated Soldier is the subject of the 
evaluation and has considerable responsibility in the evaluation process. The rated 
Soldier will review and sign the evaluation report after it has been completed by the 
senior rater. The rated Soldier's signature verifies that administrative data, including 
Department of Defense identification number, rating chain, counseling dates, APFT, and 
height and weight entries on the evaluation report are correct and confirms that the 
rated Soldier has seen the completed evaluation report. For referred OERs, the rated 
officer is responsible for acknowledging the senior rater's referral of the OER, signing 
the completed OER and providing comments regarding the OER by the reasonable 
suspense date set by the senior rater.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7a(3)(b) states Part IV will be an assessment of a rated officer's 
professionalism, performance, and adherence to the attributes and core leader 
competencies of the Army Leadership Requirements Model (including the APFT, height 
and weight entries, and entry of compliance/noncompliance with Army Regulation  
600-9), focusing on what a leader is (attributes) and what a leader does (competencies) 
during the rating period.

	c.  Paragraph 3-27 (Referred DA Form 67-10 Series) states OERs with the following 
entries, to include a "No" entry for the height and weight indicating noncompliance with 
the standards of Army Regulation 600-9, and any negative or derogatory comments, is 
a referred or adverse report. Such OERs will be referred to the rated officer by the 
senior rater for acknowledgement and an opportunity to comment before being 
submitted to HQDA.

	d.  Paragraph 3-37 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluations Reports) 
states an evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a 
rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the 
properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade 
qualifications, and 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.

	e.  Paragraph 4-1 (Overview) states 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.

	f.  Paragraph 4-4 (Purpose) states 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 HQDA. 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.?
	g.  Paragraph 4-7 (Policies) states 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.

	h.  Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness) states a request for administrative appeal or 
correction, by either the rated Soldier or the rating chain, will 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.

	i.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) states the burden of 
proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an 
evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and 
convincingly that 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. No appeal may be filed solely based on the contention that the applicant 
was never counseled.

6.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides 
procedural guidance for completing and submitting to HQDA evaluation reports and 
associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. 
Table 2-8 (Authentication for the DA Form 67-10-2) states action is required if referral of 
the DA Form 67-10-2 is required. The senior rater will place an "X" in the appropriate 
box in Part IId of the DA Form 67-10-2 before he or she has signed and dated the 
DA Form 67-10-2. The DA Form 67-10-2 will then be provided to the rated officer for 
placement of an "X" in the appropriate box in Part IId, signature, and validation of 
administrative data ("Yes" if the rated officer will provide comments as an enclosure to 
the DA Form 67-10-2 or "No" if the rated officer will not provide comments).

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion 
function of military human resources support operations. It provides for career 
progression based upon recognition of an officer's potential to serve in positions of 
increased responsibility. Additionally, it precludes promoting officers who are not eligible 
or become disqualified, thus providing an equitable system for all officers.

	a.  Paragraph 2-7 (Promotion Eligibility) states captains, majors, and 
lieutenant colonels must serve at least 3 years of time in grade to be considered for 
promotion.

	b.  Chapter 6 (Special Selection Boards) states a special selection board may be 
convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion when 
Headquarters, Department of the Army, determines that one or more of the following 
circumstances exists:

		(1)  Administrative error. An officer was not considered from in or above the 
promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of an administrative error; or

		(2)  Material Unfairness. The action of the promotion board that considered the 
officer from in or above the promotion zone was contrary to law in a material to the 
division of the board or involved material error or fact or material administrative error; or 
the board that considered the officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have 
before it for its consideration material information.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) 
prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and 
disposition of the AMHRR. 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 ABCMR or other authorized agency.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220009961


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1