IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 22 November 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230003194


APPLICANT REQUESTS:

*	in effect, removal of the referred DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate  
(O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 
21 February 2018 through 20 February 2019 from his Army Military Human 
Resource Record (AMHRR)
*	a personal appearance hearing before the Board

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)
*	Email (Timeline of Events), 4 November 2018
*	five nonconsecutive OERs covering the periods –

*	26 May 2014 through 25 May 2015
*	1 December 2016 through 30 September 2017
*	21 February 2018 through 20 February 2019
*	23 February 2020 through 22 February 2021
*	23 February 2021 through 22 February 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 he was wrongfully flagged and received a referred OER with 
erroneous information because the information was not a reflection of his skills or 
abilities. His senior rater (SR) noted he was rated from 21 February 2018 through 
20 February 2019, which is incorrect because he did not process into the unit until 
March 2018 and did not start working until May 2018. His SR arrived in November 2018. 
He later moved to North Carolina due to a contract termination and lack of 
transportation. His SR may have worked with him for only 2 months. His evaluations 
prior to and after the referred evaluation show a different image. The information about 
his Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC) is also incorrect because the GTCC was 
previously settled. Thus, the flagging action occurred under the false pretenses of an 
inaccurate referred OER and other erroneous information. He further states he never 
received an initial counseling.

3.  Following prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and the North Carolina Army 
National Guard (ARNG), he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the 
U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the Military Intelligence Branch in the rank/grade of 
second lieutenant/O-1 effective 22 September 2010. He was promoted to rank/grade of 
first lieutenant/O-2 effective 21 March 2012 and to the rank/grade of captain/O-3 
effective 29 May 2015.

4.  The applicant provided an email showing a timeline of events from March 2018 
through November 2018 and notes:

	a.  His annual OER covering the period 26 May 2014 through 25 May 2015 (a  
12-month period) addressed his duty performance as the Headquarters, Department of 
the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, Foreign Material Activities Officer. His 
rater is shown as Mr. , Chief, Foreign Intelligence, and his SR is shown as Colonel 
(COL) , Director, Foreign Intelligence. His rater rated his overall performance as 
"PROFICIENT" and his SR rated his overall potential as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED."

	b.  His OER covering the period 1 December 2016 through 30 September 2017 (a 
10-month period) addressed his duty performance as the U.S. Army Intelligence and 
Security Command, Operational Requirements Manager, Officer in Charge (OIC). His 
rater is shown as Major (MAJ), Collection Manager, and his SR is shown as 
Lieutenant Colonel, Chief, Future Operations G-35. His rater rated him as 
"PROFICIENT" and his SR rated his as "HIGHLY QULAIFIED."

5.  His change-of-rater OER covering the period 1 October 2017 through 20 February 
2018 (a 5-month period) addressed his duty performance as the U.S. Army Field 
Support Center Assistant S-3, Future Operations, OIC. His rater is shown as MAJ , S-3, 
and his SR is shown as COL , Brigade Commander. His rater and SR digitally signed 
the OER on 20 June 2018 and 27 June 2018, respectively. An attachment shows he 
read but did not respond to the OER on 16 July 2018. The OER shows in:

	a.  Part II (Authentication), block d (This is a Referred Report, Do You Wish to Make 
Comments?), a checkmark was placed in the block signifying to the applicant that he 
was receiving a referred report and no checkmark was placed in the corresponding 
block indicating his intent to submit comments,

	b.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and 
Attributes), block b (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater rated his 
overall performance as "Unsatisfactory" and entered the following comment: "[Applicant] 
usually performs task to standard when supervised";

	c.  Part IV, block c(1) (Character), his rater commented: "[Applicant] supported the 
Army's SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention], EO [Equal 
Opportunity], and EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] initiatives within the unit";

	d.  Part IV, block c(2) (Presence), his rater commented: "[Applicant] maintained his 
military bearing throughout his assignment however he often required close supervision 
to ensure he was present for duty and prepared to execute assigned task";

	e.  Part IV, block c(3) (Intellect), his rater commented: "[Applicant] was able to think 
through task but routinely needed to be mentored through multi-step or complex 
assignments";

	f.  Part IV, block c(4) (Leads), his rater commented: "[Applicant] was able to build a 
team of Soldiers, Civilians, and contractors to support the planning of the unit's keystone 
event, the Program Assistance Visit, however the team required supervision to ensure 
accomplishment of planning task";

	g.  Part IV, block c(5) (Develops), his rater commented: "[Applicant] displayed a 
minor interest in the professional development of those around him or the unit as a 
whole";

	h  Part IV, block c(6) (Achieves), his rater commented: "[Applicant] achieved minimal 
standards on most projects when he was closely supervised";

	i  Part VI (Senior Rater), block a (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in 
Same Grade), his SR rated his overall potential as "Qualified"; and

	j  Part VI, block c (Comments on Potential), his SR entered the following comments: 
"[Applicant] has the potential to grow as an Army Officer with close mentorship. 
Continue to groom for company grade positions within the Army and select for 
promotion after further development."

6.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR shows the OER is filed in the performance folder.

7.  His annual OER covering the period 21 February 2018 through 20 February 2019 (a 
12-month period) addressed his duty performance as the U.S. Central Command 
(CENTCOM) J-2 U.S. Army Reserve Element (USARE) Detachment 1 All-Source 
Intelligence Officer. His rater is shown as MAJ , All-Source Intelligence Officer, and his 
SR is shown as Lieutenant Colonel , Quantico OIC. His rater and SR both digitally 
signed the OER on 13 July 2019. He refused to sign the OER. The contested OER 
shows in:

	a.  Part II, block d (This is a Referred Report, Do You Wish to Make Comments?), a 
checkmark was placed in block signifying to the applicant that he was receiving a 
referred report and no checkmark was placed in the corresponding block indicating his 
intent to submit comments;

	b.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies, and 
Attributes), block b (This Officer's Overall Performance is Rated as), his rater rated his 
overall performance as "Unsatisfactory" and entered the following comments: 
"[Applicant] is in the bottom 10% of Captains I've worked with in the past 15 years. His 
performance was unsatisfactory and characterized by regular unexcused absences 
from battle assembly and failure to accomplish assigned tasks, to include completion of 
a DA Form 67-10-1A to support this evaluation. While he expressed an interest in 
attending training and improving his skills, he failed to take the appropriate measures to 
achieve those goals. In addition, he had outstanding administrative issues that 
precluded him from being ready for deployment";

	c.  Part IV, block c(1) (Character), his rater commented: "[Applicant] displayed 
questionable service ethos and discipline. He established a consistent pattern of 
absences from unit battle assembly (BA) and failed to accomplish his assigned tasks, 
even after regular counseling sessions with his chain of command (CoC). He did 
support the unit SHARP and EO programs";

	d.  Part IV, block c(2) (Presence), his rater commented: "[Applicant] was professional 
and respectful when communicating with superiors, however, he regularly attempted to 
bypass his chain of command. In January 2019 he stopped attending battle assembly 
all together and ceased all communicating with his CoC in spite of repeated attempts to 
contact him";

	e.  Part IV, block c(3) (Intellect), his rater commented: "[Applicant] showed poor 
judgement. He neither paid off his GOVCC [GTCC] debt nor followed instructions to 
receive assistance from HQ [headquarters]. By failing to attend BA and utilizing IDT 
[inactive duty training] funds, he deprived himself of additional revenue and jeopardized 
his Army career. He expressed interest in adapting to difficult life events by transferring 
to the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] but failed to meet the CoC's requirements to 
implement the COA [course of action]";?
	f.  Part IV, block c(4) (Leads), his rater commented: "[Applicant] failed to garner the 
trust and confidence of his peers or his chain of command. His performance and lack of 
service discipline set a poor example for his peers and junior officers";

	g.  Part IV, block c(5) (Develops), his rater commented: "[Applicant] sought out 
training opportunities to develop himself and increase his skill set but showed no 
initiative in meeting the CoC's requirements to approve those requests. The effort 
required to counsel and develop him often detracted from the unit's ability to focus on 
other priorities";

	h.  Part IV, block c(6) (Achieves), his rater commented: "[Applicant] did not make 
tangible contributions to the Levant Team's mission supporting the CENTCOM J2. He 
did not complete any production and his regular absences had a negative impact on his 
ability to maintain consistent access to requisite analytical systems. This impacted his 
readiness, as did his failure to complete online annual training requirements or an APFT 
[Army Physical Fitness Test]”.

	i.  Part VI (Senior Rater), block a (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in 
Same Grade), his SR rated his overall potential as "Not Qualified"; and

	j.  Part VI, block c (Comments on Potential), his SR entered the following comments: 
"Rated Soldier refuses to sign. [Applicant] demonstrated oral communication skills and 
the intellectual capacity to understand directives when present for duty, however his 
potential is extremely limited because he cannot function at the basic Soldier level. Do 
not place in a leadership position at this time. Do not place in a position to influence 
junior US Army Soldiers. Do not promote to the field grade level at this time. The rated 
officer was unavailable for signature and did not response [sic] to multiple attempts of 
contact."

8.  The Letter of Referral memorandum (OER Referral from 21 February 2018 through 
20 February 2019 for (Applicant)), 13 July 2019, referred the subject OER to the 
applicant for acknowledgement. The specified reason for referral is shown as: "The 
absence of a DA Form 67-10-1A for consideration in the report, the inclusion of 
UNSATISFACTORY and NOT QUALIFIED evaluations in Parts IV and VI respectively, 
and the inclusion of derogatory comments in Parts IV and VI." The commander informed 
the applicant that he must acknowledge receipt of the enclosed copy and could provide 
comments if he desired to do so by 1 August 2019.

9.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR shows the contested OER is filed in the 
performance folder.

10.  His annual OER covering the period 23 February 2020 through 22 February 2021 
(a 12-month period) addressed his duty performance as the CENTCOM USARE J-2 
Detachment 1 Intelligence Officer. His rater is shown as MAJ , Joint Operations and 
Exercises Deputy Director, Foreign Intelligence, and his SR is shown as COL . His rater 
rated his overall performance as "PROFICIENT" and his SR rated his overall potential 
as "QUALIFIED."

11.  His annual OER covering the period 23 February 2021 through 22 February 2022 
(a 12-month period) addressed his duty performance as the CENTCOM USARE J-2 
Detachment 1 Intelligence Officer. His rater is shown as MAJ , Counterintelligence 
Officer, and his SR is shown as COL , Commander. His rater rated his overall 
performance as "CAPABLE" and his SR rated his overall potential as "QUALIFIED."

12.  The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any evidence indicating he appealed the 
OER to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and the Officer Special 
Review Board.

13.  HRC Orders 0003947049.00, 31 January 2023, involuntarily separated him from 
the USAR effective 28 February 2023.

14.  The applicant did not provide a copy of the unit rating scheme covering the period 
under review or evidentiary documentation demonstrating his SR's lack of qualifications 
or supporting his contentions that he settled his GTCC.


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 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.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military 
records, the Board determined the applicant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of 
evidence that procedural error occurred that was prejudicial to the applicant and by a 
preponderance of evidence that the contents of the referred Officer Evaluation are 
substantially incorrect and support removal. The Board carefully considered the 
applicant’s prior and post OER evaluation.  The Board, however, noted the applicant’s 
record is absent any evidence he attempted to appeal the OER in question and provide 
comments to support the alleged untrue comments. Furthermore, the Board determined 
there does not appear to be any evidence the contested OER was unjust or untrue or 
inappropriately filed in the applicant's AMHRR. Therefore, relief was denied.

2.  This board is not an investigative body.  The Board determined despite the absence 
of the applicant’s evidence, they agreed the burden of proof rest on the applicant, 
however, he did not provide any supporting documentation that would contradict his 
senior rating official comments and his service record has insufficient evidence to 
support the applicant contentions to support removal of the referred Officer Evaluation 
Report (OER). 

3.  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.

4.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.


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 the evidence. The ABCMR members will direct 
or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded 
that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists in the record. 
The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a 
hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing 
whenever justice requires.

3.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 4 November 2015 and in 
effect at the time, prescribed the policy and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting 
System, including officer, noncommissioned officer , and academic evaluation reports 
focused on the assessment of performance and potential.

	a.  Paragraph 2-7 (Rules for Designating a Senior Rater) stated except as otherwise 
provided in paragraphs 2-7a(5) through  2-7a(7), a senior rater will be a commissioned 
officer of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, or a Department of Defense 
Civilian employee (including nonappropriated fund employees). Members of Allied 
Armed Forces are not authorized to be senior raters.

		(1)  The minimum grade for a senior rater will be in accordance with Table 2-1. A 
civilian senior rater will be a designated supervisor of the rated officer serving at an 
appropriate grade level above the rater and meeting the minimum grade or rank 
requirements in Table 2-1. For purposes of this regulation, a civilian supervisor/rating 
official need not be classified as a supervisor under the Office of Personnel 
Management classification guidance provided they are responsible for directing and 
assessing the rated Soldier's performance.

		(2)  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, except as indicated in paragraph 2-6 and 2-7a(13). To render a 
written OER, the senior rater must have been designated as the rated officer's senior 
rater for a minimum period of 60 calendar days, except as otherwise provided in this 
paragraph. For USAR troop program unit, drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee, 
and drilling IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the senior rater must have served in that 
capacity for a minimum of 90 calendar days (see appendices G and H).

	b.  Paragraph 3-27 (Referred DA Form 67-10 Series) stated OERs with the following 
entries are referred or adverse reports. Such OERs will be referred to the rated officer 
by the senior rater for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before being 
submitted to Headquarters, Department of the Army (see Department of the Army 
Pamphlet 623-3 for detailed instructions and process for handling referred OERs).

		(1)  A rater performance evaluation of "Unsatisfactory" in Part IV (for  
DA Form 67-10-1 and DA Form 67-10-2).

		(2)  A senior rater potential evaluation of "Not Qualified" or "Unsatisfactory" in 
Part VI, block a.

		(3)  Any negative or derogatory comments contained in Parts IV, V, or VI of the 
OER.

	c.  Paragraph 3-40 (Basic Rules) stated the OERs listed in this section are required 
if the rated officer has completed at least 90 calendar days in the same position under 
the same rater during the same rating period. Periods when the rater is in a nonrated 
status and therefore ineligible to evaluate the rated officer (such as attendance at a 
school, when suspended, in a patient status, in a leave status for 30 days or more, and 
so forth) will not be counted in the 90-calendar day period. On these OERs, the rater will 
complete the evaluation; however, intermediate raters (OERs only) and senior raters will 
evaluate only if they have the required 60 calendar days in the rating chain. 
Authentication by all rating officials is mandatory. The minimum required rating period 
for USAR troop program unit, drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee, and drilling IRR 
officers and ARNG officers is 120 calendar days; minimum senior rater qualification is 
90 calendar days (appendices G and H).

	d.  Paragraph 3-42 (Annual Report) stated an annual report is mandatory for a rated 
Soldier upon completion of 1 calendar year of duty, without periods of nonrated time, 
following the "Thru" date of the last OER in the Soldier's AMHRR (or, for USAR and 
ARNG Soldiers, following 1 calendar year out of the IRR or Inactive National Guard, see 
paragraphs G-5a and H-11b).

	e.  Section III (Evaluation Appeals), paragraph 4-7 (Policies), stated an evaluation 
report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed 
to: be administratively correct; have been prepared by the proper rating officials; and 
represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the 
time of preparation.

		(1)  The rated Soldier or other interested parties who know the circumstances of 
a rating may appeal any evaluation report they believe is incorrect, inaccurate, or in 
violation of the intent of this regulation.

		(2)  An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence (see paragraph 4-11). 
An appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without 
usable supporting evidence will not be considered. The determination regarding 
adequacy of evidence will be made by the HRC Evaluation Appeals Branch.

		(3)  Appeals based on administrative error only will be adjudicated by the HRC 
Evaluation Appeals Branch for Regular Army, USAR, and for ARNG evaluation reports.

		(a)  Claims of administrative error pertain to DA Form 67-10 series, Part I; Part II; 
Part III, block a; Part III, block b; and Part IV, block a.

		(b)  Such claims may include, but are not limited to, deviation from the 
established rating chain, insufficient period of observation by the rating officials, 
significant errors in the evaluation report period, and errors in the APFT and/or height 
and weight entries.

		(c)  It should be noted that the rated Soldier's authentication in Part II of an OER 
verifies the information in Part I is accurate. It also confirms that the rating officials 
named in Part II are those established as the rating chain and authenticates the 
accuracy of the APFT and height and weight entries made by the rater. Appeals based 
on alleged administrative errors in those portions of an evaluation report previously 
authenticated by the rated Soldier (Parts I, II, III, and IV, block a) will be accepted only 
under the most unusual and compelling circumstances. The rated Soldier's signature 
also verifies that the rated Soldier has seen a completed evaluation report.

	f.  Paragraph 4-8 (Timeliness):

		(1)  Because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it 
is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous evaluation report be 
corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key 
personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes 
more difficult.

		(2)  Requests for administrative appeal or correction, by either the rated Soldier 
or the rating chain, will submitted and received not later than 3 years of 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.

		(3)  Substantive appeals will be submitted and received no later than 3 years of 
an evaluation report "Thru" date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time will require 
the appellant to submit their appeal to the ABCMR, in accordance with Army 
Regulation 15-185.

		(4)  The Officer Special Review Board will not accept appeals that are over 
3 years old or appeals from Soldiers who are no longer on active duty or part of the 
USAR or ARNG. Retirees and/or those who were separated from service should make 
applications to the ABCMR online at http://arba.army.pentagon.mil.

	g.  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence):

		(1)  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:

		(a)  the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-37a and 4-7a will 
not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration; and

		(b)  action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

		(2)  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not 
merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the 
adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the 
assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those 
assertions.

		(3)  For a claim of administrative error, appropriate evidence may include:

		(a)  the published rating scheme used by the organization during the period of 
the evaluation report being appealed;

		(b)  assignment, travel, or temporary duty orders;

		(c)  leave records;

		(d)  organization manning documents;

		(e)  statements of military personnel officers or other persons with knowledge of 
the situation pertaining to the evaluation report in question (see Department of the Army 
Pamphlet 623-3 for samples of formats for a letter requesting a third-party support 
statement and a prepared third-party support statement);

		(f)  the results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry, Inspector General, 
and/or EO investigation;

		(g)  other relevant documents; and

		(h)  editable documents must be marked certified true copies. This applies to 
documents submitted as evidence in support of either an administrative or substantive 
claim.

		(4)  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 (see Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3). 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 evaluation report was 
rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry or Army 
Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) 
investigation may provide support for an appeal request.

	(5)  To be acceptable, evidence will be material and relevant to the appellant's claim. 
In this regard, note that support forms or academic counseling forms may be used to 
facilitate writing an evaluation report. However, these are not controlling documents in 
terms of what is entered on the evaluation report form. Therefore, no appeal may be 
filed solely because the information on a support form or associated counseling 
document was omitted from an evaluation, or because the comments of rating officials 
on the evaluation report are not identical to those in the applicable support form or 
counseling document. While there will be consistency between a rating official's 
comments on both forms, there may be factors other than those listed on a support form 
or counseling document to be considered when evaluating a rated Soldier. In addition, 
no appeal may be filed solely based on the contention that the appellant was never 
counseled. Evaluation reports written based on the findings of an Army Regulation 15-6 
investigation will include a copy of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation as an 
enclosure to the appeal. In addition, if there was a Commander's or Commandant's 
Inquiry conducted, the results of the inquiry and Commander's or Commandant's 
decision on recommendations will be added as an enclosure to the appeal.?
	h.  Paragraph 4-12 (Appeals Based on Substantive Inaccuracy) stated:

		(1)  A decision to appeal an evaluation report must not be made lightly. Before 
deciding whether or not to appeal, the prospective appellant should analyze the case 
dispassionately. The prospective appellant will note that:

		(a)  Pleas for relief citing past or subsequent performance or assumed future 
value to the Army are rarely successful.

		(b)  Limited support is provided by statements from people who observed the 
appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the 
same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances), letters of commendation or 
appreciation for specific but unrelated instances of outstanding performance, or citations 
for awards, inclusive of the same period.

		(2)  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 evaluation 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 their performance. 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.

		(3)  Most appellants will never be completely satisfied with the evidence 
obtained. A point is reached, however, when the appellant will decide whether to submit 
with the available evidence or to forgo the appeal entirely.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230003194


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1