a.
The burden of proof rests with the appellant.
Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that—
(1)
The presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3–37a and 4–7a will not be applied to the evaluation report under consideration.
(2)
Action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.
b.
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.
c.
For a claim of administrative error, appropriate evidence may include:
(1)
The published rating scheme used by the organization during the period of the evaluation report being appealed.
(2)
Assignment, travel, or TDY orders.
(3)
DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), DA Form 5500 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male)), and DA Form 5501 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Female)).
(4)
Leave records.
(5)
Organization manning documents.
(6)
Hospital admission, diagnosis, and discharge sheets.
(7)
Statements of military personnel officers or other persons with knowledge of the situation pertaining to the evaluation report in question.
(See DA Pam 623–3 for samples of formats for a letter requesting a third-party support statement and a prepared third-party support statement.)
(8)
The results of a Commander’s or Commandant’s Inquiry, IG, and/or EO investigation.
(9)
Other relevant documents.
(10)
Editable documents must be marked certified true copies.
This applies to documents submitted as evidence in support of either an administrative or substantive claim.
d.
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 DA Pam 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 AR 15–6 investigation may provide support for an appeal request.
e.
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 AR 15–6 investigation will include a copy of the AR 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.
f.
For DA Form 67–10 series (OER) and DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), appeals that claim an error in the sequencing of OERs into the Rater Profile, of NCOERs into the Rater Tendency, and for OERs and NCOERs, the Senior Rater Profile will not be accepted.
The Rater’s Profile (OERs only), Rater Tendency (NCOER only), and Senior Rater’s Profile reflects the total of all OERs and NCOERs on officers and NCOs in a single grade written by the rater and senior rater received as of the day the OER and NCOER is accepted at HQDA.
OERs may be delayed in electronic submission, mail handling, and administrative processing.
The official Rater Profile report and Senior Rater Profile report maintained at HQDA on a given day may be different from that in any personal record.
Appeals based on differences between privately-kept records and HQDA-maintained Rater Profile, Rater Tendency, and Senior Rater Profile will not be honored.
It is incumbent on the rater and senior rater to ensure OERs and NCOERs process at HQDA in the desired sequence.
This provision does not apply to DA Form 1059 series (AER).
g.
In evaluating the whole Soldier, rating officials may consider the fact that a rated Soldier is in a zone of consideration for promotion, command, or school selection.
Accordingly, a subsequent statement from a rating official that they rendered an inaccurate “Highly Qualified,” “Retain as Colonel,” or lower evaluation of a rated officer’s potential in order to preserve a “Most Qualified,” “Promote to BG,” or “Multi-Star Potential” rating for other officers (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection) will not be a basis for appeal.
Referenced Paragraphs
3–37a
Accepted evaluation reports are presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and represent the considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating officials at the time of preparation.
4–7a
An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence and will clearly and specifically identify the claimed error(s), inaccuracy(ies), or injustice(s).