a.

An evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier’s AMHRR is presumed to—

(1)

Be administratively correct.

(2)

Have been prepared by the proper rating officials.

(3)

Represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

b.

Appeals based solely on statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error of an OER, NCOER, DA Form 1059, or DA Form 1059–2 will be returned without action unless accompanied by additional substantiating evidence.

c.

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.

(1)

Other interested parties are limited to representatives of the following:

(a)

DCS, G–1.

(b)

HRC.

(c)

Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG).

(d)

TJAG.

(e)

Office of the Chief of Chaplains.

(f)

NGB.

(2)

Other individuals knowing of an alleged rating injustice will contact one of the above agencies or the rated Soldier.

d.

An appeal begun by any party on behalf of an appellant will be referred to the appellant for concurrence and comment before it is submitted.

e.

The results of a Commander’s or Commandant’s Inquiry under paragraph 1–11 do not constitute an appeal.

They may be used, however, in support of an appeal.

f.

An appeal will be supported by substantiated evidence (see para 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 HRC, Evaluation Appeals Branch (AHRC–PDV–EA).

g.

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

(1)

Claims of administrative error pertain to:

(a)

DA Form 67–10 series (OER), part I; part II; part III, block a; part III, block b; and part IV, block a.

(b)

DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), part I; part II and part III, block a; part III, block b; and part IV, blocks a and b.

(c)

DA Form 1059, part I; part II, blocks b, c, e1, and e2; and part IV.

(d)

DA Form 1059–2, part I; part II, blocks b, c, e1, and e2; and part IV.

(e)

DA Form 1059–1, part I; part II, blocks b and c; and part IV.

(2)

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.

(3)

Requests for administrative corrections to the “P” identifier utilized in part I, block c, Rank, after 120 days of an OER or NCOER being filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR will not be supported.

Requests for administrative corrections to alter the “P” identifier in part I, block c, Rank, will only reflect changes to the Rater Tendency report, and Rater and/or Senior Rater Profile within 120 days of an OER or NCOER being filed to the AMHRR.

Requests that are received 120 days or later for OERs or NCOERs filed in the rated Soldier’s AMHRR will result in corrections made only to the administrative data contained within part I, block c, of the OER or NCOER; however, no change will occur to the Rater Tendency report, Rater, and/or Senior Rater’s Profile.

(4)

Periods of time when an evaluation was required but failed to be rendered (for example, missing evaluation reports) require special consideration.

A period of time for which an evaluation report should have been prepared by rating officials, but was not, will be left as a gap between completed evaluation reports in a Soldier’s record.

The Soldier should make every effort to obtain the missing required evaluation report from the rating officials through appropriate command level involvement.

If the Soldier is unable to obtain a missing evaluation report, the Soldier may submit a request for an HRC issued missing evaluation statement (see para 3–34).

Requests for issuance of a missing evaluation statement will only occur when two or more years elapse beyond the required “Thru” date for the missing mandatory report.

Until that time, a gap will remain in the Soldier’s evaluation history to allow adequate time to ensure all processes (and effort) have been exhausted to generate the required evaluation report.

Requests submitted will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

An exception to the two year time requirement exists for situations when all designated rating officials were relieved (see para 2–19).

(5)

A period of undocumented nonrated time (for example, school, leave in excess of 30 days, hospitalization, and so on) resulting in a gap between completed evaluation reports in a Soldier’s AMHRR may be administratively corrected upon request from the rated Soldier, rating chain member, or BN S1 with supporting documentation, unless the period reflects a chain of command’s failure to render a mandatory evaluation report that was due (see paras 3–41 through 3–56).

In some cases, administratively correcting a “From” date on an evaluation report may cause it to be not in accordance with the rules of AR 623–3.

When this occurs, the Evaluation Appeals Office will mark “Corrected Copy per HQDA Appeals Office” so the altered “From” date will be understood by future selection boards and career managers.

Requests for nonrated time administrative correction for evaluation reports completed at HQDA will be mailed to HRC (AHRC–PDV–EA) along with supporting documentation (DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) and DA Form 1059).

Mailing and email addresses are listed in appendix F.

(6)

For evaluation reports on IMA and IRR Soldiers not performing duty, gaps in the evaluation history will occur and are acceptable.

Note. ARNG-specific nonrated time and missing evaluation reports are addressed in appendix H.

(7)

Requests for minor administrative corrections will not be supported when all relevant information pertaining to the error should have been known by the rated Soldier and/or the rating officials at the time the evaluation was submitted.

Rating officials should consider all available sources of information (for example, DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief) or enlisted record brief, orders, or duty appointment documents) when completing an evaluation on their rated Soldier.

HQDA will not conduct minor spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation corrections that would have been easily revealed through review of the evaluation.

Rating officials must make a concerted effort to ensure every evaluation is reviewed for these types of minor administrative errors prior to submission to HQDA for examination and inclusion into the rated Soldier’s AMHRR.

An administrative error so significant as to affect not only personnel management decisions, but selection board proceedings and career decisions is considered an administrative appeal.

Decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time evaluation reports were rendered.

The likelihood of successfully appealing an evaluation report diminishes, as a rule, with the passage of time.

Prompt submission is recommended.

(8)

It should be noted that the rated Soldier’s authentication in part II of an OER or NCOER 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.

(9)

Correction of minor administrative errors seldom serves as a basis for appeal.

However, HQDA will correct errors of a significant nature upon receipt of memorandum from the rater and senior rater.

The memorandum will include the HQDA evaluation number for the evaluation in question, the specific area that requires correction, how the evaluation currently reads and what it should be corrected to read, and a certified true copy (signed by unit commander) of the evidence that supports or justifies the correction.

(10)

Removal of an evaluation report for administrative reasons will be allowed only when circumstances preclude the correction of errors, and then only when retention of the evaluation report would clearly result in an injustice to the Soldier (see fig 4–2 and DA Pam 623–3 for sample formats).

h.

Alleged bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, or any matter other than administrative error are substantive in nature and will be adjudicated by the Army Special Review Board (ASRB) (see para 4–13).

(1)

Claims of inaccuracy of a substantive type pertain to:

(a)

DA Form 67–10 series (OER), part III, block c; part IV, blocks b, c, d, and e; part V; part VI; and OER addenda.

(b)

DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), part III, blocks c through blocks d; part IV, blocks c through j; part V; and NCOER addenda.

(c)

DA Form 1059, part II, blocks f through m, and part III.

(d)

DA Form 1059–2, part II, blocks a and d, blocks f through k, and part III.

(e)

DA Form 1059, dated Nov 2015 and earlier, blocks 11 through 14.

(2)

These are generally claims of an inaccurate or an unjust evaluation of performance or potential or claims of bias on the part of the rating officials (see DA Pam 623–3 for sample formats).

i.

After resolution of the appeal, HQDA amends the rated Soldier’s records, if appropriate.

If the rated Soldier has been nonselected for promotion, the ASRB will also determine if promotion reconsideration is warranted as a result of the change to the evaluation report.

Referenced Paragraphs

1–11. Commander’s or Commandant’s Inquiry

During the evaluation process or after it has been completed, when a commander or commandant discovers that an evaluation report rendered by a subordinate or a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of this regulation, her or she will conduct an inquiry into the matter.

The procedures used by the commander or commandant to process such an inquiry are described in chapter 4.

2–19. Loss of a rating official or rated Soldier due to death, declared missing, relief for cause, or incapacitation

Special rules for designating rating officials are outlined to cover the death, missing status, relief, incapacitation, or suspension of a rating official.

3–34. Preparation and submission requirements

This paragraph provides guidance on preparation, submission, missing evaluation reports, nonrated periods, and requirements related to evaluation report processing.

3–41 through 3–56

These paragraphs address mandatory evaluation reports including “Change of Rater,” “Annual,” “Extended Annual,” “Change of Duty,” temporary duty reports, “Relief for Cause” reports, and other mandatory evaluation requirements.

4–11. Burden of proof and type of evidence

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 paragraph 4–7 will not be applied to the report under consideration.

b.

Action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.