Yes, a military attorney can and should object to a leadership review or an evaluation that cites irrelevant incidents from a past, unrelated duty station. A performance review is intended to be an assessment of the service member’s conduct and performance during the specified rating period and within their current command. Dredging up old, unrelated incidents from a previous assignment is procedurally improper and unfairly prejudicial. It suggests the leader is not conducting a fair assessment of current performance but is instead trying to build a negative narrative by “digging up dirt.”
The attorney would file a formal rebuttal or an appeal of the leadership review. The legal argument would be that the inclusion of the past incidents is irrelevant and violates the principles of fairness and the regulations governing the specific type of review. The attorney would contend that the leader’s job is to evaluate their subordinate’s current performance and potential, not to re-litigate or re-punish matters from years ago that were handled by a different command.
This defense is particularly strong if the prior incidents were minor or did not result in any formal adverse action. The attorney would argue that the inclusion of these stale and irrelevant matters serves no purpose other than to create bias against the service member. They would ask the appellate authority to order that the improper references be physically struck from the review document, ensuring that the final record is an accurate and fair reflection of the member’s performance in their current role.