Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process

This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources.

Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern academic appeals and due process. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

Overview

This article collects ten tracker entries concerning academic appeals and due process, dated between April 30, 2026 and July 17, 2026. The severity mix is seven Medium entries and three High entries (HU-165d, HU-166, HU-166a). Seven entries are marked CONFIRMED (HU-016, HU-090, HU-163e, HU-166, HU-166a, HU-166b, HU-166c), two are marked POSSIBLE (HU-164c, HU-165d), and one entry, HU-177, carries a mixed status: confirmed as to two written instructions given close together, but possible as to whether it reflects a repeated institutional pattern.

The entries cover several distinct threads. HU-016 concerns an unmonitored appeal-decision email inbox operated by the Academic Appeals Office. HU-090 documents a recurring pattern of Change.org petitions filed across multiple class years and the institutional response of directing students to an individual formal complaint process and a town hall. A cluster of five entries, HU-163e, HU-166, HU-166a, HU-166b, and HU-166c, traces a single NSG524 grade-appeal thread involving Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair), and Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), in which the student was directed to the appeals process and an IT ticket, and in which Bishop and Prashad gave contradictory instructions about the appeal's status within the same thread. Two reported, unverified entries, HU-164c and HU-165d, describe misdirection to re-file an already-open or already-approved appeal and denial of a circumstances appeal, both attributed to Academic Advising or Academic Appeals. HU-177 documents a later, separate instance in which Dr. Gombar and Dr. Danielle Laban gave close-in-time, differing instructions about whether a grade appeal was required at all, and asks whether this reflects the same institutional pattern seen in HU-166.

Taken together, the entries recur around two themes: an appeals channel that is difficult for students to reach or rely on (unmonitored inboxes, misdirection to re-file, denials without apparent engagement with the student's circumstances), and instances where different institutional offices or the same office gave students conflicting or shifting guidance about what an appeal required or whether one was needed at all.

Issues

HU-016: Grade appeal response inbox is unmonitored; students explicitly told not to reply

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Academic Appeals Office

Finding. Grade appeal response inbox is unmonitored; students explicitly told not to reply.

Evidence. Grade Appeal Decision email (2026-04-24) from academicappeals@herzing.edu, plus the Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468) and Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

Reported statement.

Important: Please do not reply to this email, as this inbox is not monitored. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Program Chair.

Standards. Handbook p.20 establishes appeals procedures. Standard due process requires a reasonable communication channel at each stage of any appeals process. Redirecting appeal follow-up through the Program Chair creates a conflict (the program chair may be party to the issue) and leaves no clear channel for urgent pre-exam follow-up.

Impact. In time-sensitive situations (exam at 8 AM, appeal decision at 3 PM the prior business day), no monitored reply channel leaves the student without ability to confirm procedural requirements before the exam.

Notes. The student sent three follow-up emails over the weekend before the 8 AM exam. No evidence of monitored response to time-sensitive pre-exam questions.

HU-090: Recurring Change.org petitions across multiple class years ignored; institutional 'formal complaint process' response characterized as dismissive; pattern of institutional non-response to collective student advocacy

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Pattern of Petition Non-Response	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Dean of Nursing / Provost / Student Affairs

Finding. At least three separate Change.org petitions have been filed by MSN-DE students, each targeting program assessment concerns. First, in September 2024, Student AN filed a petition ([link redacted]) regarding a 45 percent HESI weighting; Herzing's response was to direct students to the individual formal complaint process and schedule a town hall. Second, on December 29, 2025, an anonymous organizer filed a petition ([1]) regarding the exit HESI benchmark, and stated that she planned an EthicsPoint complaint to the Provost. Third, on December 30, 2025, another anonymous filer submitted a petition ([2]) simultaneously to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses, and that the class of 2024 had already gone through the same thing without result.

Evidence. The September 2024 petition link was shared in the group ([link redacted]). Student H, commenting on September 24, 2024, stated that Herzing sent an email in response saying students needed to individually go through the school's formal complaint process, and that they could also attend a town hall. The December 29, 2025 petition is at [3]; the organizer, commenting the same day, stated she planned to speak with EthicsPoint the next day, usually someone in the Provost's Office. The filer of the December 30, 2025 petition stated she had submitted it for review to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar, and expressed hope for a positive outcome and more equitable and realistic expectations. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, gave the statement paraphrased above. Source: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. Anonymous member 157 stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses regardless, and that the class of 2024 had already experienced the same thing. Student H stated that Herzing's email response directed students to individually pursue the school's formal complaint process and noted that a town hall was also offered.

Standards. HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain appropriate and fair processes for addressing student concerns. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain processes to address student complaints. Directing petitioners to an individual complaint process rather than engaging with collective concerns is a systemic response pattern that fails to address programmatic issues raised by multiple cohorts. The recurrence of petitions across multiple class years (2024 and 2025) without programmatic change demonstrates institutional non-responsiveness to documented collective student advocacy.

Impact. Students who participate in petitions risk retaliation (HU-066) and invest time and effort in advocacy that produces no programmatic change. The pattern of non-response documented across at least two class years indicates that petition-based advocacy is ineffective at this institution, driving students toward external complaint channels (HLC, state BON, EthicsPoint, legal action), a predictable consequence of institutional dismissal of collective student voice.

Notes. The town hall response is particularly telling: Student H's dismissive characterization of the response suggests students find the town hall format inadequate for substantive program change. Cross-reference: HU-045 (faculty and administration non-responsiveness), HU-067 (EthicsPoint investigation closed inadequately), HU-068 (AI cheating EthicsPoint response). The pattern of petition, then formal complaint referral, then town hall, then no change, documents an institutional loop that deflects rather than resolves collective student concerns.

HU-163e: The burden was shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket and weather documentation, for a failure not of his making; faculty acknowledged they cannot set up an additional exam

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Burden-Shift to Appeals / Makeup Process	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing Academic Affairs

Finding. After the failure, Dr. Stacey Gombar relayed that the course lead and program lead advised the student to go through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, similar to any other missed exam, and to obtain a Herzing IT ticket and include the inclement weather in his documentation. This places the burden of an appeal, an IT ticket, and documentation on the student for a missed exam caused by weather and a vendor failure, and it confirms that faculty cannot set up an additional exam directly.

Evidence. Dr. Stacey Gombar email: the course lead and program lead advise going through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, obtaining a Herzing IT ticket, and including the inclement weather in the appeal documentation; Herzing faculty do not have access to set up an additional exam. Source: Dr. Stacey Gombar emails, June 6, 2026.

Reported statement.

They are advising that you go through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, similar to any other missed exam. Be sure that you obtain a Herzing IT ticket if you haven't already.

Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity and fair process); ACEN Standard 4 (fair academic standards). Routing a weather-and-vendor failure through a standard missed-exam appeal, with the documentation burden on the student, is a fairness and recourse concern, particularly where the underlying cause was outside the student's control. Lead: HU-163. See HU-155 (a separate exam retake that was denied).

Impact. The student must now expend time and effort on an appeal and an IT ticket, with the risk that the makeup is denied as the NSG521 retake was (HU-155), to recover from a failure he did not cause.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-163 (lead). Documented 2026-06-06. UPDATE (2026-07-17): in this same thread, after being routed to the appeals process, the reporting student stated he would submit another grade appeal, describing it as approximately his thirteenth in two terms for a Proctor U issue, and attributed part of the underlying scheduling pressure to Herzing not giving ample notice of clinical schedules. This is offered as corroborating context for the cumulative burden documented in this sub-issue and is not independently verified as an exact count. See also HU-182 (a subsequent, separately documented pattern of chronic ProctorU exam-start delays).

HU-164c: Reported repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that the reporter states was already open, including when she later raised the SAP and GPA problem

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Misdirection to Re-file an Open Appeal (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Advising

Finding. The reporter states that on more than one occasion she was told to file a grade appeal that she already had open. She states this happened in Week 3 of the disputed term, and again about three weeks after the appeal had already been approved, when she raised that her GPA had not been updated and that she had been placed on SAP. She states she was repeatedly told to address the matter by filing an appeal that was already filed and, by then, already approved.

Evidence. Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing being told in Week 3 to file an appeal already open, and being told again, weeks after approval, to file a grade appeal to resolve the GPA and SAP issue. Source: Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted].

Reported statement. The reporter states she was told she needed to file an appeal that she already had open, that she was told to address it with her advisor, that she called and emailed him, that he again told her to file a grade appeal, that she did so, and that it was already approved.

Standards. Raises a concern under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14) and HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and reliable processes). Repeatedly directing a student to re-file an appeal that is already open or already decided indicates a tracking and communication breakdown. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-164.

Impact. If accurate, the misdirection delayed resolution of the GPA and SAP problem and compounded the reporter's time burden and frustration.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-164 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-165d: Reported denial of the circumstances appeal submitted by the reporter to explain why the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Circumstances Appeal Denied (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Appeals / Academic Affairs

Finding. The reporter states she submitted an appeal explaining the circumstances under which the two validations were not completed, but the appeal was denied. She states she is currently requesting documentation, information about the staff involved, and clarification regarding additional appeal options.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student, describing the submission of a circumstances appeal and its denial; reporter's statement that she is seeking documentation and additional appeal options. Source: Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student.

Reported statement. The reporter states she submitted an appeal explaining the circumstances, that the appeal was denied, and that she is currently requesting documentation, information about the staff involved, and clarification regarding additional appeal options.

Standards. Raises concerns under HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear, fair, and published appeal procedures) and administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14). Denying a circumstances appeal without apparent consideration of the structural and resource factors the reporter describes is a fair-process concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-165.

Impact. If accurate, the denial closes the primary internal remedy without addressing the scheduling and resource factors the reporter raised.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-165 (lead). The reporter is continuing to pursue documentation and additional options. Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-166: Lead: the NSG524 grade-appeal email thread contains a direct conflict within the same thread

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (conflicting appeal-status instructions in same thread; shifting IT-requirement rationale; IT-contact blocking condition for non-technical appeal)	Date added	2026-06-09
Owner	Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing Academic Affairs

Finding. Lead entry for a cluster of process-integrity issues arising from the email thread responding to the reporting student's NSG524 Mental Health exam grade appeal. In the same thread, Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) told the reporting student the appeal was incomplete and must be resubmitted after contacting Herzing IT, while Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) stated the appeal had already been advanced to the next level for processing based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. These two responses are directly contradictory within a single thread: one returns the appeal to the student as procedurally incomplete; the other treats it as received and in progress. In the same thread, Bishop also shifted her stated rationale for the IT communication requirement, first citing it as required appeal documentation and then, after the reporting student replied that the issue was not technical, citing it only as needed for tracking purposes. Additionally, the IT contact requirement is being enforced as a blocking condition for an appeal that the reporting student characterizes as a weather and vendor failure with no Herzing technical component. Tracked separately: HU-166a (conflicting instructions from Bishop and Prashad in the same thread), HU-166b (Bishop's shifting rationale for the IT requirement), and HU-166c (IT contact required as a blocking condition for a non-technical appeal).

Evidence. Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

Notes. Appeal relates to NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1, 2026 Summer C, the June 6, 2026 weather-related exam failure documented in HU-163. Dr. Prashad references the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. Bishop's first email also cited the technology test assignment as missing; the reporting student replied attaching the test. Added 2026-06-09. Parts: HU-166a, HU-166b, HU-166c. Cross-references: HU-163 (NSG524 ProctorU weather exam failure; lead cluster), HU-163d (vendor-institution ping-pong and contradictory explanations), HU-163e (burden-shift to appeals and IT ticket as directed by Dr. Gombar).

HU-166a: Conflicting appeal-status instructions delivered within the same email thread: Shannon Bishop told the reporting student the appeal was incomplete and required resubmission with IT documentation, while Dr. Raywattie Prashad stated in the same thread the appeal had already been advanced to the next level for processing

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Conflicting Appeal-Status Instructions Within the Same Thread	Date added	2026-06-09
Owner	Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair)

Finding. In the same email thread, Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) told the reporting student that his appeal was missing two required items and directed him to contact Herzing IT and resubmit. In a later message in the same thread, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) stated she had already received the appeal, it had been moved to the next level for processing based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course, and asked the reporting student to allow time for it to be sent to him. These two responses are mutually contradictory: Bishop's treats the appeal as procedurally incomplete and returns it to the student for action; Prashad's treats the same appeal as received and in progress, with no reference to the deficiencies Bishop identified. A student who followed Bishop's instruction would resubmit, potentially disrupting Prashad's processing; a student who relied on Prashad's statement would take no further action and risk having the appeal denied for missing documentation.

Evidence. Shannon Bishop email: "While I do see the exam registration documentation, the other 2 items are missing. Please connect with Herzing IT ... You would then need to resubmit the appeal with this documentation." Dr. Raywattie Prashad email in the same thread: "I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. Please allow for processing time for this to be sent to you." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

Reported statement.

[Bishop:] Please connect with Herzing IT at assist@herzing.edu and inform them of the situation. You would then need to resubmit the appeal. [Prashad, same thread:] I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course.

Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear, fair, and consistently applied appeal processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including coherent student-services processes). Delivering contradictory instructions about an appeal's status and required next steps within the same thread, with neither party coordinating with the other, leaves the student without a reliable understanding of the appeal's status or what action is required. Lead: HU-166.

Impact. The reporting student is in an active, time-sensitive appeal for an exam failure with academic-standing consequences. The conflicting instructions created immediate ambiguity about whether resubmission was required or whether the appeal was already progressing, with no way to determine which instruction was authoritative.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-166 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email evidence. Documented 2026-06-09.

HU-166b: Shannon Bishop shifted her stated rationale for the IT communication requirement within the same thread: initially citing it as required appeal documentation, then citing it as needed for tracking purposes only after the reporting student replied that the issue was not technical

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Shifting Rationale for a Procedural Requirement Within the Same Thread	Date added	2026-06-09
Owner	Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor)

Finding. In her first email, Shannon Bishop listed IT communication as part of the required appeal documentation alongside exam registration proof and the technology test assignment, framing it as a substantive condition for appeal completeness. After the reporting student replied that there was no Herzing IT communication because the issue was not technical, Bishop responded: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." The stated rationale shifted within the same thread from a substantive documentation requirement to an administrative tracking requirement. This distinction is material: if IT communication is only for internal tracking, its absence does not affect the merits of the appeal, and imposing it as a blocking condition is a procedural formalism rather than a substantive prerequisite.

Evidence. Shannon Bishop first email: "For all ProctorU appeals, students must attach proof of the exam registration, the technology test assignment and communication with HU IT." Shannon Bishop second email in the same thread, after the reporting student's objection: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

Reported statement.

[Bishop, first message:] For all ProctorU appeals, students must attach proof of the exam registration, the technology test assignment and communication with HU IT. [Bishop, second message, same thread:] I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes.

Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity and clear, consistently stated processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability). A procedural requirement whose stated rationale shifts from substantive to administrative within the same thread, specifically in response to the student's objection, raises a process-clarity and fair-process concern. The shifting rationale makes it difficult to evaluate whether the requirement is justified in this specific context or to challenge it on the merits. Lead: HU-166.

Impact. The shift obscures whether IT contact is genuinely required for a weather-and-vendor appeal and provides no clear basis for the student to contest the requirement or understand its significance.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-166 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email evidence. Documented 2026-06-09.

HU-166c: Herzing IT communication required as a blocking condition for an appeal about a non-technical weather and vendor failure, with no documented Herzing technical issue for the student to have raised with IT

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	IT-Contact Requirement as Blocking Condition for Non-Technical Appeal	Date added	2026-06-09
Owner	Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Herzing Academic Affairs

Finding. Shannon Bishop required the reporting student to contact Herzing IT and provide documentation of that communication as a condition of his NSG524 appeal. The appeal arose from the weather-and-vendor failure documented in HU-163: the reporting student's internet was interrupted by severe weather, no ProProctor was available for the in-window reschedule date, and the exam was marked a no-show by ProctorU/Meazure. The reporting student states this was not a technical issue with Herzing systems and that there was accordingly no Herzing IT communication to provide. Bishop acknowledged his position but maintained the requirement, citing tracking purposes. Requiring a student to initiate IT contact for an issue that did not involve a Herzing technical failure imposes a procedural step with no substantive connection to the appeal's subject matter and creates a document-production requirement the student cannot legitimately fulfill.

Evidence. Shannon Bishop email requiring IT communication as part of ProctorU appeal documentation; the reporting student reply: "There is no communication with Herzing IT as it was not a technical issue"; Bishop second email: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

Reported statement.

There is no communication with Herzing IT as it was not a technical issue. [Bishop:] I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes.

Standards. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including fair and proportionate student-services processes); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair process). Imposing a procedurally required step that has no substantive connection to the appeal's facts, and that Bishop herself describes as for tracking rather than for merit review, may constitute an unreasonable procedural barrier to a weather-related appeal. The requirement also places the student in an impossible position: he cannot provide documentation of IT contact for an issue that did not involve a Herzing technical system. Lead: HU-166.

Impact. The IT-contact requirement, if treated as a hard prerequisite, gives the institution a basis to deny the appeal for missing documentation even though the missing documentation reflects the nature of the appeal rather than any failure by the student to follow proper steps.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-166 (lead). CONFIRMED that the requirement was imposed; the appropriateness of its application in this context is the concern. Dr. Gombar also directed the reporting student to obtain a Herzing IT ticket (cross-ref HU-163e). Documented 2026-06-09.

HU-177: Institutional leadership gave contemporaneous, conflicting instructions on whether a grade appeal was required for the July 15, 2026 Exam II disruption documented in HU-175

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED as to the two written instructions; characterization as a repeated institutional pattern is POSSIBLE pending fuller comparison against HU-166
Issue type	Conflicting Institutional Instructions on Grade Appeal Requirement	Date added	2026-07-17
Owner	Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Danielle Laban / Herzing Academic Affairs

Finding. On the day of the exam disruption documented in HU-175, Dr. Stacey Gombar advised the reporting student to complete the Grade Appeal form as soon as possible per policy, and to follow up with faculty or leadership regarding a new exam link if the appeal was approved. The following day, Dr. Danielle Laban's email stated that Herzing would not require the reporting student to go through the appeal process at all, because the disruption was caused by a technical issue outside his control. Both instructions were given in good faith and are not necessarily incompatible if Dr. Laban's email is read as superseding Dr. Gombar's same day advice once the Elsevier root cause was identified; however, from the student's perspective the two instructions arrived close together from two different institutional offices and created uncertainty about which process governed. This is logged as an item for review regarding clarity and consistency of appeal related guidance, not as a confirmed policy violation. This tracker already documents an earlier instance of same thread conflicting appeal instructions at HU-166; whether HU-177 reflects a repeated institutional pattern or two isolated events should be assessed by comparing the two entries directly.

Evidence. Dr. Stacey Gombar, written recap of their same day phone call: advice to complete the Grade Appeal form as soon as possible per policy and to follow up on a new exam link if approved. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM: statement that the reporting student would not be required to go through the appeal process because the impact was due to a technical issue outside his control. Source: Written phone call recap from Dr. Stacey Gombar, same day as the Jul 15, 2026 exam disruption; email from Dr. Danielle Laban, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM.

Reported statement.

I advised you to complete the Grade Appeal form ASAP per policy, and advised you to follow up with faculty and leadership regarding a new exam link if approved.

Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in communications, including clear and consistent guidance to students) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability). Compare against the grade appeal procedure published in the current Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, to determine whether the catalog contemplates a technical failure exception to the standard appeal process, or whether such an exception is being applied on an ad hoc basis.

Impact. A student receiving two different instructions about whether a formal appeal is required, from two different offices within a 24 hour period, risks confusion about deadlines and required steps, and risks either missing a required appeal window if Dr. Laban's waiver is later reversed, or unnecessarily duplicating effort if both instructions were meant to apply.

Notes. Request written, singular confirmation from Herzing of whether the previously drafted NSG524 grade appeal is still required for this specific exam session or is formally superseded by Dr. Laban's waiver, and request that this confirmation come from the office with final authority over grade appeals. Cross-references: HU-175 (underlying exam session failure), HU-176 (Elsevier acknowledgment and appeal waiver), HU-166 (earlier same thread conflicting appeal instructions; compare directly for pattern assessment).

See also

• Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation
• Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations
• Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records
• Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing
• Herzing University Issue Tracker