Army Evaluation Reports: A Guide to DA Form 623-3, Study notes of Communication

Download Army Evaluation Reports: A Guide to DA Form 623-3 and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

Army Regulation 623–

Personnel Evaluation

Evaluation

Reporting

System

Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 4 November 2015

UNCLASSIFIED

SUMMARY of CHANGE

AR 623–

Evaluation Reporting System

This administrative revision, dated 30 March 2016--

o Corrects table 2-1 to clarify policy language associated with use of “P” identifier for rated noncommissioned officers (table 2-1).

o Applies administrative corrections (paras 2-7 b (13), 2-7 b (14), 2-17 c (7), 3- 33 e (1), 3-42 b (2), and E-4).

This major revision, dated 4 November 2015--

o Renames DA Form 67-10-4 (Strategic Grade Plate (O7) Officer Evaluation Report) to DA Form 67-10-4 (Strategic Grade Plate General Officer Evaluation Report) (para 1-1).

o Updates policy authorizing officer evaluation reports for United States Army Reserve officers in the rank of major general (paras 1-7 and 3-2).

o Incorporates Army Directive 2015-11, Unmasking of Army Officer Evaluation Reports (herby superseded) (para 1-12).

o Incorporates policy for alternate use of an issued Department of Defense identification number in lieu of a nine digit social security number for the rated Soldier, rater, intermediate rater, and senior rater (para 1-14 d ).

o Specifies service members of Allied armed forces are authorized to serve as raters for noncommissioned officers (para 2-5 a (2)).

o Authorizes a brigadier general (O-7) serving as Chief of Staff to to rate officers who are senior in date of rank (para 2-7 b (12)(c)).

o Updates and clarifies minimum grade requirements to serve as senior raters for evaluation reports (para 2-7 and table 2-1).

o Updates and defines supplementary review policy to incorporate DA Form 2166- 9-1 (NCO Evaluation Report (SGT)), DA Form 2166-9-2 (NCO Evaluation Report (SSG - 1SG/MSG)), and DA Form 2166-9-3 (NCO Evaluation Report (CSM/SGM)) (paras 2-15 through 2-18 and para 3-10).

o Updates policy for loss of a rating official or rated Soldier for noncommissioned officers (para 2-19 b ).

o Updates policy for when three- and four-star nominative position sergeants major receive evaluation reports (para 3-2 b (3)).

o Replaces DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCOER Counseling and Support Form) with DA Form 2166-9-1A (NCO Evaluation Report Support Form), mandated for use by noncommissioned officers in the rank of corporal through command sergeant major, linking development with attributes and competencies (throughout).

o Removes previous policy for memorandum of input use in lieu of rendering an evaluation report (throughout).

o Incorporates use of the Evaluation Entry System as primary method for completing and submitting DA Form 2166-9-1, DA Form 2166-9-2, and DA Form 2166-9-3 (throughout).

Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 4 November 2015

Personnel Evaluation

Evaluation Reporting System

*Army Regulation 623–

Effective 1 January 2016

H i s t o r y. T h i s p u b l i c a t i o n i s a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i s i o n. T h e p o r t i o n s affected by this administrative revision are listed in the summary of change.

Summary. This regulation prescribes the policy and tasks for the Army’s Evalua- tion Reporting System, including officer, noncommissioned officer, and academic evaluation reports focused on the assess- ment of performance and potential. It in- cludes policy statements, operating tasks, and rules in support of operating tasks. It has been revised to update policy on the use of new noncommissioned officer eval- u a t i o n r e p o r t f o r m s ; i n t e g r a t e a n e w rater’s assessment for noncommissioned officers which incorporates a new "Rater Tendency" report; integrate a new senior rater’s managed assessment for staff ser- geants through command sergeants major; update policy for newly received deroga- tory information to include noncommis- sioned officer evaluation reports; integrate Army leadership doctrine on noncommis- s i o n e d o f f i c e r e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t s ; u s e a new noncommissioned officer evaluation

support form; remove policy for memo- randum of use in lieu of rendering an offi- c e r e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t ; p r o v i d e n e w processing procedures for Army National Guard noncommissioned officer evalua- tion reports; and incorporate new policy for unmasking Army officer evaluation reports. Applicability. This regulation applies to the Regular Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve, unless otherwise stated. It also applies to Depart- ment of the Army Civilians, and to U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Coast Guard offi- cers, officers of allied armed forces, and employees of the U.S. Government who serve as rating officials in the perform- ance of their personnel management re- s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h i s regulation and in accordance with applica- ble Joint, Department of Defense, and ci- vilian personnel management policy. It does not apply to retirees or former Sol- diers. This regulation applies during mo- b i l i z a t i o n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e Personnel Policy Guidance published for each operation and issued by Headquar- ters, Department of the Army. Proponent and exception authority. The proponent of this regulation is the Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1. The propo- nent has the authority to approve excep- tions or waivers to this regulation that are consistent with controlling law and regu- lations The Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, has delegated this approval authority to the Commanding General, Human Re- sources Command, who may further dele- gate this authority to a division chief, Human Resources Command, in the rank of colonel or the civilian grade equivalent.

Human Resources Command is a field op- erating agency to the proponent agency. Activities may request a waiver to this r e g u l a t i o n b y p r o v i d i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n which includes a full analysis of the ex- pected benefits and must include a formal review by the activity’s senior legal offi- cer. All waiver requests will be endorsed by the commander or senior leader of the requesting activity and forwarded through their higher headquarters to the policy proponent. Refer to AR 25–30 for specific guidance. Army internal control process. This regulation contains internal control provi- sions in accordance with AR 11–2 and identifies key internal controls that must be evaluated (see appendix I). Supplementation. Supplementation of this regulation and establishment of com- mand and local forms are prohibited with- out prior approval from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1 (DAPE–ZA), 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0300. Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recom- m e n d e d C h a n g e s t o P u b l i c a t i o n s a n d Blank Forms) directly to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC–PDV–E), 1600 Spearhead Divi- sion Avenue, Department 470, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5407. Distribution. This publication is availa- ble in electronic media only and is in- tended for command levels C, D, and E for the Regular Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve.

*This regulation supersedes AR 623–3, dated 31 March 2014; and AD 2015–11, dated 30 January 2015.

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 i

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents—Continued

The senior rater (DA Form 67–10 series (OER) and DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER)) or reviewing official (DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059–1) • 2–14, page 19

Section IV Evaluation Report Reviews, page 20 Review of evaluation reports • 2–15, page 20 Review requirements for DA Form 67–10 series (OER), DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), DA Forms 1059, and DA Forms 1059–1 • 2–16, page 21 Mandatory review of officer, noncommissioned officer relief, and academic failure evaluation reports • 2–17, page 22 Review of DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER) • 2–18, page 26

Section V Special Evaluation Reporting Requirements, page 26 Loss of a rating official or rated Soldier • 2–19, page 26 Supervisor as both rater and senior rater • 2–20, page 28 Dual supervision (DA Form 67–10 series (OER) only) • 2–21, page 29 Professors of military science • 2–22, page 29 Special requirements • 2–23, page 29

Chapter 3 Army Evaluation Principles, page 29

Section I Evaluation Overview, page 29 Introduction • 3–1, page 29 Evaluation report requirements • 3–2, page 30 Evaluation report forms • 3–3, page 31

Section II DA Form 67–10–1A and DA Form 2166–9–1A, page 31 The support form communication process • 3–4, page 31 Army performance objectives and special interest items • 3–5, page 32

Section III DA Form 67–10 series (OER) and DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), Roles and Responsibilities, page 33 Rated Soldier • 3–6, page 33 Rater • 3–7, page 34 Intermediate rater (DA Form 67–10 series (OER) only) • 3–8, page 38 Senior rater • 3–9, page 39 Supplementry reviewer (DA Form 67–10 series (OER) and DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER)) • 3–10, page 42

Section IV Rater Tendency Report, Rater Profile Report, Senior Rater Profile Report, and Senior Rater Evaluation Timeliness Report, page 43 “Rater Profile” (OERs), “Rater Tendency” (NCOERs), and “Senior Rater Profile” reports • 3–11, page 43 Rater and senior rater profile restarts • 3–12, page 45

Section V DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059–1 Roles and Responsibilities, page 47 Commandant responsibilities • 3–13, page 47 DA Form 1059 • 3–14, page 47 DA Form 1059–1 • 3–15, page 48

Section VI Restrictions, page 49

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 iii

Contents—Continued

Contents—Continued

Figure List

Figure 2–1: Sample format for a supplementary review memorandum., page 14 Figure 2–2: Sample format for a Headquarters, Department of Army supplementary review request memorandum, page 15 Figure 2–3: Supplementary review requirement by Uniformed Army Advisor, page 21 Figure 2–4: Sample format for a relief for cause/academic failure supplementary review memorandum, page 23 Figure 2–5: Supplementary review requirement by Uniformed Army Advisor for relief for cause, page 25 Figure 3–1: Examples of evaluation report timelines, page 58 Figure 3–1: Examples of evaluation report timelines (continued), page 59 Figure 3–2: Sample format for a relief for cause evaluation report directed by an official other than a rating official, page 63 Figure 3–3: Sample format for a 30 day minimum waiver for relief for cause Noncommissioned evaluation report, page 64 Figure 4–1: Sample format for a Commander’s or Commandant’s Inquiry report, page 79 Figure 4–2: Sample format for a minor administrative correction memorandum, page 82

Glossary

vi AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015

Chapter 1

Introduction

Section I Overview

1–1. Purpose This regulation prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army’s Evaluation Reporting System (ERS). This includes DA Form 67–10–1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 - O3; WO1 - CW2) Officer Evaluation Report)); DA Form 67–10–2 (Field Grade Plate (O4 - O5; CW3 - CW5) Officer Evaluation Report)); DA Form 67–10–3 (Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report)); DA Form 67–10– (Strategic Grade Plate General Officer Evaluation Report)), hereafter referred to collectively as “DA Form 67–10 series (officer evaluation report (OER))” or “OER”; DA Form 67–10–1A (Officer Evaluation Report Support Form); DA Form 2166–9–1A (NCOER Support Form), hereafter referred to collectively as support forms; DA Form 2166–9– (NCO Evaluation Report (SGT)), DA Form 2166–9–2 (NCO Evaluation Report (SSG - 1SG/MSG)), DA Form 2166–9–3 (NCO Evaluation Report (CSM/SGM)), hereafter referred to collectively as “DA Form 2166–9 series (noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER))” or “NCOER”; DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report); and DA Form 1059–1 (Civilian Institution Academic Evaluation Report), hereafter referred to collectively as academic evaluation reports (AERs)). (DA Form 67–10 series, DA Form 2166–9 series, DA Form 1059, and DA Form 1059–1 are hereafter referred to collectively as evaluation reports.) It is linked to AR 600–8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, and policy governing all work required, including Army evalua- tions policy and guidance regarding redress programs, which include Commander’s (CDR’s) or Commandant’s Inquiries and appeals. Procedures, tasks, and steps pertaining to the completion of each evaluation report and support form are contained in DA Pam 623–3. Requests for clarification or exceptions to policy will be sent to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC–PDV–E) (address and contact information in app F). Current information on updated applications, policy guidance, and training are available online at https://www.hrc.army.mil/.

1–2. References See appendix A.

1–3. Explanation of abbreviations and terms See the glossary.

1–4. Responsibilities a. The Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G–1 serves as the policy proponent for the ERS and will ensure that the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) will— (1) Act as lead agency for the Secretary of the Army and is responsible for the effective operation of the ERS. (2) Exercise final review authority on all evaluation reports received at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). This includes the following: (a) Determining that a report is correct, as submitted, and needs no further action. (b) Correcting, or returning to rating officials for correction, reports that may be in error, may violate provisions of this regulation, or would result in an injustice to a Soldier or a disservice to the Army. (c) Directing rating officials to submit addenda to reports needing clarification. (d) Collecting information to be attached as addenda to reports when such action is necessary. (e) Directing CDRs to investigate apparent errors or violations of this regulation and to submit their findings and recommendations. These will be attached to the report or otherwise disposed of as the CG, HRC deems appropriate. (3) Direct the rendering of evaluation reports when circumstances warrant and other provisions of this regulation do not apply. (4) Clarify policy, grant exceptions to policy, or formulate new policy, as the need arises. (5) Dispose of CDR’s or Commandant’s Inquiries conducted in accordance with chapter 4, and chapters governing the subject evaluation, as deemed appropriate. (6) Process evaluation report appeals and update Soldiers’ Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRRs) accordingly. b. CDRs at all levels will ensure that— (1) A copy of this regulation, or the appropriate Web link to this regulation, is available to the rated Soldier and rating officials. (2) Rating officials are fully qualified to meet their responsibilities. (3) Reports are prepared by the rating officials designated in the published rating scheme. (4) Rating chains correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of command or chain of supervision in a timely manner.

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 1

Section II Principles and Standards

1–7. Principles of support The ERS will— a. Evaluate the performance and potential of officers, in the grades of warrant officer one (WO1) through brigadier general (BG), in peacetime and wartime.

Note. An exception exists for USAR major generals (MG) to receive evaluation reports.

b. Evaluate the performance and potential of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), in the grades of sergeant (SGT) through command sergeant major (CSM), in peacetime and wartime. c. Evaluate the performance of Soldiers during Department of Defense (DOD), civilian educational, medical, or industrial institution programs. d. Support the Army’s personnel life cycle function.

1–8. Standards of service a. Evaluation Reporting System overview. (1) The ERS encompasses the means and methods needed for developing people and leaders. An effective ERS involves the execution of leadership, the establishment of a rating relationship with personal interaction, the conduct of developmental counseling and reviews, and the determination of critical assessments. The Army routinely reviews the ERS to ensure that it remains relevant and in support of its goals. (2) The ERS identifies Soldiers who are best qualified for promotion and assignment to positions of greater responsibility. The ERS also identifies Soldiers who will be kept on active duty, retained in grade, or eliminated from military service. (3) The ERS combines major elements of counseling, assessment, documentation, and integration with other personnel functions to meet the needs of the Army, rating officials, and rated Soldiers in their current environments. Its basic foundation-to evaluate today’s Soldiers to select and develop tomorrow’s leaders-will remain consistent. (a) Rating officials assess a Soldier’s performance and potential against standards-the Army Leadership Require- ments Model containing attributes and competencies (see ADRP 6–22, chap 1), the organization’s mission, and a particular set of duties, responsibilities, tasks, and objectives using a series of box checks, narratives, bullet comments, and evaluation report rating techniques. The intent of the ERS should be to drive rated Soldiers to meet or exceed the standards. While standards or techniques may change, the ERS will continue to be the most accurate and effective assessment tool and development system possible. It will accomplish its mission of developing people and leaders. (b) It is easy to speak of “getting an OER” or “giving an NCOER” but it is hard work, requiring all members of the rating chain, to include the rated Soldier, executing the leadership, the involvement, the developmental counseling, and the personal relationships necessary for an effective ERS. (4) Under the ERS, a Soldier is evaluated on his or her performance and potential. The ERS consists of two categories of evaluation reports: (a) Mandatory and/or optional evaluations. The applicable evaluation report forms are the DA Form 67–10 series (OER) and DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER). These evaluations focus on a Soldier’s duty performance, or how well a Soldier performs his or her assigned tasks as related to the Army Leadership Requirements Model. They also focus on potential assessments to include judgments about a Soldier’s ability to perform at the current and higher grade or rank, whether or not a Soldier will be given greater responsibility at the present rank, or retained for further military service. Performance and potential assessments by rating officials are extremely important factors when determining a leader’s potential compared to their peers. (b) School evaluations. The applicable evaluation report forms are DA Form 1059 (for military institutions) or DA Form 1059–1 (for civilian institutions). These evaluations focus exclusively on the Soldier’s performance and ac- complishments while attending a school or course.

Note. The time period covered by AERs is counted as nonrated time on OERs and NCOERs covering the same period.

(c) Selection boards and personnel management systems will be used to evaluate a Soldier’s entire career and his or her personnel file. Evaluation reports capture rating officials’ single time-and-place assessments. When preparing assessments, keep in mind the Soldier’s leadership potential compared with his or her peers; the Army’s ever-changing requirements for Soldiers with certain backgrounds, experiences, and expertise; and the Soldier’s qualifications as a leader based on demonstrated skills, specialized training, military and civilian schooling, and/or other unique skills required by the Army. The size of the Army and its leader corps is limited by law in terms of strength by grade, and the Army limits the number of selections and assignments that can be made. b. Evaluation Reporting System principles. (1) The ERS assesses the quality of Soldiers and determines the selection of future Army leaders and the course of their individual careers. It supports many current Army and Joint personnel management programs. The ERS places

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 3

emphasis on the senior and/or subordinate communication process; the characteristics of evaluation reports ensure that leaders’ specialties are considered along with the specialty requirements of their duty positions when they are evaluated. (2) The ERS is a multifunctional system that allows the rater to give shape and direction to the rated Soldier’s daily performance; provides a chain of command or chain of supervision assessment of an individual Soldier’s performance and potential for promotion, schooling, and successive assignments; and permits the entire evaluation reporting process to be reviewed. c. Evaluation Reporting System functions. (1) The primary function of the ERS is to provide information to HQDA for use in making personnel management decisions. Components of this information include the following: (a) Evaluation reports, which must be thoughtful and fair appraisals of Soldiers’ abilities, based on observed performance and potential. Each evaluation report must be accurate and complete to ensure that sound personnel management decisions can be made and that a rated Soldier’s potential can be fully developed. Evaluation reports that are incomplete or fail to provide a realistic and objective evaluation make personnel management decisions increas- ingly difficult. (b) Indoctrination of the Army Leadership Requirements Model and basic Soldier responsibilities to strengthen the Army’s ability to meet future professional challenges. The continued use of the Army Leadership Requirements Model and Soldier responsibilities as evaluation criteria will provide and reinforce a professional focus for rating officials’ evaluation of performance. (c) An appraisal philosophy that recognizes a single evaluation report will not normally, by itself, determine a Soldier’s Army career (“whole file” concept) and emphasizes continuous professional development and growth that will best serve the Army and the rated Soldier. (d) Rating chains’ views of performance and/or potential for use in centralized selection, assignment, and other personnel management. The information in evaluation reports, the Army’s needs, and the individual Soldier’s qualifica- tions will be used together as a basis for such personnel actions as school selection, promotion, assignment, military occupational specialty (MOS) classification, sergeants major (SGM)/CSM designation, and overall qualitative management. (2) The secondary function of the ERS is to encourage leader professional development, and enhance mission accomplishment, through sound senior and/or subordinate relationships that stress the importance of setting standards and giving direction to subordinate officer and NCO leaders. Properly used, the ERS can be a powerful leadership and management tool for the rating chain. (a) Senior and/or subordinate communication through performance counseling is necessary to maintain high profes- sional standards and is the key to an effective ERS. Such communication contributes greatly to Armywide improved performance and professional development. (b) Use of required support forms by rating officials, when counseling provides the basis for performance counsel- ing. Evaluation reports give the rated Soldier formal recognition for his or her duty performance; calibrate a measure- ment of his or her professional values and personal traits; and assess their potential for promotion, specialized schooling, command, and/or positions of greater responsibility. d. Evaluation Reporting System process. (1) Officers and their rating officials will use the DA Form 67–10 series (OER), DA Form 67–10–1A, and the electronically generated “Rater” and “Senior Rater Profile” reports, as applicable.

Note. The term “officer” refers to both commissioned officers and warrant officers, unless otherwise specified. However, rating chains will recognize the basic differences between commissioned and warrant officers when evaluating performance and potential. Appendix B describes these differences and gives the policies and instruction unique to warrant officer evaluations.

(2) NCOs and their appropriate rating officials will use DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), DA Form 2166–9–1A, and the electronically generated “Rater Tendency” and “Senior Rater Profile” reports, as applicable.

Note. For corporals (CPLs) only the DA Form 2166–9–1A will be used; no NCOER will be prepared.

(3) During the rating period, support forms and counseling sessions will aid the preparation of a final evaluation report. (a) The evaluation process actually starts before the rating period, when the rated Soldier’s rating chain is estab- lished by the CDR, commandant, or leader of an organization, and approved by the next higher CDR, commandant, or leader of an organization for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations) and below. The AER rating chains will be established by the commandant or dean of the appropriate school or unit administration office with oversight to ensure adequate evaluation of a rated Soldier and/or student. (b) The rater will ensure that the rated officer or rated NCO receives a copy of the rater’s and senior rater’s support forms. These documents will provide the rated Soldier essential rating chain direction and focus to aid in developing his or her support form. A face-to-face discussion of duties, responsibilities, and objectives between the rater and the rated Soldier assists in drafting the initial support form(s). e. Counseling. Initial. counseling will be conducted within 30 days after the beginning of the rating period, and

4 AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015

classified evaluation reports are not maintained in an open online system, individual personal copies of completed classified evaluation reports are prohibited. Official copies of completed classified evaluation reports are maintained with the Soldier’s official file for use in making career management decisions and for review by selection boards. Local units should maintain copies of submitted classified evaluation reports in accordance with AR 380–5 and as discussed in paragraph 3–22. e. Safeguarding of evaluation reports is essential, as the information they contain is personal in nature.

Note. Policy concerning filing of evaluation reports is available in AR 600–8–104.

1–13. Mobilization Definitions of the categories of mobilization are found in Joint Publication 1–02. Policy changes and resulting changes in implementing instructions based on different stages of mobilization or deployments will be released by HQDA as part of the Personnel Policy Guidance.

1–14. Privacy Act statement a. Authority. The authority for the Privacy Act for evaluation reports can be found in Title 5, United States Code, Sections 301 (5 USC 301), 10 USC 3013, Executive Order 9397, as amended and Systems of Record Notice A0600–8–104 AHRC, as amended. b. Purpose. Evaluation reports will serve as the primary source of information for officer and NCO personnel management decisions and will serve as a guide for the Soldier’s performance and development, enhance the accomplishment of the organization’s mission, and provide additional information to the rating chain. c. Routine use. Evaluation reports will be maintained in the rated Soldier’s AMHRR. A copy will be given directly to the rated Soldier or sent to a forwarding address. The DOD Blanket Routine Uses may apply to this collection. d. Disclosure. Disclosure of a full nine-digit social security number (SSN) for the rated Soldier, the rater, and senior rater is voluntary. As an alternative to providing an SSN, individuals possessing a DOD issued common access card (CAC) may provide/use their unique 10-digit DOD identification number (located on the reverse side of the CAC) in lieu of providing a full nine-digit SSN for the rated Soldier, the rater, intermediate rater, and senior rater. Failure to provide verified SSNs or DOD identification numbers will result in delayed, erroneous, or failure of processing evaluation report submitted to HQDA.

Note. Completed forms contain personnel identifiable information and require special handling.

Chapter 2

The Rating Chain

Section I Managing the Rating Chain

2–1. Overview This chapter governs the purpose and development of rating chains based on qualifications and special evaluation report requirements.

2–2. Fundamentals CDRs, commandants, and organization leaders will establish rating chains and publish rating schemes within their units or organizations in accordance with locally developed procedures and ARs. Rating schemes for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations) and below will be approved by the next higher CDR, commandant, or organizational leader. Established rating chains will correspond as nearly as practicable to the chain of command or supervision within a unit or organization, regardless of component or geographical location. Rating schemes will identify the name of the rated Soldier and the effective date for each of the rating officials (date on which the rating official assumed his or her role as the rating official for the rated Soldier). Rating schemes will be published and made accessible, either manually or electronically, to each rated Soldier and each member of the rating chain. Any changes to a rating scheme will be published and distributed, as required. No changes may be retroactive.

Note. Pooling, or elevating the rating chain beyond the senior rater’s ability to have adequate knowledge of each Soldier’s performance and potential, in order to provide an elevated assessment protection for a specific group, runs counter to the intent of the ERS. Rating schemes based on pooling erode Soldiers’ confidence in the fairness of the ERS and in their leaders. CDRs at all levels must ensure rating chains correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of command or supervision within an organization. Senior raters must evaluate and identify their best Soldiers based on performance and potential, regardless of the particular position they occupy.

2–3. Rating chain information a. A rating chain is established by the CDR, commandant, or leader of an organization and approved by the next

6 AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015

higher CDR, commandant, or leader of an organization for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations). Once established and approved, rating chains are maintained by rating officials to provide the best evaluation of an individual Soldier’s performance and potential. A rating chain also ties the rated Soldier’s performance to a specific senior or subordinate relationship. This allows for proper counseling to develop the rated Soldier and accomplish the mission. These functions are normally best achieved within an organization’s chain of command or supervision. b. In the absence of a comprehensive published unit rating scheme, the support form can serve as a means to notify individual Soldiers of their rating officials. c. Generally, the evaluation of Soldiers by persons not involved in the chain of command or chain of supervision is inappropriate. d. Special rules for designating rating officials are outlined to cover the death, missing status, relief, incapacitation, or suspension of a rating official (see para 2–19). e. Special rules governing the rating officials for officers under dual supervision; officers serving in the Chaplain’s Corps, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC), or the Army Medical Department (AMEDD); and professors of military science are addressed in paragraphs 2–21, 2–22, and 2–23. f. Specific rules by report include the following: (1) DA Form 67–10 series (OER) rating chains. (a) These normally will consist of the rated officer, the rater, the senior rater, and in some instances, a supplemen- tary reviewer. The senior rater will accomplish the final rating chain review. The rating officials must meet specific qualifications (see paras 2–5 through 2–8 and table 2–1). (b) For specialty branches (Chaplain Corps, JAGC, and AMEDD), dual supervisory situations, and situations in which the rater’s immediate supervisor would be the logical senior rater, but does not meet senior rater eligibility requirements as outlined in table 2–1, a rated officer’s rating chain may involve another level of supervision; or dual supervision and assigned different duties by two qualified but separate chains of command or chains of supervision throughout the entire rating period. In these situations, an intermediate rater is designated as a technical expert in the chain of command between the rater and senior rater (see para 2–6).

Note. For USAR troop program unit (TPU), drilling individual mobilization augmentee (DIMA), individual mobilization augmentee (IMA), and drilling Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) officers who conduct required training away from the host unit, the intermedi- ate rater may be the rated officer’s supervisor at the training organization.

(c) In some cases, a rated officer’s rating chain may have a qualified rating official or supervisor who serves as both rater and senior rater (see para 2–20). (d) Some cases exist when a supplementary review may be required for evaluations. In these cases, a uniformed Army advisor will be identified and included in the rating chain (see para 2–8 a (2)). (2) DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER) rating chains. (a) These normally will consist of the rated NCO, the rater, the senior rater, and in some instances, a supplementary reviewer. The senior rater will accomplish the final rating chain review. The rating officials must meet specific qualifications (see paras 2–5, 2–7, 2–8, and table 2–1). (b) In some cases, a rated NCO’s rating chain may have a qualified rating official or supervisor who serves as both rater and senior rater (see para 2–20). (c) Some cases exist when a supplementary review may be required for evaluations. In these cases, a uniformed Army advisor will be identified and included in the rating chain (see para 2–8 a (2)). (d) NCOs will have one chain of command or supervision within a single organization, in most cases. The NCO rating chains will not include an intermediate rater. (3) DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059–1 rating chains. These rating chains will consist of the authorized rater and a reviewing official as designated by the commandant or appropriate civilian academic authority (see para 2–9).

Section II Rating Chain Development and Maintenance

2–4. General rules for establishing rating chains a. The rating chain for a rated Soldier will be established at the beginning of the rating period. This allows the rated Soldier and rating officials to properly execute their roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process. Rating officials must meet grade requirements, as well as time in position, in order to render evaluation reports. b. CDRs, commandants, and organization leaders are responsible for ensuring valid rating schemes are established. Rating schemes for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations) and below will be approved by the next higher CDR, commandant, or organizational leader.

Note. When CDRs, commandants, and organization leaders establish rating chains, they will ensure “Pooling” of the rated population does not occur.

c. It is essential that rating officials meet and maintain the required eligibility criteria throughout the rating period. If the rated Soldier’s grade changes during the rating period, rating officials must still meet the eligibility requirements in

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 7

c. DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER) rater eligibility. The military rater will be a SGT or above and senior to the rated NCO by grade or date of rank (see AR 600–20). (1) NCOs who are selected for promotion and who are in authorized positions for the next grade and/or frocked to one of the top three NCO grades (first sergeant (1SG), SGM, or CSM) may rate any NCO they supervise if, after the rater’s promotion, they will be senior in pay grade or date of rank to the rated NCO. (2) A rater who has been selected for promotion (that is, whose name is on a promotion list), and who is in an authorized position for the next grade, will be considered to be serving in the next grade. The symbol “P” will be put after the current rank on the applicable NCOER. For ARNG see para 2–11 for specific requirements. (3) A rater who has been selected for promotion (that is, whose name is on a promotion list), but is not in a position authorized for the new grade, will be considered to be serving in the current grade. The symbol “P” will not appear after the current rank on the applicable NCOER. (4) U.S. Government civilian employees (including nonappropriated fund employees) may serve as raters when there is no immediate military supervisor or when the civilian supervisor is responsible for directing and assessing the rated NCO’s performance and in the best position to accurately evaluate the NCO’s performance. The civilian rater will be officially designated on the published rating scheme established by the CDR, commandant, or organization leader. (5) SGMs assigned to the chief of senior instructor positions within the resident and nonresident departments of the Sergeants Major Course, may rate other SGMs in instructor positions within their specific department without regard to date of rank. (6) CSMs assigned as Director, Sergeants Major Course or Director, Staff and Faculty who are serving as brigade level CSMs, will rate the CSMs assigned as Deputy Director, Sergeants Major Course and Deputy Director, Staff and Faculty who are serving as battalion-level CSMs without regard to date of rank.

Note. ARNG military technicians (MT) (32 USC 709) will also be senior in military grade or, if the same grade, senior in date of rank to the rated NCO.

(7) CSMs of table of organization and equipment and table of distribution and allowances (TDA) duty assignment units will be rated by the CDR, with the following exceptions, provided rater qualifications are met: (a) Military community or garrison CSMs may be rated by a deputy community CDR or deputy garrison CDR. (b) The assistant division CDR or the division or installation CSM may rate the Regular Army CSMs who are commandants of NCO academies.

Note. For ARNG, the assistant AG, Army, or the State CSM may rate ARNG NCO academy commandants (see para H–8). Additionally, the State AG will rate the State CSM.

(c) The CG, U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), will determine the rating chain for USAR NCO Academy CSMs who are commandants. d. Academic evaluation report rater eligibility. The rater will normally be senior to the rated Soldier by grade or date of rank. Additional instructions are as follows: (1) A military academic rater is designated by the commandant and is the person who directly oversees and is most responsible for directing and observing the Soldier’s progress through a military course of instruction that requires a DA Form 1059. (2) A civilian academic rater is the civilian official designated by the dean or appropriate civilian authority most responsible for directing and observing the Soldier’s progress through a civilian course of instruction that requires a DA Form 1059–1. e. Specialty branch evaluation reports. For chaplains, see appendix C; for JAGC officers, see appendix D; and for AMEDD officers, see appendix E.

Note. Appendix E does not apply to ARNG Soldiers.

2–6. Rules for designating an intermediate rater (DA Form 67–10 only) This paragraph does not apply to DA Form 2166–9 series (NCOER), DA Form 1059, or DA Form 1059–1. An intermediate rater is only authorized for use by specialty branches (Chaplain Corps, JAGC, and AMEDD) when there is a level of technical supervision between the rater and senior rater, in dual supervisory situations, or in unique instances when the rater’s immediate supervisor is the logical senior rater, but does not meet senior rater eligibility requirements as prescribed within table 2–1. Under unique circumstances, requests for an exception to policy may be granted. Written requests for an exception to policy, endorsed by the first commanding general officer (or equivalent) in the organization, will be submitted to HQDA in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraph 2–6 c. a. An intermediate rater will be an officer of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, or allied armed forces, or an employee of a U.S. Government agency (including nonappropriated fund employees). In addition, the intermediate rater will— (1) Be senior to the rated officer in grade or date of rank. A civilian intermediate rater has no minimum grade requirement but will be officially designated on the established rating scheme. (2) Be a supervisor between the rater and senior rater in the rated officer’s rating chain, unless the rated officer is

AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015 9

serving under dual supervision. The use of the intermediate rater is intended to maintain the link between the rater and senior rater in situations where there is a level of supervision between them. Rating chains having no supervisor between the rater and senior rater will not have an intermediate rater.

Note. An intermediate rater will not be included in a rating chain as a means to promote pooling.

(3) Be the rater’s immediate supervisor and may be any supervisor between the rater and senior rater in the rated officer’s chain of command. This rule is waived when the provisions of paragraph 2–21 or appendixes C, D, or E apply. In cases of dual supervision, the designated intermediate rater, if from a nonparent unit, may be senior to the senior rater (see para 2–21). (4) Have served in that capacity for a minimum of 60 calendar days in order to evaluate the rated officer.

Note. For USAR TPU, DIMA, and drilling IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the minimum rating period will be 90 calendar days versus 60 calendar days (see apps G and H).

b. For chaplains, see appendix C; for JAGC officers, see appendix D; and for AMEDD officers, see appendix E.

Note. Appendix E does not apply to ARNG Soldiers.

c. Requests for an exception to policy, will be endorsed by the first general officer (or equivalent) within an organization and submitted to HRC (AHRC–PDV–E) (address in app F) at the beginning of the rating period, or at the earliest possible date upon discovering that the official will need to serve as an intermediate rater. Requests must be submitted in memorandum format and include the rated officer’s full name, SSN, the period during which the official will serve as the intermediate rater, the effective date, and the justification for him or her to serve as an intermediate rater (see app F for address). Upon approval, provisions outlined in paragraph 2–6 a apply. A copy of the HRC- approved exception to policy memorandum will be submitted to HQDA as an enclosure to the completed OER.

2–7. Rules for designating a senior rater The following are senior rater requirements and eligibility by evaluation report: a. DA Form 67–10 series (OERs). (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 2–7 a (5), (6), and (7), a senior rater will be a commissioned officer of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, or a DOD civilian employee (including nonappropriated fund employ- ees). Members of allied armed forces are not authorized to be senior raters. (2) 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.

Note. See exceptions for AMEDD officers in appendix E.

(3) 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 paragraph 2–7 a (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 below.

Note. For USAR TPU, DIMA, and drilling IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the senior rater must have served in that capacity for a minimum of 90 calendar days (see apps G and H).

(4) Senior executive service (SES) members serving in DOD positions may senior rate all grades of rated officers, provided they are in the rated officer’s chain of supervision and are at least one level above the rater or intermediate rater of the rated officer.

Note. SES members, as defined in 5 USC 3132(a)(2). See paragraph 2–8 a (2) and section IV regarding supplementary review requirements. DA Pam 623–3 provides procedural guidance on OER administrative data.

(5) Members of Congress may senior rate all grades of rated officers serving as fellows or military liaisons on the member’s personal staff. Normally, the member’s civilian Chief of Staff, or another individual on the member’s staff who supervises the day-to-day duties of the rated officer, will serve as the rater (or intermediate rater) when the member of Congress is the senior rater. (6) Ambassadors may senior rate all grades of officers serving at U.S. Consulates under an ambassador’s authority. (7) Under unique circumstances, requests for other U.S. Government officials (for example, political appointees) to serve as senior raters may be granted as an exception to policy. Written requests for an exception to policy will be submitted to HQDA in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraph 2–7 a (8). See paragraph 2–8 a (2) and section IV of this chapter regarding supplementary review requirements. DA Pam 623–3 provides procedural guidance on OER administrative data. (8) Requests for exception to policy will be submitted to HRC (AHRC–PDV–E) (address in app F) at the beginning of the rating period, or the earliest possible date when it is known that the official will need to serve as the senior rater. Written requests will be in memorandum format on letterhead stationery and will indicate the rated officer’s rank and

10 AR 623–3 • 4 November 2015