Evaluation Reporting System Review the Evaluation Reporting System SCOPE: Review the Evaluation Reporting System is a 3.0 hour lesson. This lesson interpret the principles of the evaluation reporting system, rating chain qualifications and responsibilities, counseling requirements, types of evaluations, the evaluation reporting system redress program, requirements for completion of evaluation reports. Instructor Notes: While the main purpose of this lesson is to impart knowledge – it is also intended to get students thinking about how to best manage the evaluation reporting program in their units. There are not many slides in the lesson, but there is great potential for discussion. While topic slides do introduce knowledge for consideration, they are primarily designed to start discussions and constantly engage students. Your purpose in this block of instruction is to first help students realize they have a good foundational knowledge of the evaluation reporting program, to facilitate discussion and critical thought of new information, and then to push students to the next level and have them apply their knowledge in the “Apply” phase. Instructors must be thoroughly familiar with the topics and structure of the lesson to properly facilitate a small group. For each topic, ask students “Why is this important – particularly as you prepare for your next assignments?” Throughout this lesson, solicit from students the challenges they experienced in the operational environment (OE) and what they did to resolve them. Encourage students to apply at least one of the critical variables: Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment and Time (PMESII-PT). 2016

Concrete Experience GROUP 1: Identify 5 things that are right with the Army’s evaluation reporting system. GROUP 2: Identify 5 things that are wrong with the Army’s evaluation reporting system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09bp__4Muh8 Publish and Process (15 min):.   The “publish” portion is a short discussion on how group members felt during their experience of viewing the video clip. This can be kept short; once the group moves to “process,” they will likely continue to add to “publishing” type information. Do not let the group jump straight to content. When well facilitated, publishing is a good method to relate a discussion of interpersonal communication and group dynamics to the broader topic of leader competencies described in FM 6-22. Questions the instructor may ask to assist in the publishing phase:  - What happened? How did you feel about that? - Who had a similar or different experience, and why? Were there any surprises? - What can we learn about the evaluations reporting program in light of this example? - Discussion and questions are directed toward making sense of the data for the individual and the group. The “processing” phase now allows the group to talk about the data they generated. Discussion and questions are directed toward making sense of the data for the individual and the group. Since the CE question for each group relates to the other, one technique for discussing information may be to go back and forth to see if related items were generated from each group. Questions the instructor may ask to assist in publishing: (Intent is to push critical thinking. Push students to defend their answers – allow students to hash out ideas). - Would you say you saw any themes develop in the list? (e.g.,. events vs. processes)  -Can you prioritize a list like this? (There may be no right answer to their list, but the more interesting development would be if there was a disagreement between group members. Have them discuss their differences in thought).  -After having talked about this, do you think you left anything critical off?  -Lists like these contain processes that are ongoing, so where do you start?  -Why is there not just one list that already has this task figured out? (Conversation could include policy changes, how policy is applied in different situations). - Did the CE demonstrate that properly evaluating subordinates will require a plan? The 21st Century Soldier Competencies are essential to ensure Soldiers and leaders are fully prepared to prevail in complex, uncertain environments. This lesson reinforces the following 21st Century Soldier Competencies: Adaptability and Initiative Lifelong Learner (includes digital literacy) Communication and Engagement (oral, written, and negotiation) Tactical and Technical Competence (full spectrum capable) Throughout the lesson discussion seek opportunities to link the competencies with the lesson content through the student’s experiences. .

Learning Objective Task: Review the Evaluation Reporting System Condition: Senior Leaders in a classroom environment working individually and as a member of a small group, using doctrinal and administrative publications, personal experience, and discussion with an awareness of the Operational Environment (OE) variables and factors. Standards: Reviewed the Evaluation Reporting System TERMINAL LEARNING OBJECTIVE NOTE: Inform the students of the Terminal Learning Objective (TLO) requirements. -Interpret the principles of the evaluation reporting system. -Examine the various components of the evaluation reporting system, including rating chains, counseling, types of reports, and redress program. Overview (AR 623-3 para 1-8 Standards of service): Encompasses the means and methods needed for developing people and leaders. Identifies Soldiers who are best qualified for promotion and assignment to positions of greater responsibility. Combines major elements of counseling, assessment, documentation, and integration with other Army, rating officials, and rated Soldiers in their current environments. REFERENCES AND FORMS AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) AR 690-400 (Total Army Performance Evaluation System) DA PAM 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) DA Form 67-9-1 (Officer Evaluation Report Support Form) DA Form 67-9-1a (Developmental Support Form) DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) DA Form 2166-8-1 (NCO Counseling and Support Form) DA Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG)

Evaluation Entry System (EES) EES is the revised web-based tool in development at HRC, which will be used to complete and submit evaluations. EES will consolidate AKO MyForms wizard, IWRS, excel profile calculators, etc. Benefits of EES: Enhanced wizard to guide rating chain and Human Resource professionals in preparing the evaluation Multi-pane dashboard allows user to view data input and form simultaneously Built-in tool to view and manage Rater and Senior Rater profiles Provides quick reference to AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3 Eliminates accessing multiple systems and consolidates evaluation tools to one system Does not delay evaluation processing due to rater profile “misfires” (automatic downgrade)

Evaluation Entry System (EES) Homepage https://evaluations. hrc. army Shows all active evaluations related to you, as the Rater, Senior Rater, or Delegate. Shows Rater & Senior Rater Profile; will show Rater Tendency Allows delegates to view Senior Rater profile (if delegated). Allows Senior Rater or Rater to add Delegates who can draft, edit, remove signatures, and submit reports on your behalf. Only the designated rating official can sign/authenticate evaluations. Allows signature removal if correction or amendment is required

Army Directive 2013-20 & MILPER Msg 13-306 Substantiated Findings Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention Program and Evaluations Zero Tolerance! Both officers and noncommissioned officers must commit themselves to eliminating sexual harassment and assault and to fostering climates of dignity and respect in their units. Army Directive 2013-20 & MILPER Msg 13-306 Help eliminate sexual harassment and assault Officers and NCOs are meeting their commitments and holding them appropriately accountable Requirements for evaluation reports Goals and Objectives Mandatory Officer Evaluation Report Support Form NCOER Counseling and Support Form Initial Counseling for students Raters Assessment Fostered a climate of dignity and respect Identify any significant actions or contributions Identify failures (on and off duty) Substantiated Findings Rater comments on evaluation Senior Rater comments on evaluation Academic Evaluation Reports (Military and Civilian) Ensure the students understand that All NCOs will include goals and objectives to help eliminate sexual harassment and assault. The NCOER Counseling and Support Form must be annotated with goal and objective adherence to SHARP Program. Soldiers attending military service schools, civilian education, medical, or industrial institutions, goals and objectives will be establish during the students’ initial counseling   The rater will assess the rated NCO on how well they adhered to the SHARP Program and any significant actions or contributions the rated NCO made: (1) Promoting the personal and professional development of his or her subordinates (2) Ensuring the fair, respectful treatment of assigned personnel (3) Establishing a workplace and overall command climate that fosters dignity and respect for all members of the group Assessments should also identify, as appropriate, any failures by the NCO to foster a climate of dignity, respect and adherence to the SHARP Program. Raters and senior raters will document any substantiated finding on the officers’ DA Form 67-10 series, NCOs’ DA Form 2166-9, DA Form 1059 and DA Form 1059-1 such as: (1) Committing an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault (2) Failing to report a sexual harassment or assault (3) Failing to respond to a complaint or report of sexual harassment or sexual assault (4) Retaliating against a person making a complaint or report of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Rating Chain Responsibilities Rater Provide Support Forms, if required Initial / quarterly counseling Assess Soldier using all reasonable means Review Support Form at end of rating period if applicable Provide an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the rated Soldier’s performance and potential Senior Rater Become familiar with Soldier’s performance Evaluate Soldier from a broad organizational perspective Only evaluate the rated Soldier’s potential relative to peers Ensure all reports are complete and realistic Ensure Soldier electronically signs eval Instructor NOTES: Point out to the student that: ALL NCOER senior raters will be the immediate supervisor of the rater and designated as the rated NOC’s senior rater for a minimum period of 60 calendar days (see chap 3 section VII and IX)   Supplementary reviewer for NCOERs is when a senior rater within the rated NCOs rating chain includes an NCO in the rank of SFC through 1SG/MSG, warrant officers in the rank of WO1 through CW2, and Army officer in the rank of 2LT and 1LT. Instructor NOTES: Ensure that the student understand AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3 removes previous policy for memorandum of input use in lieu of rendering an evaluation report (throughout) except for special cases where a letter of input will be used. Memorandum of Input is no longer used in lieu of rendering an evaluation report (throughout the regulation) reference the Summary of Changes. A Soldier who is attached to an organization pending compassionate reassignment remains responsible to the parent unit and will not receive an evaluation from the attached organization. A memorandum of input in this case is mandatory (Table 3-1) and Appendix E (medical officers)

Rating Chain Responsibilities Reviewer In most instances the senior rater (OER and NCOERs) will perform final rating chain review Ensure rating chain are correct Ensure report was reviewed by a 1SG / SGM / CSM (NCOER) Ensure comments are consistent with counseling, support forms (or equivalent), or other communications

Restrictions Evaluation Parameters (3-16) Comments (3-17) Prohibited narrative techniques(3-18) Unproven derogatory information (3-19) Prohibited comments (3-20) SHOW SLIDE: RESTRICTIONS (Section VI) There are preparation and processing guidelines and restrictions for evaluation reporting. The perimeters are:   (1) Each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered (para 3-20). (a) For Relief-for-Cause reports have exceptions based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period. Example: A rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period. They may refer to the prior rating period to explain the reasons for relief. (b) When the most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report. This exception is allowed in order to comply with APFT and height and weight requirements. (2) Comments will not exceed the space provided on DA Form 67–10 series, DA Form 2166–8, DA Form 1059, or DA Form 1059–1. In preparing their comments, rating officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation to convey a meaningful description of an officer’s performance and potential. In this manner, both Army selection boards and career managers are given the needed information on which to base a decision. (para 3-21). (3) Prohibited narratives. The following techniques will not be used (para 3-20). (a) Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. (b) Too brief comments. These frequently need to be interpreted by the selection board and the career manager. If not correctly interpreted, the best interests of the Army and the rated soldier are not served. Some examples include, excessive use of technical acronyms or phrases not commonly recognized. (c) Bullet comments. (1) Appropriate bullet comments are required for NCOERs. For example, “outstanding physical and mental toughness. “Ranger of the Year” or “performs brilliantly under fire and in the most austere conditions.” (2) Bullet comments are not acceptable for the OER or AER. (d) Any technique aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative, including, but not limited to the following: (1) Underlining. (2) Excessive use of capital letters. (3) Unnecessary quotation marks. (4) Wide spacing between selected words, phrases, bullets or sentences to include double spacing within a Paragraph or between Paragraphs. Senior raters are not authorized any double-spacing between performance and potential comments. (5) Italics and similar techniques. (6) Bold or underlined text. (7) Compressed type face or spacing. (8) Handwritten comments. An exception is made for DA Form 67-10-4 OER, parts IV, block b and part V for evaluations on BGs and on DA Form 67-10-2 parts IV, blocks d; IV block e; and VI block c for evaluations on CW5s, which may be handwritten in black ink. In order to be processed and placed on the individual’s AMHRR, reports with handwritten comments must be legible. (9) Exaggerated margins (“picture framing”). Paragraph indentation (if not excessive) is an acceptable practice if applied as standard convention of English prose (OER only). (10) Inappropriate references to box checks (OERs). Senior raters may not make references to a profiled box check. (11) Specific selection board language. (4) Unproven derogatory information. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier. (a) References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting the evaluation to HQDA. If the rated individual is absolved, comments about the incident will not be included in the evaluation. (b) This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports. It will also prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently included in a Soldier’s AMHRR, such as— (1 ) Charges that are later dropped. (2) Charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved. (5) Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain’s use of verified derogatory information. For example, when an interim report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in an OER, NCOER, or AER. For all reports, if previously reported information later prove to be incorrect or erroneous, the Soldier will be notified and advised of the right to appeal the report in accordance with chapter 6. (a) Reports will not be delayed to await the outcome of a trial or investigation. Reports will be done when due and contain what information is verified at the time of preparation. (b) For OER, when previously unverified derogatory information is later verified, an addendum will be prepared in accordance with AR 623-3 and forwarded to HQDA. Rating officials will initiate such addendum to report verified misdeeds or professional or character deficiencies unknown or unverified when the OER was submitted. The addendum will ensure that the verified information will be recorded in the Soldier’s official records. However, it will not be submitted until completion of the investigation, imposition of punishment or verification of the information. (6) Prohibited comments. The use of inappropriate or arbitrary remarks or comments that draws attention to differences relating to race, color, religion, gender, age or national origin is prohibited. Subjective evaluation will not reflect a rating official’s personal bias or prejudice (para 3-20). (a) When non-judicial punishment is given and filed on the restricted fiche or locally under AR 27–10, paragraph 3–37, and AR 600–8–104, rating officials may not comment on the fact that such nonjudicial punishment was given to a rated Soldier. This does not preclude mentioning the rated Soldier’s underlying misconduct that served as the basis for the non-judicial punishment. (b) No remarks on an evaluation report will be made on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period except: Relief-for-Cause reports based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period. Example: A rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period. They may refer to the prior rating period to explain the reasons for relief The most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report. This exception allows the rated individual to comply with APFT and height and weight requirements (7) Comments about marital status and spouse. Any evaluation comments, favorable or unfavorable, will not be based solely on a rated Soldier’s marital status. For example, statements such as the following will not permitted: “LTC Doe and his wife make a fine command team” or “As a bachelor, MSG Doe can quickly react to this unit’s contingency missions.” (a) Evaluation comments will not be made about the employment, educational, or volunteer activities of a rated individual’s spouse. For example, statements such as the following will not be permitted: “Mr. Doe’s participation in post activities is limited by civilian employment,” or “Mrs. Doe has made a significant contribution to Soldier morale by caring sponsorship of the hospital volunteer staff.” (b) There are limited circumstances involving actual and demonstrable effect on the rated individual’s performance or conduct when comments containing reference to a spouse may be made. These comments will be focused on the rated Soldier’s actions, not those of the spouse. For example, statements such as the following will be permitted: “CPT Doe continued outstanding, selfless service, despite his wife’s severe illness,” or “COL Doe’s intemperate public confrontations with his wife were detrimental to his status as an officer.” (8) Special Interest Items that can be mentioned in a Soldier’s evaluation report, when substantiated by a completed command or other official investigation: (a) Involvement in a driving under the influence charge. (b) Physical or mental Incapacitation. (c) Acts of sexual misconduct, physical, or mental abuse. (d) Criminal Acts reported in official military or civil authorities. (e) Behavior that is inconsistent or detrimental to the good order, conduct and discipline. (f) Adverse equal opportunity investigations. (g) Acts of reprisal. (h) Activities or behavior otherwise prohibited by AR 600–20. Comments about marital status and spouse (3-21) Participation in Army Substance Abuse Program (3-24) Evaluation of adverse action (3-25)

Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports

NCOER Support Forms NCO Support Form DA Form 2166-9-1A Mandatory for CPL – CSM Initiate and complete in the Evaluation Entry System (EES) Used by Rater to prepare for, conduct, and record results of performance counseling Emphasize development and improvement Nested with the current leadership doctrine (ADRP 6-22) DA Pam 623-3, para 3-1 The purpose and process of DA Form 2166-9-1A, NCOER Counseling and Support Form, is to contribute to Army-wide professional development by increased emphasis on performance counseling. DA Form 2166-9-1 is used by the rater along with a working copy of the NCOER to prepare for, conduct, and record results of performance counseling with the rated NCO. The form is mandatory for counseling all NCOs, CPL through CSM. The form contains a step-by-step guideline for conducting both the initial and later counseling sessions. The ultimate goal of the enlisted counseling is to help all NCOs be successful and to meet established standards.   Conduct counseling sessions at least quarterly for Active Army and AGR NCOs and at least semi-annually for ARNGUS and USAR NCOs performing IDT. These counseling sessions differ from the first counseling session in that the primary focus is on telling the rated NCO how well they are performing. Instructor Notes: Inform the students that the communication process is characterized by initial and follow-up face-to-face counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier throughout the rating period. This process used for NCOs is DA Form 2166-9-1A. The initial face-to-face counseling/discussion assists in developing the elements of the rated individual’s duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives. The follow-up counseling enhances mission-related planning, assessment, and performance development. Ensure that the student understands through the communication process, rated individuals are made aware of the specifics of their duties and may influence the decision on what is to be accomplished. Thus the rated Soldier is better able to: (1) Direct and develop their subordinates. (2) Plan for accomplishing the mission. Gain valuable information about the organization Find better ways to accomplish the mission. Also ensure the student understands IAW AR 623-3, 3-6a(1)a- Officers draft their DA Form 67-10-1A, within the first 30 days of the rating period, using the rater or senior rater DA Forms 67-10-1A as input for goals and objectives. Submitting written performance objectives for approval must be followed up by a face-to-face counseling or an alternative follow-up discussion.

NCOER Support Form – Page 1 Up to 7 lines of text Up to 2 lines of text Up to 16 lines of text Part I – SSD and NCOES requirement met for next grade Part II – Senior Rater annotates counseling dates Part II – Supplementary Reviewer, if required Part IV – Rated NCO provides goals and expectations SHOW SLIDE: NCOER Support Form – Page 1 The next couple of slides are snapshots of the NCOER Support Form and the three grade-plate NCOERs. The support form includes the following new features: Structured Self-Development (SSD) and Military Education Level (MEL) codes will auto-populate on the support form. This will serve two purposes. First, if the information is inaccurate, the rated NCO will need to contact their HR office or HRC to get it updated. Second, the rating chain will be able to mentor and counsel the rated NCO and track his/her progress in attaining promotion eligibility for the next grade (in the case of Sergeants Major, eligibility for joint and/or nominative assignments). The rated NCO will list their goals and expectations in Part IV. This will assist the rated NCO to reach for the goals and expectations throughout the rating period and provide the rating officials with additional information to consider when evaluating overall performance and potential. Another key change is that there is now a senior rater comments section. Senior raters should counsel the rated NCO twice at least twice during the rating period. This will complement the rater’s initial and quarterly counseling sessions. Also, with the implementation of a senior rater profile, it becomes more critical for the senior rater to provide counsel and mentorship to the rated NCO.

NCOER Counseling Support Form Page 2 Up to 8 lines of text for each field Part V – Attributes and Competencies (ADP 6-22) CHARACTER: Rater assesses the rated NCO’s performance in fostering a climate of dignity and respect and adhering to the requirements of the SHARP Program. Part VI – Senior Rater provides comments SHOW SLIDE: NCOER Counseling Support Form Instructor NOTES: Briefly point out the purpose of the NCOER Support Form. Mention that the support will align with leadership doctrine. Based on the attributes and competencies of ADP 6-22, the rater will discuss and establish major performance objectives in Part V.   The senior rater should provide comments as discussed in the two counseling sessions.

Evaluation Narrative Selection boards should understand what input the Rating Chain is providing without having to guess Raters – focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance Senior Raters Amplify potential box checks by using the narrative to capture the rating official’s passion (or lack thereof) for the Rated NCO Reserve exclusive and strong narratives for the very best NCOs Focus on the next 3-5 years (assignment, schooling, and promotion) “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” box checks will be the norm Assessment of Overall Potential Most Qualified: Strong potential for selection in the secondary zone; potential ahead of peers Highly Qualified: Strong potential for promotion with peers Qualified: Capable of success at the next level; promote if able Not Qualified: Not recommended for promotion; consider for separation The evaluation narrative should clearly explain what the Rated NCO did and how well he/she did it. For the rater, he/she must quantify and qualify the performance measure box checks with substantiated bullet comments. The senior rater will reserve exclusive and strong narrative for only the very best NCOs. Exclusive narratives describe superior performance/potential above that of the vast majority, associated with early promotion; are restrictive in nature (e.g., top 1%, 3%, 5%, etc., of all NCOs, the best among a select grade or group, promote in the secondary zone). Should only be used for the best “MOST QUALIFIED” reports within a mature profile, or “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” reports that follow a “MOST QUALIFIED” for same rated NCO and at times for the very best NCOs with “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” reports in small population/immature profile situations. Strong narratives describe significant performance accomplishments and enthusiastically recommend promotion, assignment to key duty positions linked to upward mobility and appropriate military schooling (e.g., among the best, easily in the top third of the NCO corps, definitely promote this NCO, secondary zone potential, one of my best NCOs). Should be used for “MOST QUALIFIED” reports and for the very best NCOs receiving “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” reports.

Bullet comments for all grade plates except Strategic Report (CSM/SGM) DA Form 2166-9-1 Front Page Administrative data is the same for all reports Supplementary Reviewer required when the Senior Rater is a 1LT and below and in certain situations Part II, block d2 – Rated NCO’s signature verifies seeing the report and the accuracy of administrative data in Part I, rating chain and counseling dates in Part II, duty description in Part III, and APFT and HT/WT data in Part IV Part IV Bullet comments for Direct- and Organizational-level reports Narrative comments for Strategic-level report Up to 7 lines of text Up to 5 lines of text Bullet comments for all grade plates except Strategic Report (CSM/SGM) Instructor NOTES: In the discussion mention that the front page format of the NCOER will be the same for all three grade plate forms.   In Part II, if the supplementary reviewer is not required, then the user will check “NO” in Part II block c1 and leave the remaining section blank. Starting in Part IV block c, the rater will begin assessing the rated NCO on the attributes and competencies from ADP 6-22. (Note: The only difference is in Part IV block c for the CSM/SGM grade plate form which will be narrative format. The other two grade plate forms will be bullet format.) NEXT SLIDE

Direct-level Report (SGT) – Page 2 Focuses on proficiency and is developmental in nature; aligns with Army Leadership Doctrine Assessment based on 2-box scale MET STANDARD DID NOT MEET STANDARD Rater – bullet format Unconstrained Senior Rater box check Senior Rater – narrative format Up to eight (8) lines of text (bullet format) for each field in Part IV, blocks c through h Up to five (5) lines of text (bullet format) Up to 5 lines of narrative text Instructor NOTES: Explain to the students that during the review process, all of the key stakeholders (i.e., the Sergeant Major of the Army and his Board of Directors, the Council of Colonels, and the General Officer Steering Committee) wanted the direct-level report for Sergeant to be simple and straightforward. That is why raters will assess using a 2-box scale (MET STANDARD or DID NOT MEET STANDARD). The direct-level report will be focused on technical proficiency and is developmental in nature.   Rater comments will continue to be in bullet format. As for the overall performance, the rater will assess the rated NCO’s overall performance compared to other NCOs in that rank/grade. For those who are assessing NCOs in a particular rank for the first time, the rater will use their experience when providing comments. The senior rater’s assessment of the rated NCO’s overall potential will be unconstrained which basically means that there will not be a limitation imposed. Please note that this only applies to the direct-level report for Sergeant. The senior rater will also provide narrative comments to support their box check (“MOST QUALIFIED”, “HIGHLY QUALIFIED”, “QUALIFIED”, “NOT QUALIFIED”) and list two successive assignments and one broadening assignment that the rated NCO can best serve the Army in the future.

Organizational-level (SSG-1SG/MSG) – Page 2 10 Up to eight (8) lines of text (bullet format) for each field in Part IV, blocks c through h Up to five (5) lines of text (bullet format) Up to 5 lines of narrative text Focuses on organizational systems and processes; aligns with Army Leadership Doctrine Rater – bullet format Senior Rater – Narrative format Assessment based on 4-box scale FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD EXCEEDED STANDARD MET STANDARD DID NOT MEET STANDARD Unconstrained Rater Tendency Constrained Senior Rater Profile (limited to 24% for “Most Qualified” selection); no credit applied Instructor NOTES: Explain to the students, whereas the direct-level report for Sergeant uses a 2-box scale, the organizational-level report for Staff Sergeant through First Sergeant / Master Sergeant (SSG-1SG/MSG) uses a 4-box scale (FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD, EXCEEDED STANDARD, MET STANDARD, DID NOT MEET STANDARD). This NCOER will focus on organizational systems and processes.   As far as distinguishing between the four performances measures, TRADOC provided CMF-specific guidance which was gathered from the proponents. In keeping with Army guidance and to avoid inflation, an EXCEEDED STANDARD box check is demonstrated by the upper 20% of the NCOs of the same grade while the FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD box check is demonstrated by the top 5% of the NCOs of the same grade. Rater comments will continue to be in bullet format. The rater will assess the rated NCO’s overall performance compared to other NCOs in that rank/grade using the 4-box scale while providing comments. For those who are assessing NCOs in a particular rank for the first time, the rater will use their experience when providing comments. The senior rater assessment of the rated NCO’s overall potential will be CONSTRAINED and limited to 24% top block or “MOST QUALIFIED”. The “Silver bullet” refers to the senior rater being able to render a top block for any one of the first four reports for each grade he/she assesses. For example, if the senior rater renders a “MOST QUALIFIED” for the first NCOER, then the next three will have to be either “HIGHLY QUALIFIED”, “QUALIFIED”, or “NOT QUALIFIED”. The senior rater profile requires the rating official to identify the best talent and reserve the top block assessment for those who are truly deserving. While the box check is important, the senior rater’s narrative comments are critical and should quantify and/or support the box check. (Note: No credit will be applied to the senior rater profile. Everyone will start from zero (0).)

Exceeds Standards (applies to Organizational and Strategic-level NCOERs) EXCEEDED STANDARD Rated NCO performs above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; this NCO and his/her Soldiers often take disciplined initiative in applying leader competencies and attributes; results have an immediate impact on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; this level of performance is not common, typically demonstrated by the upper third of NCOs of the same grade. mentored two squad members to be inducted into the Sergeant Audie Murphy Club graduated from M1A2/MGS/Bradley Master Gunner’s Course scored 2+/2+ on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT); surpassed Army standard in a Category IV language recognized with the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for volunteering over 100 hours with local community selected over eight seniors and 15 peers by the Deputy Commanding General to serve as Master Driver Rated NCO performs above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes typically demonstrated by the upper third of NCOs of the same grade.

Far Exceeded Standards (applies to Organizational and Strategic-level NCOERs) Rated NCO performs extraordinarily above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; leadership enables Soldiers and unit to far surpass required organizational and Army standards; demonstrated performance epitomizes excellence in all aspects; this NCO and his/her Soldiers consistently take disciplined initiative in applying leader competencies and attributes; results have an immediate impact and enduring effect on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; demonstrated by the best of the upper third of NCOs of the same grade. placed 1st of 23 teams in the recent LTG David E. Grange Jr. Best Ranger Competition nominated and selected over 11 senior NCOs to serve as the Army Corrections Command Operations Sergeant selected as the Secretary of the Army Career Counselor of the Year; incomparable retention knowledge expertly led his/her SGLs to earn an Institute of Excellence rating within eight months of arrival selected by Corps/Division G-1 as the best Brigade S-1 within area of responsibility Rated NCO performs extraordinarily above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; demonstrated by the best of the upper third of NCOs of the same grade. 10

Met Standard (applies to all Grade Plate NCOERs) Rated NCO successfully achieves and maintains the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; effectively meets and enforces the standard for the unit and those in his/her charge; succeeds by taking appropriate initiative in applying the leader competencies and attributes; results have a positive impact on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; this level of performance is considered normal and typically demonstrated by a majority of NCOs of the same grade. established a workplace environment and overall command climate that fostered dignity and respect for all team members scored 263 on last APFT helping company to achieve a 250 average assisted in the weapons qualification of 200 Soldiers throughout the battalion developed a strong priority work plan and anticipated constant change; successfully completed all missions developed several SOPs that were effectively used by Soldiers for accomplishment of daily missions Rated NCO successfully achieves and maintains the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; typically demonstrated by a majority of NCOs of the same grade.

Did Not Meet Standard (applies to all Grade Plate NCOERs) failed to consistently adhere to rules, regulations, or standard operating procedures demonstrated no concern for security and accountability of sensitive items displayed meager enthusiasm and optimism; his/her actions discouraged others to develop and reach their full potential failed to maintain accountability of Soldiers under his supervision; fabricated status reports declined to address subordinate’s request for assistance with personal issues DID NOT MEET STANDARD Rated NCO fails to meet or maintain the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; does not enforce or meet the standard for the unit or those in his/her charge; exhibits/displays minimal or no effort; actions often have a negative effect on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army. Rated NCO fails to meet or maintain the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes

Rater Tendency Label (applies to SSG-CSM/SGM) 2 3 6 1 Total Ratings: 12 Note: This is the Rater’s “capstone” assessment of performance and opportunity to “stratify / quantify.” Rater Tendency Label – the value below each box equals the overall history of those ratings in this grade and the rated NCO’s overall performance compared to NCOs in same grade SSG-CSM/SGM. Rater Tendency (i.e., rating history) will be imprinted on the NCOER and viewable within the Evaluation Entry System (EES) by the Rater’s Rater and Senior Rater. Emphasizes the following: Importance of the Rater’s role and responsibility to provide credible information to HQDA Importance of a Rater’s sequencing of NCOER submissions to avoid inflation Provides information to HQDA Selection Boards and Army Leadership on the Rater’s rating tendency Continues without interruption as the Rater moves from unit to unit, position to position, regardless of promotion. The Rater Tendency Label depicts the Rater’s overall rating history in a particular grade. The example shows that the Rater rendered 12 ratings for Sergeant First Class. Of those 12, the Rater identified two (2) as “FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD”, three (3) as “EXCEEDED STANDARD”, six (6) as “MET STANDARD”, and one (1) as “DID NOT MEET STANDARD”. Because the Rater Tendency is unconstrained (i.e., no limitation), it is imperative that the Rater maintain a credible rating history. In the event the Rater Tendency reflects inflation (for example, out of 12 total ratings, eight (8) are either “FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD” or “EXCEEDED STANDARD”), then there is the potential for the Rater’s credibility to be questioned when reviewed by a HQDA DA Centralized Selection Board and the rater’s chain of command who can view this report.   NOTE: An additional feature within the Evaluation Entry System (EES) is the ability for the Rater’s Rater and Senior Rater to view the Rater’s Rater Tendency. This will allow the Rater’s rating chain to provide oversight and guidance to ensure the Rater is managing his/her Rater Tendency in accordance with Army guidance. The rated NCO will not be at a disadvantage. Selection board members will see the rater’s tendency, the performance box check that was rendered along with the supporting narrative comments that should reflect the selected box check. The Senior Rater renders the overall potential assessment which is constrained. It is also important to note that the Rater’s Rater and Senior Rater will have visibility of the rater’s tendency report. Leaders are responsible for developing, mentoring, and counseling raters in order to discourage inflation and protect a Rater’s credibility.

Senior Rater Assessment (SSG-CSM/SGM) Most Qualified: Definitely select for higher levels of responsibilities (24%) Highly Qualified: Possesses the ability to perform at the next level of responsibility Qualified: Retain at current level Not Qualified: Needs improvement Limited to 24% Instructor NOTE: In the discussion work in the example below.   Senior raters will have to manage a constrained profile which will be limited to 24% for the top block or “MOST QUALIFIED”. This limitation will require senior raters to carefully manage and forecast so they are able to identify the very best. Based on the profile limitation of 24%, a senior rater can render a MOST QUALIFIED assessment for a particular grade (SSG through CSM/SGM) as follows: Any one of the first four reports The second MOST QUALIFIED assessment no earlier than the ninth report (2 / 9 = 22.2%) The third MOST QUALIFIED assessment no earlier than the thirteenth report (3 / 13 = 23.1%) The fourth MOST QUALIFIED assessment no earlier than the seventeenth report (4 / 17 = 23.5%) Senior Rater’s assessment of rated NCO’s overall potential compared to NCOs in same grade Profile limited to 24% Only one of the first four NCOERs may be rated as Most Qualified (“Silver bullet”) Narrative comment format

Immature Profile / Small Population (5 or less) HQDA COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATER’S PROFILE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED HIGHLY QUALIFIED RNCO: SMITH, BOB SR: DODD, JANE DATE: 2017-05-01 TOTAL RATINGS: 3 RATINGS THIS NCO: 1 Small Population (3 or less) Future Guidance to DA Centralized Selection Boards for the New NCOER Check DA Label: “Total Ratings” (5 or less = immature profile) Check Part Va – same grade in population (3 or less = small population) Expect “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” assessment if immature profile and/or small population exists Focus on Senior Rater’s narrative The administrative information on the Senior Rater Profile Label is designed to assist selection board members to quickly identify when an immature profile and/or small population exists for the Senior Rater and the Rated NCO’s NCOER.   Instructor Notes: Briefly explain An immature profile is when the Senior Rater has rendered five (5) or less reports for a particular grade. A small population is when the Senior Rater’s population is three (3) or less for a particular grade. Here is an example of how it works: If you look at the “TOTAL RATINGS” on the HQDA label, you can see that this is the Senior Rater’s third SGM rating. This is an immature profile which is defined as up to five (5) reports rendered for a particular grade. If you look at Part V block a, you can see that it reflects a small population (any number of 3 or less). Examples of small populations are: one Army Sergeant First Class in a Joint office, or two Sergeants Major working in a battalion. When the number is small, you know the Senior Rater is not going to be able to write a lot of reports that impact their profile. The rated NCO may get an annual, another annual, and a change of rater. When you combine an immature profile and/or small population with the “Silver bullet” exception (one of the first four reports assessed as “MOST QUALIFIED”), then there is a strong likelihood that most reports processed by HQDA and viewed by DA Centralized Selection Boards will be “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” assessments. Taking all of this into account, selection board members will be advised to focus on the narrative to determine the senior rater’s intent. BREAK. Providing the training schedule provides and available time permits this is a good point to provide the students a short break.

Learning Objective Task: Review the Evaluation Reporting System Condition: Senior Leaders in a classroom environment working individually and as a member of a small group, using doctrinal and administrative publications, personal experience, and discussion with an awareness of the Operational Environment (OE) variables and factors. Standards: Reviewed the Evaluation Reporting System