Evals: Double Hats, Enclosures & Modifications

With 156 pages of AR 623-3, there are a lot of nuances and obscurities to evaluations. Yesterday we dispelled some myths, today we’ll address some obscure questions, rules and “what ifs.” As always, italics added for our emphasis, and […] indicates we cut out stuff we thought was fluff.And, as always: you’re smarter reading the reg yourself to be exactly sure

The major takeaways:

• “Acting as both Rater & Senior Rater”: This checkbox on evaluation forms causes a lot of confusion and has been looked to when cleaning up backlogged evaluations because one of the two is not available (deployed, ETS’d, resigned, etc). BLUF: It’s only rarely applicable. AR 623-3, paragraph 2-20 spells it out. In most cases, you have to be a general officer to act as both.

• Enclosures: Are generally prohibited, per AR 623-3, paragraph 3-36. Some exceptions:

  • Supplementary reviewer comments

  • Referral letters and related documents for referred OERs

  • Relief for cause letters

• Modifications after submission to HQDA: Paragraph 3-37c basically rules out changes to evaluations that have been accepted by HQDA. But, 3-37e holds out exceptions for when information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified and this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier. If the rating would improve, the Soldier needs to file an appeal. If it would be downgraded, the rater files an addendum IAW DA PAM 623-3.

Diving deep in the doctrinal details:

2–20. Supervisor as both rater and senior rater This paragraph addresses when a supervisor may serve as both rater and senior rater under circumstances other than due to the loss of a rating official. a. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to DA Form 1059 series (AER). b. For OERs in the following situations, a supervisor who would normally act only as a rater on an OER may also act as a senior rater, providing he or she meets the minimum senior rater rank or grade requirement and the authority to do so has not been restricted by the next higher commander:

(1) A general officer for their aide-de-camp or an SES equivalent for their military assistant.

(2) A commander for their inspector general (IG).

(3) An MG (includes a BG in an MG position) or higher, or an SES or equivalent to an MG.

(4) A BG who is a commander or school commandant (includes a COLP working in a BG commander or commandant position).

(5) A rater who, under the normal rating chain rules, would cause the senior rating to be performed by one of the following senior officials provided the senior official does not desire to serve as senior rater: [… extremely senior officers and DOD civilians…] c. The authority to act as both rater and senior rater does not extend to the rater of a general officer or COLP in a general officer position, unless there is no senior official who could logically serve as senior rater.

d. General officers authorized to serve as both rater and senior rater may evaluate a rated officer after meeting the minimum rating period (60 rated days) for mandatory evaluation reports (see paras 3–41 through 3–56), rather than the standard rating requirement of 90 calendar days. For USAR TPU, DIMA, and IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the minimum rating requirement for general officers is 90 calendar days (see apps G and H).

e. When the situations listed in this paragraph apply, additional reviews may be required. Refer to paragraphs 2–15, 2–16, and 2–17. f. On NCOERs, a rater may act as both the rater and senior rater when the rater is a general officer or a civilian employee with SES rank and precedence. A COLP working in a BG position may also serve as both the rater and senior rater. For USAR TPU, DIMA, and drilling IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the minimum rating requirement for general officers is 90 calendar days (see apps G and H). g. See appendix E for AMEDD officers serving as both rater and senior rater

3–36. Authorized enclosures

a. No enclosures, other than those listed in this paragraph, will be attached to evaluation reports when forwarded to HQDA. Unless specified otherwise, the final location for the required enclosures will be the rated Soldier’s AMHRR. a. Enclosures to DA Form 67–10 series. Only the following enclosures will be attached to the OER when forwarded to HQDA. Enclosures identified as retained by HQDA will not be filed in the rated Soldier’s AMHRR with the completed report and will not be counted against the number of enclosures data found within part I of DA Form 67–10 series (OER) when the report completes to the AMHRR. All other required enclosures will be filed in the rated Soldier’s AMHRR along with the completed report and will be counted against the number of enclosures data within part I of DA Form 67–10 series.

(1) Supplementary review comments, as authorized by paragraph 2–15, 2–16, or 2–17 (see fig 2–1 and 2–4) (retained by HQDA only).

(2) Memorandum substantiating a rating official’s authority to evaluate (for example, announcement of assumption of command) (retained by HQDA only).

(3) HQDA-approved exception to policy authorizing a rating official to evaluate (retained by HQDA only).

(4) Senior rater’s letter of referral (retained by HQDA only) and the rated officer’s acknowledgment and comments regarding a referred OER (see para 3–29 and DA Pam 623–3).

(5) Rated Soldier’s comments for referred OERs (see para 3–29c).

(6) Senior rater’s documentation to verify a Soldier’s receipt of a referred OER that is unsigned by the rated officer and/or missing comments when the rated officer elected to submit comments but failed to do so by the suspense date designated by the senior rater (see para 3–29d) (retained by HQDA only).

(7) Documentation to verify the senior rater’s attempted referral of an OER with no acknowledgment from or signature by the rated Soldier as of the suspense date designated by the senior rater.

(8) Statement from the individual directing a “Relief for Cause” OER if other than a rating official (see para 3–55e and fig 3–2).

(9) Commander’s statement, as authorized by chapter 4, section II (retained by HQDA only).

(10) Statement from reviewer of a “Relief for Cause” report (see paras 2–17 and 2–18 and fig 2–4).

(11) Other statements or documents directed by HQDA (retained by HQDA only). These will be referred to the rated officer for comment prior to being filed.

(12) Senior Army member’s approval of rater in Joint headquarters or activities (retained by HQDA only). See para[1]graph 2–5b(3)(b).

(13) Approved DCS, G–1 waiver of required compliance with AR 600–9 (retained by HQDA only).

(14) Enclosures that are part of the electronic DA Form 67–10 series (OER) in EES will be completed at the enclosure tab and/or attached to the DA Form 67–10 series (OER) as external documents before submitting it to HQDA. Enclosures must be in .pdf, .jpg, or .tiff format for acceptance as an attachment to the completed evaluation. Other format types will not be accepted and will result in a delay of processing the evaluation. When executed in paper format, enclosures to OERs will be prepared on 8 1/2 by 11-inch paper and attached to the OER. As a minimum, the enclosure will contain:

(a) The rated officer’s full name, 10-digit DODID number, and rank.

(b) The period of OER.

(c) The signature of the originator.

(d) The reason for the enclosure, citing the appropriate paragraph in this regulation, as applicable

3–37. Modifications to previously submitted evaluation reports

This paragraph addresses requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR and evaluation reports that are being processed at HQDA prior to completion.

a. An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to—

(1) Be administratively correct.

(2) Have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications.

(3) Represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

b. Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier’s AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program (see chap 4 and DA Pam 623–3).

c. Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another evaluation report will not be honored if the request is based on the following:

(1) Statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier.

(2) Statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did.

(3) Requests that ratings be revised.

(4) Statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks for professional competence, performance, or potential. Therefore, it is imperative that rating officials ensure evaluation reports are accurately recorded prior to signing.

(5) Statements from rating officials claiming OERs or NCOERs were improperly sequenced to HQDA by the unit or organization.

(6) A subsequent statement from a rating official that they rendered an inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier’s performance or potential in order to preserve higher ratings for other officers or NCOs (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection).

d. For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier’s AMHRR, administrative and substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report “Thru” date. Administrative errors for administrative appeal or correction are administrative errors so significant as to affect not only personnel management decisions, but selection board proceedings and career decisions. HQDA will not conduct minor spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation corrections that would have been easily revealed through review of the evaluation (see para 3–37). Rating officials must make a concerted effort to ensure every evaluation is reviewed for these types of minor administrative errors prior to submission to HQDA for examination and inclusion into the rated Soldier’s AMHRR (see para 4–8).

e. An exception to paragraph 3–37c is granted for evaluation reports when information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified and this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier. The following actions will be accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report:

(1) If the information would have resulted in a higher evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report, and rating officials may provide input to support this point (see DA Pam 623–3).

(2) If the information would have resulted in a lower evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the evaluation report (see DA Pam 623–3).

There are lots of obscurities in AR 623-3 find more for yourself at: ARN14342_AR623-3_FINAL.pdf

(army.mil)