Evaluations: Rating Right Rubrics

There are a lot of rules about evaluations, including many things raters must do. But there are also things that are prohibited, including comments that a rater might think are quite fair. As you might expect, AR 623-3 paragraphs 3-19 to 3-22 have the rubric to rate right. That’s 1700 words we reduced to 300 words of major take-aways. 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 take-aways:

• Bullet comments are required for NCOERs, but prohibited for OERs (use sentences).

• Banned: Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite, are banned.

• Also banned: Too brief comments, excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized.

• Grammar and punctuation techniques like:

  • Underlining.

  • Excessive use of capital letters.

  • Unnecessary quotation marks.

  • Repeated use of exclamation points.

  • Wide spacing between selected words

  • Exaggerated margins

• The use of any remarks or comments that draw attention to differences relating to race, color, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin is prohibited.

• Article 15 UCMJ actions that are locally filed cannot be mentioned in evaluations. However, the underlying misconduct can be. (You can mention “missed movement for NTC rotation”. You cannot say he received UCMJ for it).

• Comments about unproven allegations of misconduct.

• Negative comments about Soldiers making protected communications (e.g. IG reports, letter to a member of Congress, court martial testimony, etc).

• No comments about actions or events before or after the rating period. With these exceptions:

  • APFT Scores that were within 12 months of the “thru date” (AR 623-3 offers no guidance on ACFT scores)

• Relief for cause reports & EO/SHARP complaints substantiated by an AR 15-6 investigation

• No comments about periods of non-rated time covered by the evaluation (e.g. a 15-month extended annual with 3 months non-rated can have no reference to something that happened in that three-month period).

• Comments about a Soldier’s marital status or spouse or spouse’s activities (e.g. FRG participation). Narrow exceptions may follow these guidelines:

  • Permitted: “CPT Doe continued his outstanding, selfless service, despite significant family health issues”.

  • Prohibited “CPT Doe continued his outstanding, selfless service despite his wife’s severe illness.”

Diving deep in the doctrinal details:

3–19. Prohibited narrative techniques

A thorough evaluation of the whole Soldier is required. The following techniques will not be used:

a. Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite.

b. Too brief comments, excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. These frequently need to be interpreted by selection boards and career managers. If they are not correctly interpreted, the best interests of the Army and the rated Soldier are not served.

c. Bullet comments.

(1) Appropriate bullet comments are required for DA Form 2166–9–1 and DA Form 2166–9–2.

(2) Bullet comments are not acceptable for OERs or AERs.

(3) Bullet comments will not be used in part V, block b, of NCOERs.

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) Repeated use of exclamation points.

(5) Wide spacing between selected words, phrases, bullets, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. Rating officials are not authorized any double spacing between performance and potential comments in OERs or DA Form 2166–9–3.

(6) Italics, bold text, and similar font techniques.

(7) Compressed type or spacing.

(8) Handwritten comments. An exception is made for DA Form 67–10–4, part IV, block b, and part V for evaluations of BGs and on DA Form 67–10–2 part IV, blocks d and e, and part VI, block c, for evaluations of CW5s, which may be handwritten in black ink. In order to be processed and placed on the Soldier’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 a standard convention of English writing style (OERs and DA Form 2166–9–3 only). (10) Inappropriate references to box checks (OERs and NCOERs) (for example, but not all-inclusive, a senior rater may not refer to the box check that would have been given to a rated officer or NCO if their profile supported it, or characterization of the rated officer or NCO as a “top box” “Most Qualified,” “Multi-Star Potential” officer).

(11) Specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier.”

3–20. Unproven derogatory information

Any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if the derogatory information is shown to be unfounded.

a. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier.

b. References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report to HQDA. For example, rating officials are not prohibited from commenting on a court-martial (judicial) if completed, but the comments should focus on the behavior that led to the court-martial rather than the court-martial itself. If the rated Soldier is acquitted at a court-martial, or found not guilty at a nonjudicial punishment proceeding under UCMJ, Art. 15, comments about the underlying incident will not be included in the evaluation, subject to the following exception: rating officials will ensure that evaluations document any substantiated findings in a finalized Army or DOD investigation or inquiry that a rated Soldier committed an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault, failed to report a sexual harassment or sexual assault, failed to respond to a report of sexual harassment or sexual assault, or retaliated against a person making such a report.

c. 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 Soldier may later be cleared.

d. Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation report. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated Soldier is under investigation or on trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain’s reference to verified derogatory information. For example, when an interim evaluation report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in evaluation reports. For all evaluation reports, if previously reported information later proves to be incorrect or erroneous, the Soldier will be notified and advised of the right to appeal the evaluation report in accordance with chapter 4. A rater should consult with their servicing SJA’s office under these circumstances to ensure that such information is properly verified.

e. Evaluation reports will not be delayed to await the outcome of a trial or investigation unless the rated Soldier has been removed from their position and is in a suspended status (see paras 3–55 and 3–56). Upon completion of the trial or investigation, processing of evaluation reports will resume. Evaluation reports will be completed when due and will contain what information is verified at the time of the “Thru” date of the evaluation report.

f. For OERs and NCOERs, when previously unverified derogatory information is later verified, an addendum will be prepared and forwarded to HQDA in accordance with paragraphs 3–37 and 3–39. Rating officials will initiate such an addendum to the OER or NCOER verifying misdeeds or professional or character deficiencies unknown or unverified when the OER or NCOER 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 the completion of the investigation, imposition of punishment, or verification of the information (see DA Pam 623–3 for instructions on how to prepare an addendum memorandum).

3–21. Prohibited comments

Comments that are prohibited will not be included in evaluation reports.

a. The use of any remarks or comments that draw attention to differences relating to race, color, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin is prohibited. Subjective evaluation of a rated Soldier will not reflect a rating official’s personal bias or prejudice (see AR 600–20).

b. When a record of nonjudicial punishment under UCMJ, Art. 15 is filed in the restricted portion of the AMHRR, or locally under AR 27–10, AR 600–8–104, or AR 600–37, rating officials may not comment on the fact that such a rated Soldier received nonjudicial punishment. This does not preclude mentioning the rated Soldier’s underlying misconduct which served as the basis for the nonjudicial punishment.

c. Negative comments about a rated Soldier making protected communications (for example, communications to an IG, member of Congress, a court-martial, or a member of the chain of command designated to receive protected communica[1]tions) will not be made in an evaluation report (see 10 USC 1034). Such comments could be perceived as a retaliatory action. In accordance with 10 USC 1034, Servicemembers are not restricted from communicating with these individuals. d. No remarks about nonrated periods of time or performance or incidents that occurred before or after the rating period, will be made on an evaluation report except as follows:

(1) “Relief for Cause” reports based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period. For example, a rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period. Reference to the prior rating period may be warranted to explain the reasons for relief (see paras 3–55 and 3–56).

(2) When the most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report, but within 12 months of the “Thru” date. This exception allows the rated Soldier to comply with APFT and body composition standards (see DA Pam 623–3).

(3) When a Soldier assigned to a WTU is assigned under a valid rating chain and receives an OER or NCOER with a nonrated code G (see para 3–35).

(4) A substantiated EO, EEO, or SHARP complaint as a result of an AR 15–6 investigation (see AR 600–20, evaluation reports).

3–22. Comments about marital status and spouse

Raters and senior raters should not make any comments about the rated Soldier’s spouse, partner, or personal relationships. It is never appropriate to discuss the rated Soldier’s marital status or spouse when evaluating the performance and potential of a rated Soldier.

a. Evaluation comments, favorable or unfavorable, will not be based on a rated Soldier’s marital status. For example, statements such as the following will not be 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.”

b. Evaluation comments will not be made about the employment, education, or volunteer activities of a rated Soldier’s spouse, partner, and so on. For example, statements such as the following will not be permitted: “Mr. Doe’s participation in post activities is limited by his civilian employment” or “Mrs. Doe has made a significant contribution to our Soldiers’ morale through her caring participation on the hospital volunteer staff.”

c. There are limited circumstances involving actual and/or demonstrable impacts on the rated Soldier’s performance or conduct when comments containing a general reference to a family member may be made. These comments will be focused on the rated Soldier’s actions. For example, statements such as the following will be permitted: “CPT Doe continued his outstanding, selfless service, despite significant family health issues”. The following statement is not permitted: “CPT Doe continued his outstanding, selfless service despite his wife’s severe illness.” A rated Soldier’s spouse should not be mentioned at all in the evaluation. This both protects the privacy of the spouse and ensures non-discrimination based on the Soldier’s marital status or identity/actions of their spouse.

Want to get deep into the finer points of evaluations doctrine? The nitty gritty is in DA PAM 623-3