Custom Search
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Around the web |
- What goes in your OMPF?
- The new Basic Training
- 2011 Military Pay
- How to get advance pay
- How to evaluate a casualty
Custom Search
This is not a Government Sponsored website
| Frequent Searches 1. DA 4856 6. Counseling 2. DA Form 31 7. DA 4187 3. Disrespect Counseling 8. Military Law 4. TC 3-22.20 9. Leader's Book 5. Memorandum for record 10. FM 6-22 |
Common mistakes made on the NCOER
Problems in the APFT or HT/WT area. DAPAM 623-3 is pretty specific with what is required for FAILS or
PROFILES in the APFT section and for NO in the HT/WT section. There are some very specific requirements in
DAPAM 623-3 for these situations that were written to help boards understand the information. The next
regulation will make these requirements for NCOER slightly more generic but until then the current rules stand.
Many of these reports will arrive reflecting for the APFT PASS and no date. That meant no one looked at it prior
to signature and submission. Many of these reports will arrive reflecting for the APFT PROFILE and no date.
That meant either no one checked prior to signature or submission or the PROFILE date was more than 12
months prior to the evaluation THRU date and the form would not let the date be entered. Profiles are
supposed to be renewed regularly. If they have not been, the rater should make some comment. Also, for
profiles the rater is supposed to comment on whether or not the profile hinders the Rated Soldiers ability to do
his/her job.
Soldiers with permanent profiles also get an alternate APFT or are allowed not to take an APFT. Their NCOER
don’t annotate the word PROFILE but should reflect either PASS, FAIL, or be left blank for no APFT, depending
on their status with that alternate APFT.
Rating officials and rated Soldiers signing more than 14 days prior to the THRU date. The form will let
you do this but the policy will not. Reason is that board members question if rating officials were actually rating
officials all the way to the end of the rating period.
Reviewers not writing and attaching letters of non-concurrence when the rater and senior rater box
checks are inconsistent. This occurs when the rater marks in VII.a. FULLY CAPABLE (or promote) and the
senior rater potential box check (Part VII.d.) is FAIR or POOR (do not promote, a 4 or 5). Or vice versa: the
senior rater marks a potential box of SUPERIOR (promote, 3) but the rater marks MARGINAL (do not promote).
These ratings are allowed but the reviewers must nonconcur with one or both of the rating officials and write
his/her own assessment in a memorandum that gets attached to the evaluation. DAPAM 623-3 provides a
listing of the box check interpretations. We also find that many senior raters say DO NOT PROMOTE but mark
a 3 or even 2 in the potential box check. This situation is allowed by regulation without required reviewer
interaction but sends a mixed message to selection boards.
Incorrect SSN for rated Soldiers. Amazingly many evaluations aren’t reviewed for a correct Rated Soldier
SSN. We cannot get it to the correct OMPF without this.
Missing counseling dates without an explanation by the senior rater. There don’t have to be dates in
the blocks; but if there aren’t, the senior rater must make a mention of their absence.
Missing rated Soldier signatures without any explanation or with an explanation that the CAC doesn’
t work. There needs to be an explanation and if needed the lack of CAC can work but Soldiers have the option
of ink-signing and this option should be used when needed. A key component of the current evaluation system
is that rated Soldiers get to actually see and review their evaluation prior to its placement in the OMPF. There
are many coming in without signatures (legally by regulation) but probably more than need to.
Wrong reason code. Use of PCS for NCOER is not allowed (although in the form drop down menu).
Change of rater should be used. Also, use of Complete the Record for SGT. It appears that units are using this
when Soldiers REFRAD or ETS. That should also be a change of rater. The Complete the Record term is one
for evaluations just prior to selection boards.
Extended annuals with more than 12 months in the month block and/or no nonrated codes. There are
two problems here. (1) confusion about extended annuals and (2) non use of the nonrated code wizard in the
form. Units have to use the wizard to record nonrated time on a form or the form will/may recalculate and
overwrite the number of months at time of submission. As for confusion – you can never have more than 12
months of rated time on an evaluation. Extended months can be any amount between 3 and 12 but no more.
Also, as the regulation stands right now there should be at least 21 months of physical time between FROM
and THRU dates to qualify for an extended annual. That last element will change in the next regulation release
but for now still stands.
Reviewer is a SFC, 1SG, or MSG or MSG (P) not filling CSM/SGM position (see AR 623-3, para 2-8b).
None of these are acceptable in most situations.
Bullet comments incorrectly formatted. Bullets going over 2 lines. Bullets not spaced with a blank
space/line. Bullets spaced with more than a single spaces between them. No bullets on front side, not all
sections with at least one bullet.
See Also OER Mistakes > Army Counseling Guide >
Problems in the APFT or HT/WT area. DAPAM 623-3 is pretty specific with what is required for FAILS or
PROFILES in the APFT section and for NO in the HT/WT section. There are some very specific requirements in
DAPAM 623-3 for these situations that were written to help boards understand the information. The next
regulation will make these requirements for NCOER slightly more generic but until then the current rules stand.
Many of these reports will arrive reflecting for the APFT PASS and no date. That meant no one looked at it prior
to signature and submission. Many of these reports will arrive reflecting for the APFT PROFILE and no date.
That meant either no one checked prior to signature or submission or the PROFILE date was more than 12
months prior to the evaluation THRU date and the form would not let the date be entered. Profiles are
supposed to be renewed regularly. If they have not been, the rater should make some comment. Also, for
profiles the rater is supposed to comment on whether or not the profile hinders the Rated Soldiers ability to do
his/her job.
Soldiers with permanent profiles also get an alternate APFT or are allowed not to take an APFT. Their NCOER
don’t annotate the word PROFILE but should reflect either PASS, FAIL, or be left blank for no APFT, depending
on their status with that alternate APFT.
Rating officials and rated Soldiers signing more than 14 days prior to the THRU date. The form will let
you do this but the policy will not. Reason is that board members question if rating officials were actually rating
officials all the way to the end of the rating period.
Reviewers not writing and attaching letters of non-concurrence when the rater and senior rater box
checks are inconsistent. This occurs when the rater marks in VII.a. FULLY CAPABLE (or promote) and the
senior rater potential box check (Part VII.d.) is FAIR or POOR (do not promote, a 4 or 5). Or vice versa: the
senior rater marks a potential box of SUPERIOR (promote, 3) but the rater marks MARGINAL (do not promote).
These ratings are allowed but the reviewers must nonconcur with one or both of the rating officials and write
his/her own assessment in a memorandum that gets attached to the evaluation. DAPAM 623-3 provides a
listing of the box check interpretations. We also find that many senior raters say DO NOT PROMOTE but mark
a 3 or even 2 in the potential box check. This situation is allowed by regulation without required reviewer
interaction but sends a mixed message to selection boards.
Incorrect SSN for rated Soldiers. Amazingly many evaluations aren’t reviewed for a correct Rated Soldier
SSN. We cannot get it to the correct OMPF without this.
Missing counseling dates without an explanation by the senior rater. There don’t have to be dates in
the blocks; but if there aren’t, the senior rater must make a mention of their absence.
Missing rated Soldier signatures without any explanation or with an explanation that the CAC doesn’
t work. There needs to be an explanation and if needed the lack of CAC can work but Soldiers have the option
of ink-signing and this option should be used when needed. A key component of the current evaluation system
is that rated Soldiers get to actually see and review their evaluation prior to its placement in the OMPF. There
are many coming in without signatures (legally by regulation) but probably more than need to.
Wrong reason code. Use of PCS for NCOER is not allowed (although in the form drop down menu).
Change of rater should be used. Also, use of Complete the Record for SGT. It appears that units are using this
when Soldiers REFRAD or ETS. That should also be a change of rater. The Complete the Record term is one
for evaluations just prior to selection boards.
Extended annuals with more than 12 months in the month block and/or no nonrated codes. There are
two problems here. (1) confusion about extended annuals and (2) non use of the nonrated code wizard in the
form. Units have to use the wizard to record nonrated time on a form or the form will/may recalculate and
overwrite the number of months at time of submission. As for confusion – you can never have more than 12
months of rated time on an evaluation. Extended months can be any amount between 3 and 12 but no more.
Also, as the regulation stands right now there should be at least 21 months of physical time between FROM
and THRU dates to qualify for an extended annual. That last element will change in the next regulation release
but for now still stands.
Reviewer is a SFC, 1SG, or MSG or MSG (P) not filling CSM/SGM position (see AR 623-3, para 2-8b).
None of these are acceptable in most situations.
Bullet comments incorrectly formatted. Bullets going over 2 lines. Bullets not spaced with a blank
space/line. Bullets spaced with more than a single spaces between them. No bullets on front side, not all
sections with at least one bullet.
See Also OER Mistakes > Army Counseling Guide >
