1. Thoughts/possibilities for the future Rough drafted initial prototype
Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report System - Review and Revisions
Basis for Review and Revisions - What is the purpose? What are we trying to fix?
To Date
Oct/Nov/Dec
Thoughts/possibilities for the future
Rough drafted initial prototype
18Oct10 – HRC/TAG SGM Guidance
27Oct10 – SMA BOD
Briefing about possibilities
Received additional input
8Dec10 – SMA BOD
Incorporated feedback from initial BOD
Continued refinement
22 February 2019

2. Thoughts/possibilities for the future Rough drafted initial prototype
Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report System - Review and Revisions
Basis for Review and Revisions - What is the purpose? What are we trying to fix?
To Date
Jan/Feb/Mar
Thoughts/possibilities for the future
Rough drafted initial prototype
7 Jan11 – HRC/TAG SGM Guidance
28Feb11 – SMA BOD
Briefing updates
Received additional input
Upcoming
28 Feb11 – SMA BOD
Continued refinement
22 February 2019

3. SOCIALIZATION SESSIONS
Scheduled:
TRADOC-AG Seminar – 20 Jan 11 VTC-- completed
Army National Guard Bureau – 20 Jan 11-- completed
OCAR Leaders Meeting – 25 Jan 11 VTC-- completed
US Army Sergeants Major Academy – Pending 29 or 31 March
Combined Arms College Information Proponent Office – Mar 11
FORSCOM S1/G1 – 7-10 Mar/18-21 Apr
FORSCOM Commanders’ Conferences Apr
USARPAC G1 Conference – Jan 11
Army Space Personnel Development Office-FA40 Proponent – 10 May11
Army War College – May 11
AG School- HR Leaders’ Summit Fort Jackson – Jun 11
Pending Scheduling:
INSCOM
Center for Army Leadership
22 February 2019

4. Army Evaluation Reporting System Review Timelines
Roadmap for Implementation of Major System Changes:
Design and test concepts AUG 10 – JUN 11
Obtain approvals JUL 11 – AUG 11
Revise and staff regulations/pamphlets SEP 11 – FEB 12
Develop training program and STRATCOMS SEP 11 – FEB 12
Train the field MAR 12 – APR 12
Close out old system and implement new MAY 12 – JUN 12
Items for consideration: adjustment of training timeline
22 February 2019

5. Today Army Evaluation Systems
PERSINS –D (SEPS – IWRS – DASH2 – ESB)
APD (AKO Forms & Wizard) - ATARRS
Begin to Write Policy Pieces
ID IT & Forms Requirements
Initial Forms Assessment
Begin Building IT
Form Design Impacts
Form Development
Today
Staff Regs 90 days
Internal Edits 30 days
Legal Review Regs 30 Days
Site Visits and Information Briefing - Input
Obtain Approval fm Army Leadership
Mar 11
Apr 11
May 11
Jun 11
Jul 11
Aug 11
Sep 11
Oct 11
Nov 11
WTU - Development Knox Test Field Test Socialization of Changes
Last Thru Date
Closeout Date
Last date to rec old form
RC Begin using new SF – 120 days
AC Begin using new SF – 90 days
IMPLEMENTATION
Publication
Execute new AKO and new SEPS
Training Cycle
Reg Editor
30 days
APD Publication Board 30 Days
60 Days Blackout – no receipt
Use New Form
Retain old AKO and old SEPS for 6 months to transition from old to new.
Jul 12
Aug 12
Dec 11
Jan 12
Feb 12
Mar 12
Apr 12
May 12
Jun 12
Impacting Timeline:
Board Schedule
CIO-G6 and PERSINS-D Schedule
WTU Scheduling
Army Evaluation Systems
22 February 2019

6. A Revised NCO Evaluation System:
Enhancements to Support Development & Selections
SR must address specific position held by rated Soldier (Operational/Strategic) in SR comments
Include a signature and review box for CSM/SGM to indicate he/she has reviewed NCOER written on E8s and E9s. The reviewing SGM/CSM will be in direct line of supervision and senior in pay grade or date of rank to the Rated Soldier
Incorporate “referred” concept into NCOER written on SFC and above. Validates rated Soldier knowledge of an NCOER containing derogatory information and provides an opportunity for rated Soldier to submit comments
Remove counseling dates, invigorate actual counseling within other areas of the NCOER System
Redesign placement of values block and incorporate bullets by individual values
Remove 3 future assignments section and have rater address future assignment positions in Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities)
Consider creation of SR Profile (similar to OER) with box check comparison to a limited SR profile and labeling of that comparison prior to placement in OMPF
Impact:
Change to ARNG NCOER process from State POC to HQDA/HRC level
Would be complex if executed for all NCOER; potentially limited to SFC or MSG & above

7. NCO Evaluation Report – Part I
Items for consideration: Remove parenthesis in Part Ic.
Remove PSB Code in Part Io.
Block 1c. NCOER Part : Ic: Rank
Action Required: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for the NCO’s military rank, not pay grade (for example, SSG, SFC). If the rated NCO is
frocked to 1SG, SGM, or CSM, enter the rank, date of rank, and PMOSC held prior to the frocking action. In addition to the NCO’s rank in Part
Ic, enter the appropriate frocked rank in parentheses immediately following the rank entry. The entries are SFC (1SG), MSG(SGM), or
MSG(CSM). If the rated NCO was reduced to corporal/specialist or below enter the reduced rank. Reduction to another NCO grade does not
require a report.
Reference: AR 600–20
Part lo. NCOER Part : In: Command Code
Action Required: Enter rated NCO’s Command Code (Two digits)
Reference: AR 680–29
NCOER Part : Io: PSB code
Action Required: Enter four character alphanumeric PSB code of the rated NCO’s servicing Administrative Office; or for ARNG officers, two
digit STATE MILPO CODE.
22 February 2019

8. NCO Evaluation Report – Part II
Rater: Mrs. Swicord
SR: Mr. Piccirilli
Reviewer: BG Mustion
SGM for review: SGM Kersey
Items for consideration: CSM/SGM review box & signature added to Senior Rater portion used for NCOER on E8/E9. The SGM/CSM will be in the direct line of supervision and senior in pay grade or date of rank to the Rated Soldier. SGM/CSM should equal the Reviewer.
This includes all E8 & E9 Assignments to provide a slightly broader picture to the selection boards.
22 February 2019

9. Policy Considerations-Referred evaluation (E-7 & E-9)
What is a referred evaluation? A referred NCOER contains any of the following information listed below:
a rating of “NO” in Part Iva (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions).
a rating of “Need Improvement” in Part Ivb-f (Values/NCO Responsibilities) .
an entry of “FAIL” or an entry of “NO” in Part IVc (APFT/Height/Weight).
a “Marginal” rating in Part Va.
a “4” (new form), “5” (old form) in Rater Overall performance.
a “4” (new form), 5” (old form) in SR Overall SR potential for promotion evaluation Part Vd.
negative remarks about the rated NCO in the SR block Parts Ve.
relief for cause (as a reason for submission)
Why refer an evaluation? “Referring” an NCOER is the process of making sure that a rated Soldier knows that his/her NCOER contains derogatory information and that the senior rater (SR) is providing him/her an opportunity to submit comments in return. Those comments are reviewed by the SR(when appropriate). The comments are then sent with the NCOER and are made available for future selection boards and career decisions.
Who is responsible for this process? The senior rater is responsible for executing this process and ensuring that that the evaluation is submitted.
What are the impacts of a referred report? A referred report may be a basis for additional actions at the command or HRC level (such as promotion review or show cause board) but the content of evaluation, not the referred status, is the determinant for these actions.
22 February 2019

10. Policy Considerations-Referred evaluation (E-7 & E-9)
d. This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?
SIGNATURE OF RATED NCO
DATE (YYYYMMDD)
Yes, comments are attached NO
22 February 2019

11. NCO Evaluation Report – PART III
Items for consideration: Remove counseling dates, invigorate actual counseling in other ways.
Current Policy states:
NCOER Part : IIIf: Counseling Dates
Action Required: Enter the actual dates of the counseling obtained from the DA Form (YYYYMMDD). When counseling dates are omitted, the senior rater will enter a statement in part Ve, explaining why counseling
was not accomplished. The absence of counseling will not be used as the sole basis for an appeal. However, the lack of counseling may be used to help support other claims made in an appeal.
Reference: None.
22 February 2019

12. NCO Evaluation Report – PART IV
Items for consideration: Incorporate bullets for “NO” selections into individual values. May continue to comments for “YES” selections.
22 February 2019

13. NCO Evaluation Report – PART IV
Items for consideration: Returned APFT block to page 2 to maintain current format.
22 February 2019

14. NCO Evaluation Report – PART IV cont.
c. RATER EVALUATION. Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.
SUPERIOR
SUCCESSFUL
FAIR
POOR
Items for consideration: Leave the wording as is.
Proposed to change from Among the best, Fully capable and Marginal to Superior, Successful, Fair, and Poor to be consistent with SR overall performance and potential box.
Format changed makes this a horizontal presentation
Removed rater’s 3 future assignments
NCOER Part : Va: Rater - Overall Potential
Action Required: Rater places a computer generated, typewritten or handwritten (in black ink) “X” in the appropriate box. NCOs receiving
one or more “needs improvement” rating in Part IVb-f cannot receive a rating of “among the best.” The following definitions will be used when
completing Part Va:
— Among the best. NCOs who demonstrated a very good, solid performance and a strong recommendation for promotion and/or service in
positions of greater responsibility.
— Fully capable. NCOs who have demonstrated a good performance and strong recommendation for promotion should sufficient allocations
be available.
— Marginal. NCOs who demonstrated poor performance and should not be promoted at this time.
Reference: None
22 February 2019

15. NCO Evaluation Report – PART V
PART V – OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL
a. SENIOR RATER. Overall Performance. 1 2 3 4
Superior
Successful
Fair
Poor
b. SENIOR RATER. (Complete for NCOs – 1SG/MSG & CSM/SGM only).
I currently Senior Rater ______ NCO(s) in this grade and would assess this NCO to be number ___ of the total number.
d. POTENTIAL COMPARED WITH NCOS
SENIOR RATED IN SAME GRADE (OVERPRINTED
BY DA)
e. COMMENT ON PERFORMANCE/POTENTIAL
ABOVE CENTER OF MASS
(less than 50% in top box; Center of Mass if 50%
or more in top box) 1 2
CENTER OF MASS 3
BELOW CENTER OF MASS RETAIN
BELOW CENTER OF MASS
DO NOT RETAIN 4
Items for consideration: Must state specific areas (Operational/Strategic) in SR comments.
SR profile similar to OER with label for Part Vd and consolidation at HQDA level.
- NG evaluation sent to HQDA
22 February 2019

16. Items for consideration: Revise Support Form to match changes on NCOER.
22 February 2019

17. 22 February 2019