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.