Skip to content 
Common mistakes made on the OER
Lack of rated officer signature with no explanation by senior rater. This requires some sort of
explanation by the senior rater. If the report is also a negative one, and thus referred, we’d like to get a
separate memo from the senior rater explaining that the rated officer had a chance to see or not and the
circumstances of no signature. This memo is placed with the OER in the OMPF and helps in appeals of
negative reports without rated Soldier signature. This instruction will be in the next regulation revision.
Lack of complete APFT information without explanation or missing the YES or NO after HT/WT
information. For the APFT there might be either no information at all, or a PASS and no date or a PROFILE
and no date. For the HT/WT the rater often forgets to select YES or NO from the pull down menu.
Containing negative information that has not been referred to rated officer. Referral entails two major
parts. First, the rated officer has an opportunity to see and sign the report. Second, the rated officer has an
opportunity to decide whether or not to add comments in response to the negative comments. If the decision is
yes, those comments are attached.
Referred OER where the officer has decided to add comments (marked YES in part IId) but those
comments are not attached to the OER. We just need a copy of the comments by email and we can marry it
up with the OER image and complete the evaluation. If the unit has not marked the referred enclosures
properly in the form (under the enclosures tab of the wizard) then they may not come out when we pull them
from AKO Forms.
An OER missing the 3 future assignments from the senior rater in part VIId. There always needs to be
three.
USA HRC POC:
a. Evaluations Branch, email: hrc.tagd.evalpolicy@conus.army.mil, (502) 613-9019.
b. Evaluations Appeals, email: hrc.tagd.evalappeals@conus.army.mil, (502) 613-9022