Army NCOER & OER: writing performance and potential without inventing the record

Know which rule does what

AR 623-3, dated 14 February 2025, establishes Army evaluation policy. DA Pam 623-3, dated 12 February 2025, provides the procedural guidance for completing evaluation reports and support forms. The pamphlet covers officer, NCO, and academic evaluations and explains the current forms and processes.

Use the correct form population

NCOERs use the DA Form 2166-9 series, with different forms for SGT, SSG through 1SG/MSG, and CSM/SGM. OERs use the DA Form 67-10 series across company-grade, field-grade, strategic-grade colonel, and general-officer populations. MilAdmin should ask for the population first because the structure and expectations differ.

Write from the record, not from adjectives

Start with duties, responsibilities, objectives, and actual performance. Then connect actions to effects. Strong evaluation writing is evidence-dense. Weak evaluation writing substitutes adjectives for evidence.

“Led a high-performing section” is a claim. “Led a 12-person section through three major training events with all assigned requirements completed” provides something a reviewer can evaluate—assuming those facts were actually supplied.

Measurable results

Numbers are useful when real. They can show scale, frequency, readiness, completion, production, cost avoidance, qualification rates, training output, or other outcomes. But a made-up percentage is worse than no percentage at all. MilAdmin's correct behavior is to prompt “add a measurable result if known” rather than generate a fictional metric.

NCOER attributes and competencies

Current support-form examples organize NCO development around Army leadership attributes and competencies such as Character, Presence, Intellect, Leads, Develops, and Achieves. Use accomplishments where they best demonstrate the relevant behavior instead of stuffing the same bullet into every category.

OER performance and potential

Officer evaluations distinguish performance from potential. A strong performance comment describes what happened during the rating period. Potential language addresses capacity for increased responsibility or future service consistent with the rating official's actual assessment and profile constraints. Do not convert a performance fact into a promotion ranking the rater did not provide.

Support forms and counseling

Support forms are not administrative clutter. They establish duties, objectives, expectations, and developmental dialogue that make the final evaluation more defensible. When objectives change, document the change rather than waiting until the evaluation is due and attempting to reconstruct the year from memory.

Common failures

Invented percentages. Unsupported “top X percent” language. Repeating duty descriptions instead of describing performance. Using the same accomplishment in every block. Writing potential language that the senior rater did not actually choose. Failing to use the current form. Waiting until the end of the rating period to identify missing metrics or documentation.

Final evaluation checklist

Correct form and grade plate. Correct rating period. Duties and objectives are accurate. Comments are supported. Metrics are real. No protected or sensitive information is pasted into MilAdmin. Potential/ranking statements came from the rating official. The final report is reviewed in the official Army evaluation system and routed under current HRC procedures.