Can someone put "Did not Meet standard" under character for "some issues we had" which was never counseled?

They can, but an unsubstantiated bullet does not bode well for the rater and can be appealed easily. Definitely need to get back with the rater and perform the counseling. Post that event, you may want to seek out your senior rater.

A counseling is just a record of a conversation.
The lack of a counseling does not negate good or bad behavior.
If you , for example, get a DUI and run over a nun, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
The same is true of positive things. If you rescued a nun from a burning building, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
Your evaluations are a reflection of your behavior and performance. Nowhere in AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) does it say anything to the effect of "only items mentioned in counseling's can be placed in an evaluation". That's just not a thing, though I know you'll meet many that will swear it is.

As all have said, a negative comment on an NCOER/OER needs substantiation. So without it it's pretty easy to push back on. That will look poorly on the rater, the Sr. Rater that let it go through, and the command team that has to deal with the HRC kick back that shows up on the evaluation matrix which now pushes your NCOER into the late column your Battalion Commander's S1 shop will see.

Every single person in this rating process just wants to move forward with these things and get onto the next one.

Which, in this case indicates to me the rater themselves is "new" to this process. Otherwise they would have lined their ducks up, or at the very least restrained their evaluation comments negative or otherwise to documented events. A lot of negative things can be said without actually checking the does not meet standard box.

That said........... Remember, if the rater is positioning themselves to a less than ideal NCOER just because you make them retract this bullet and Meet/Did Not Meet doesn't mean they can't go back and find something else. Not all bad comments "need" counselings.

Example: I had a Sr NCO abuse his GTC and Brigade pulled his admin rights over the company level GTC oversight program. A counseling from me wasn't needed in this case because it was documented up the wazoo from higher. He did get counseling, yes, but the e-mails back and forth between me and higher and the GTC statements and everything associated before the counseling would have been enough. Being flagged is enough, being hit with any sort of legal actions. Any sort of documentation is fine in replace of a "counseling". My view about counselings being the documentation supporting a negative comment mean the event was pretty minor. Otherwise there would be a police report, failed ACFT H/W, drug abuse flag, etc...

I'm saying this because I'm trying to help. Maybe I shouldn't be helping. Maybe you deserve it. But I'm saying these things just as much to you as I am potential raters. I would tread lightly how you push back on this NCOER.

If I was a rater, and I had it out for someone to make sure they got hammered on an Eval and a comment I wrote was pushed back on without substantiating justification I would take the time to go back and find something I could justify. In the case of the original question, we do not know what that situation is.

For example, if you are late constantly to work, and that probably is a requirement of an initial counseling it's probably pretty easy for the rater to go back and find documentation of communicating your lateness in past texts or e-mails. But I don't think it's realistic to expect a rater to counsel soldiers with a counseling form every single time they are late. YES, I have seen NCO's use counseling forms as a weapon, but that blew back on them as documented abuse as well.

The rater in this case is also probably going to be coached how to write better NCOERs that don't create drama. Because there are a lot of evals that are trying to be pushed through and I'm pretty sure 1SG's, CSM's and Officers get annoyed when one or two of them drag the system.

Suggest a conversation with rater and then commander is in order.

So there are two separate issues her. They are related, but separate.

First, your (apparent) lack of character. You know whether or not this is accurate. If what the rater is saying is true, be a man, own it, and move forward. If what the rater is saying is untrue, (or at least you disagree with their view of things), then push back and ask the rater to clarify / support their evaluation. If the rater insists on moving forward with their rating, then it is a conversation with the senior rater. It is the senior rater's responsibility to get your signature (unless things have changed in the last 5 years) and part of that responsibility includes a conversation with you about the NCOER. Talk to the senior rater about why you disagree. If you can properly articulate your view, and the rater has no evidence to support their rating, there is a VERY good chance it will be sent back to rater for updating.

Second, your lack of counseling. This is going to be a *very* unpopular question but... WTF have *you* done about it, Sergeant? You know you are supposed to be counseled, right? Have you asked for your counselings? Have you made your squad leader put time on his/her calendar to give you your quarterlies? Have you talked to your PSG about not getting counseled? Have you simply asked your SL for an azimuth check?

I get SO SICK of Soldiers whining that they never got counseled for X,Y, or Z, so how can they be punished for it? And I hate it even more from NCOs. If you are fucking up, there is a 98% chance you know it. You don't need someone to put it on a piece of paper to "prove" you fucked up. And if you aren't sure of where you stand, ASK, for fuck's sake. You are an NCO now. Put on your big boy pants, and take charge of your own development.


As I got into PSG positions, I was *rarely* formally counseled. When I felt I needed it, I made my rater put me on their schedule, so that we were BOTH clear on what my expectations were, and how I had been performing up to that point. Only happened a few times, and every time it was when I was in a completely different role than I had been in previously, so I didn't really know what "success" looked like. But, despite my lack of formal counselings, I was informally counseled, coached, and mentored on a daily basis. There were times when I was most DEFINITELY fucking up - and I knew it without any paper being involved; I always fixed myself and moved forward to a positive NCOER.

Can they? Yes. Is it warranted? That's between you and the Rater. Should they put it? Well, if they have substantiating documentation, then yes. If not....I mean, they still could as long as it can be justified. As for the Counseling sessions, as long as there is at least two sessions dated on the support form and NCOER, then HQDA really won't bat an eyelash at the dates.

I am curious, however. What, if I may ask and if you are willing to share, was the actual bullet used in the Character Block to substantiate the "Does Not Meet Standard" selection?

I have one very simple and very personal question for you.
IF you were to contest this NCOER and the Reviewer or CSM asked you if the "Issues we had" was true or not, would you have to lie to prevail in the appeal?
If you would be willing to lie to prevail, then you have more issues than "some issues that we had"
NOW, on the other hand, if you had issues, worked through them and overcame them, then I would ask the rater to state that in your NCOER.

An individual receiving official counseling should have the ability to respond in writing to grading and comments given. Were it me a comment of "Does not meet standard", which I'm assuming is a written descriptive not a tick box, would cause me to respond that, "In the absence of a specific narrative noting the standard, or standards not met, and the corrective action I should take, I find the comment unwarranted." If the "Character Bullet" coincides with deficiencies also noted elsewhere in the counseling, guidance for corrective action should still be provided. If the NCOER does not provide for rebuttal comments, then you should certainly address this via your chain of command.

As the CSM states, run it up the channels refusing to sign....once it hits the CSM desk 'unless' documentation/counseling packet is presented it should be refuted.

Plus, there's a time-line pressing this NCOER. I'm quite sure the Command will act accordingly.

Good luck!