Posted on Sep 7, 2014
New Army OER Rater bullet point comments; what are your best practices?
479K
128
51
17
17
0
The new Army OER form requires bullet comments for the following sections:
- Character
- Presence
- Intellect
- Leads
- Develops
- Achieves
Some of these are more obvious than others, but some are not so much. For example, assuming there is nothing unusually good or bad to say about an officer, what have you put down for Character and Presence?
Let's hear some good practices. I wish the Army gave some more guidance on this.
- Character
- Presence
- Intellect
- Leads
- Develops
- Achieves
Some of these are more obvious than others, but some are not so much. For example, assuming there is nothing unusually good or bad to say about an officer, what have you put down for Character and Presence?
Let's hear some good practices. I wish the Army gave some more guidance on this.
Posted in these groups: 
OER
OER
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 11
First and foremost, I have one thing to say: ADRP 6-22 (http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp6_22_new.pdf)! Having just had to go through a couple of the new OERs, if you're unsure of what to address in any of those characteristics, go back to the basics.
Specifically to Character, as LTC Yinon Weiss stated, all officers are expected to be of the highest caliber, but one thing to consider is what does the officer do about promoting those attributes to the highest degree in others? Also, consider if the officer was put in a situation to really shine (or royally screw up)? What if the officer did the 'hard right thing' to their own detriment? It's easy to do the right thing when the going is easy, but do you do the right thing when it isn't?
Going to ADRP 6-22, you'll see that Character addresses the Army Values, Empathy, the embodiment Warrior Ethos and Service Ethos, and Discipline. While all the aspects of Army Values are supposed to be non-negotiable, what about empathy? Discipline?
Part of the Army Values is Respect (Treat people as they should be treated)? Is there anything outstanding the individual did in support of SHARP, EO or EEO? How about Selfless Service? Any outstanding examples of where the soldier put the needs of the unit ahead of their own?
Some links to help out:
http://www.hrc.army.mil/site/ASSETS/PDF/MOD3_Evaluation_System_Rater_and_Senior_Rater_Jan14.pdf - this has great guidance regarding rater/sr. rater, especially regarding what comments should consider, look like, etc.
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/ASSETS/PDF/MOD1_Revised_Officer_Evaluation_Reports_Jan14.pdf - overall training packet of the OER - more focused on the mechanics than the above brief.
Others located on HRC's Evaluation Systems Homepage (https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Evaluation%20Systems%20Homepage)
Specifically to Character, as LTC Yinon Weiss stated, all officers are expected to be of the highest caliber, but one thing to consider is what does the officer do about promoting those attributes to the highest degree in others? Also, consider if the officer was put in a situation to really shine (or royally screw up)? What if the officer did the 'hard right thing' to their own detriment? It's easy to do the right thing when the going is easy, but do you do the right thing when it isn't?
Going to ADRP 6-22, you'll see that Character addresses the Army Values, Empathy, the embodiment Warrior Ethos and Service Ethos, and Discipline. While all the aspects of Army Values are supposed to be non-negotiable, what about empathy? Discipline?
Part of the Army Values is Respect (Treat people as they should be treated)? Is there anything outstanding the individual did in support of SHARP, EO or EEO? How about Selfless Service? Any outstanding examples of where the soldier put the needs of the unit ahead of their own?
Some links to help out:
http://www.hrc.army.mil/site/ASSETS/PDF/MOD3_Evaluation_System_Rater_and_Senior_Rater_Jan14.pdf - this has great guidance regarding rater/sr. rater, especially regarding what comments should consider, look like, etc.
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/ASSETS/PDF/MOD1_Revised_Officer_Evaluation_Reports_Jan14.pdf - overall training packet of the OER - more focused on the mechanics than the above brief.
Others located on HRC's Evaluation Systems Homepage (https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Evaluation%20Systems%20Homepage)
(16)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Using LTC Yinon Weiss as an example.
Character: MAJ Weiss embodies the Army Values and his ethical and moral standards are beyond reproach. He has shown great empathy for the plight of the wayward soldier by establishing a venue which encourages soldiers to share experiences as well as providing support. He has strongly held to his beliefs through a tumultuous period and shows great respect as evidenced by his consideration of other's ideas.
Character: MAJ Weiss embodies the Army Values and his ethical and moral standards are beyond reproach. He has shown great empathy for the plight of the wayward soldier by establishing a venue which encourages soldiers to share experiences as well as providing support. He has strongly held to his beliefs through a tumultuous period and shows great respect as evidenced by his consideration of other's ideas.
(14)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
COL Randall C. I have to vote that one up.
I just spent all day trying to get my CAC card setup on a new Windows computer. I definitely empathize with some of the challenges our Soldiers face in just doing the basic day to day portions of their jobs... which aren't even in their job description. It helps motivate me to make RallyPoint as easy to use as possible, and continuously improve it.
I just spent all day trying to get my CAC card setup on a new Windows computer. I definitely empathize with some of the challenges our Soldiers face in just doing the basic day to day portions of their jobs... which aren't even in their job description. It helps motivate me to make RallyPoint as easy to use as possible, and continuously improve it.
(8)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss - My unit (Army Reserve Civil Affairs) is very dependent on computers to do anything. Most Soldiers, a vast majority, have to bring their personal computer to Battle Assembly in order to accomplish basic tasks. I find it very frustrating personally, and also empathize with our soldiers, that have to drive distances to nearby units to use a military computer just to accomplish something simple, like sign an evaluation. Sometimes I wonder if we are over dependent on technology. With constant upgrading of cyber security it only makes it more difficult for soldiers with a regular computer and limited troubleshooting skills. I too have spent countless hours on militarycac.com to resolve issues to no avail. A bit off the topic of evaluations but definitely impacted by it.
(2)
(0)
9
9
0
MAJ Weiss,
To write proper comments for each block you fill out as a rater you have to do three things. First, you need a rater philosophy that allows you to discern what constitutes a good and average rating You have to talk to of the officers you rate and ensure they understand your philosophy. Second, you have to spend time with and actually know the officers you rate. If you don't you will always make poor choices. Finally, you have to dig through ADRP 6-22 and FM 6-22 to develop the comments for each officer...it is a lot of work if done properly but there is not a good, quick way through the new OER.
John C
To write proper comments for each block you fill out as a rater you have to do three things. First, you need a rater philosophy that allows you to discern what constitutes a good and average rating You have to talk to of the officers you rate and ensure they understand your philosophy. Second, you have to spend time with and actually know the officers you rate. If you don't you will always make poor choices. Finally, you have to dig through ADRP 6-22 and FM 6-22 to develop the comments for each officer...it is a lot of work if done properly but there is not a good, quick way through the new OER.
John C
(9)
(0)
6
6
0
Does anyone besides me still think it is outrageous that OERs/NCOERs are sometimes filled out and written by the the person who's ER it is. It is a sign of lazy leadership if your leaders cant perform the duties expected of them, especially when properly evaluating and rating the soldiers/officers beneath them.
(6)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Raters and SRs should do their work. Rated officers or NCOs should not write their own evaluations, period. It takes time to evaluate/assess and the process exists.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
No choice when you have to rate / are rated by someone you don't even know. Happens frequently in the TPU.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
That was very much the norm, especially in TPU status but I think the new entry system makes that more dofficult since the rated soldier can't open their eval. Although lokely the rater is simply copying from the support form and changing pronouns.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
An honest self evaluation is often more useful than the "what I observed of you" style evaluations. To me the rater and senior rater are there to make sure the self evaluation stays honest. What's outrageous is that we are still outraged and we pretend it shouldn't happen. It's happening for a good reason, because the professional Soldier already knows what they have done well and what they need to improve.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I understand the breakdown of all the sections, but I have an issue with the process. All those sections require a decent amount of writing that comes promotion time will not get read. As I am understanding the only thing that really matter are your senior rater bullets and block check. I have not been on a promotion board, of course, but am being led to believe that there is no where near enough time to read through all that "prose". 3 sentences, # rating against all officers, chosen to do XYZ, and promote ahead of peers or not. There is not enough time to read the rest, I could be wrong.
(5)
(0)
I just started writing my OER. This is not that simple. Nothing like the NCOER. I am glad RP is here to help with the process.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
When I did mine it glitched and I lost my work. After ther I used word to type everything and then pasted it. I had to refresh the site often so it wouldn't glitch but when it I had a copy of my work.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss I found that using a narrative for my support form was much easier. I think it makes it a lot more descriptive and flows much better now. I think the bullet format is lacking and lacks originality. You really can't fake a paragraph on a person.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
it also does weirdness with apostrophes, or at least it did last time I did one.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
COL Randall C. Maybe they fixed the font issue in the last few months? The last one I had to do was in June. Knock on wood, maybe they actually are taking feedback.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Good question, RP needs a button so i can flag this as a favorite and come back in a year when I'm writing another OER.
Anyway, for character I usually try to put something SHARP, EO related to cover that base. Also excellent empathy skills result in navigation of the human terrain. (something like that)
In Presence I like to expand on the resilience thing something like: "Physically and mentally resilient, achieves mission accomplishment while performing duties in a complex operational environment under extreme physical conditions." --this for an Engineer officer building gravel roads through Clay City, Kentucky 18-24 hour ops for 2 weeks.
Anyway, for character I usually try to put something SHARP, EO related to cover that base. Also excellent empathy skills result in navigation of the human terrain. (something like that)
In Presence I like to expand on the resilience thing something like: "Physically and mentally resilient, achieves mission accomplishment while performing duties in a complex operational environment under extreme physical conditions." --this for an Engineer officer building gravel roads through Clay City, Kentucky 18-24 hour ops for 2 weeks.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Obviously Sir I'm not an officer, however I have to question you about one thing. If, when asked about someone's character and command presence, you have nothing positive to say doesn't that speak volumes? A persons character is not middle of the road, if they are not strong of character then their character is lacking, the same goes for command presence. You are either a strong leader or you are not. There is no so-so, so-so leadership is weak leadership. And so-so character? That is bad character Sir. You can't be an "OK" person, what does that mean? You exhibit strongly positive character traits at times, and strongly negative character traits at times? Are they supposed to balance each other out? No. If you display negative character traits as a leader then those traits need to be pointed out not brushed aside.
(3)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
SGT Thomas Sullivan My opinion on that could go either way, situationally dependent. I have had plenty of leaders who were not particularly well liked, but who were superb leaders....just not liked because they were considered "too hard", mostly by lower enlisted. I would be concerned that a guy like this might get bad reviews from the lower echelon simply from making them work too hard (in their view). I would want to be very certain that a review like this were given appropriate weight (or lack thereof)
(3)
(0)
SGT Thomas Sullivan
I could see that, well said SGT Richard H. . Looking at a survey/review of unit member comments could still aid NCOs and Officers in evaluating their subordinates. Not saying they have to take everything that is said as "end all, be all" but it could definitely lead to a more serious look at how leaders are perceived. Some would argue that being an effective leader typically involves having your subordinates either like and/or respect you.
(1)
(0)
SGT Chris Furry
LTC Yinon Weiss I see. what you are saying isn't that the officers DON'T exhibit good character and presence, just that they don't exhibit exceptional character and presence so as to distinguish them from their peers or set them above the standard set forth by the Army. I think this can in fact be used as a way to effectively differentiate performance if used correctly. Simply creating a blanket statement that says that the officer in question is "in keeping with the highest standards..." doesn't achieve this. However, making a statement that expresses that the officer is simply performing satisfactorily, but not necessarily exceptionally, without being derogatory would. As an NCO if I was satisfied with my performance being simply "satisfactory" and not excellent, then my review would reflect such and while that is perfectly acceptable it would not distinguish me in any way. An officer (or NCO, or any SM really) wishing to distinguish themselves should strive to have character and presence that goes beyond the simple standard and is beyond reproach. When viewed in this manner these two sections are capable of providing efficient and necessary feedback about an officer's performance.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
People develop and grow as leaders and with character. You are not born with strong character and great leadership. The majority of the time it is learned and taught through mentorship and good leaders. That is what the army has BLC, ALC, SLC and the SSD's. It is to help develop leadership ability and attributes. An E5 with great leadership that does not grow will become an E7 with poor leadership. A middle of the road leader is not a poor leader he is a leader that needs more time to develop and train. A person with so--so character needs to be develop and be taught good characteristic traits.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's usually pretty easy to come up with something neutral, and middle-of-the-road like:
Character: CPT Crunch exhibits moral character in keeping with the high standards of the Army and the Commissioned Officer Corps, and is held in regard for his commitment to mission, men, and readiness.
Of course, that's a fairly short example, but I'm sure the idea comes across.
Character: CPT Crunch exhibits moral character in keeping with the high standards of the Army and the Commissioned Officer Corps, and is held in regard for his commitment to mission, men, and readiness.
Of course, that's a fairly short example, but I'm sure the idea comes across.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
MAJ (Join to see) Do you mean remove bullets altogether, Sir? it seems to me that if someone's OER were left to simply checking blocks, with no justification comments that would be a bad thing. Anything except mediocrity should be given with justification in my opinion. It would be too easy to damage or advance a career for personal reasons otherwise.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Essentially the block checks are all that OERs boil down to anyway--in boards where complete files are reviewed for only a couple minutes each, are narratives important? are they even read?
maybe the narratives are important, though.
again, we'll have to wait a few years to see. my guess is that in two to four years, once we have a wealth of data from the thousands of OERs submitted, we'll see an assessment from HRC that shows that double-top block reports equate to promotion, and that the only thing that really matters is the block check.
now, if the OER was used as a developmental tool, that'd be a different thing...but as SGT Thomas Sullivan comments on below, its probably not inaccurate to guess that most OERs/NCOERs are written by the rated servicemember, so its probably pretty likely that evaluations aren't being used as a development tool (again, we'd need solid data on whether folks are writing their own evaluations---my guess is the answer is that a very large majority of O-4s / E-7 and above, and a majority of O-3 and E-6 and below, are writing their own evaluations, with very limited input from raters and senior raters; i would note that there are probably some organizations in which this isn't the case, where counselling and evaluation writing is done correctly and where raters and senior raters are writing evaluations).
maybe the narratives are important, though.
again, we'll have to wait a few years to see. my guess is that in two to four years, once we have a wealth of data from the thousands of OERs submitted, we'll see an assessment from HRC that shows that double-top block reports equate to promotion, and that the only thing that really matters is the block check.
now, if the OER was used as a developmental tool, that'd be a different thing...but as SGT Thomas Sullivan comments on below, its probably not inaccurate to guess that most OERs/NCOERs are written by the rated servicemember, so its probably pretty likely that evaluations aren't being used as a development tool (again, we'd need solid data on whether folks are writing their own evaluations---my guess is the answer is that a very large majority of O-4s / E-7 and above, and a majority of O-3 and E-6 and below, are writing their own evaluations, with very limited input from raters and senior raters; i would note that there are probably some organizations in which this isn't the case, where counselling and evaluation writing is done correctly and where raters and senior raters are writing evaluations).
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
MAJ (Join to see) I can definitely see your point that the narratives may not be too important for the central promotion boards, but it could be much more useful for senior raters/reviewers who may not have day-to-day interaction with the individual who is being rated to give them some insight as to why the individual received a certain mark prior to them signing it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We'll have to wait about 3-5 years so that we can see the sort of comments that result in promotion vs. non-promotion. It seems the reason we haven't seen any guidance from the Army (or, rather, any examples) is because the Army clearly has no idea what it expects to see, and is hoping that the field produces input.
As you note, obviously leads/develops/achieves categories are quite straight-forward--the character/presence/intellect categories are a bit less so.
I too would be interested in what folks are doing here---my last OER seemed to be the first on the new OER form circulated in my HQ and my sub-section (48C) of FAO-land, so its all a bit of a mystery, even given the plethora of published documents on the new OER.
As you note, obviously leads/develops/achieves categories are quite straight-forward--the character/presence/intellect categories are a bit less so.
I too would be interested in what folks are doing here---my last OER seemed to be the first on the new OER form circulated in my HQ and my sub-section (48C) of FAO-land, so its all a bit of a mystery, even given the plethora of published documents on the new OER.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
So, for fun, I just noticed (on my OER, just PERMed...) That, while you get 5 lines on the online version for the second rater comment block (the one on the performance, IV.e.), you only get 4 lines when it is finalized and PERMed....
My rater's comments read: "...a natural mentor for others. I have" and end right there.
I can still log in through EES and see what my rater has....
Progress. ;-)
My rater's comments read: "...a natural mentor for others. I have" and end right there.
I can still log in through EES and see what my rater has....
Progress. ;-)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC Yinon Weiss , as an NCO, I would say that Character speaks to Integrity. If an Officer is of good Character, I would suggest that he/she is likewise of good integrity.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google