Should the Army's Evaluation Reporting System (AR 623-3) require raters to focus on the “whole-person” concept for evaluations?

The wording of the regulation leaves much room for interpretation when it comes to what raters should focus on, yet it seems that many are under the impression that only Army and organizational standards matter. Case in point: “required Army and organizational standards” and “duty requirements” are referred to throughout the regulation. When did “service above self” not remain the standard?