What kind of language differences do you see from a senior rater when comparing a bad, average, and a great NCOER?

The phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

A bunch of good adjectives with no great ones is a bad sign. A string of superlatives with no substance is just as bad.

"A good Soldier who accomplishes missions." How good? How many missions? To what standard?

"One of the most squared away, professional, and intelligent NCOs in the Army." Great. What did this awesome NCO DO?!?!

"Often does the right thing, even when it is difficult."
Only often? Not all the time?

"Often sought out by subordinates." Why? And what happens when they find him - does he mentor them, or buy them a beer?

"Consistently called upon by senior leaders." Again, why? This can be good or bad.


You want strong adjectives, but more importantly you want those adjectives tied to results.

"Routinely consulted by senior leaders due to his technical expertise; integral in shaping battalion battle plans for Operation Snuffy Hunt."

"Consistently sought by junior leaders due to her sound advice and wisom; mentored three SGTs through promotion to SSG."

"Superior organizational ability enabled SSG Snuffy to reorganize Company supply operations, resulting in locating $50,000 of previously missing equipment, and identifying, preventing further damage to, and inplementing a maintenance schedule for improperly stored sensitive items."

Tie a strong skill/attribute to an organizational "win." Show how and why that NCO is an asset to their unit and to the Army.

SSG (Join to see), I will try not to replicate SFC Casey O'Mally's points (he is spot on):

When we review SR comments, it is never in isolation and never to say whether that specific evaluation is "bad, average, or great".

We look at evaluations as a story of the Soldier's performance and potential over time. The Part IV should be a detailed reporting of what the Soldier did. If any comment in any category can trigger a question (such as the ones SFC Casey O'Mally suggested, it is an ineffective comment. Meaning, it did not tell us enough of what the Soldier did for us to value that comment at all. Ineffective comments are the result of poor development and expectation setting on the part of the rater.

For Senior Rater comments, it become difficult because potential and comparative analysis to the current SR's profile makes tracking growth difficult. But, we generally look to see if the Soldier is consistently being rated at a top performer and has potential (demonstrated by performance) for positions of greater responsibility. There might be anomalies when a new SR that has had a significant number of top performances rates them lower, but we can kinda get a sense when that happens based on the profile and if the Soldier is achieving goals that you would find in ACT.

The big picture is that Soldiers and raters need to understand the report and evaluation process, especially when a rated NCO is moving into the senior grades. The issue I see is that so many Soldiers and raters think that an "average" evaluation is normal and don't put much effort in it or they inflate an evaluation to make it stand out for one reason or another. These evaluations are super easy to spot.

It’s simple really; Direct, well written with Data to backup comments, positive or negative.