Policy Updates: Army Regulation 623-3 Module 2: Policy

Policy Updates: Army Regulation 623-3 Module 2: Policy

Policy Updates: Army Regulation 623-3 Module 2: Policy Updates as of 10 July 2015 Agenda Army Regulation 623-3 Summary of Change Allied Armed Forces Rating Officials Senior Rater Grade Requirements Supplementary Reviewer Loss of a Rating Official or Rated Soldier Rater Assessment Rater Tendency Label / Rater Tendency Report Senior Rater Four-Box Check System Senior Raters Managed Assessment Broadening Assignment Recommendation Mandatory Enclosures Evaluation Report Redress Program

Summary Unclassified 2 Summary of Change Chapter 2: The Rating Chain Specifies service members of allied armed forces are authorized to serve as raters for noncommissioned officers (Para 2-5a(2)). Updates and clarifies minimum grade requirements to serve as senior rater (Para 2-7 and Table 2-1). Updates and defines supplementary review policy (Paras 2-15 through 2-18 and Para 3-10). Updates policy for loss of a rating official or rated Soldier for NCOs (Para 2-19b). Chapter 3: Army Evaluation Principles Includes a new NCOER rater assessment, rater tendency label, and rater tendency report for NCOs of all components, by rank, for Staff Sergeant

through Command Sergeant Major (Para 3-7b and Para 3-11). Unclassified 3 Summary of Change (cont.) Chapter 3: Army Evaluation Principles Incorporates the senior rater four-box-check system and senior rater profile label for DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG) and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM) (Para 3-9). Includes a new senior raters managed assessment for DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG) and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM) reinvigorating the importance of the senior rater to the overall assessment process and reinforcing accountability (Para 3-9b). Adds one broadening assignment recommendation for NCOs on DA Form 2166-9-1 (SGT), DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG), and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM) to assist in talent management (Para 3-9b and Para 3-11).

Unclassified 4 Summary of Change (cont.) Chapter 3: Army Evaluation Principles Clarifies policy when performance and potential comments may be entered by rating officials on evaluation forms (Para 3-17 and Para 3-18). Updates processing procedures for Army National Guard NCOERs (Para 3-33 and App H). Mandates enclosures to DA Form 2166-9 series NCOERs must be in either a .pdf, .jpg, or .tiff format for acceptance as an authorized attachment to the completed evaluation (Para 3-35). Chapter 4: Evaluation Report Redress Program Updates policy for newly received derogatory information to incorporate NCOERs (Para 3-38 and Para 4-5). Updates policy for requesting commanders or commandants inquiry (Para 45f). Unclassified

5 Allied Armed Forces Rating Officials Policy Change: Specifies service members of allied armed forces are authorized to serve as raters for noncommissioned officers. Policy Clarification: Only in rare instances will service members of allied armed forces be authorized to serve as raters. The rater will be the supervisor for a minimum period of 90 calendar days. Members of allied armed forces are not authorized to be senior raters. Note: For USAR TPU, DIMA, and drilling IRR Soldiers and ARNG Soldiers, the rater must have served as the supervisor for a minimum of 120 calendar days versus 90 calendar days (see Apps G and H). AR 623-3, Para 2-5a(2)

Unclassified 6 Senior Rater Grade Requirements Policy Change: Updates and clarifies minimum grade requirements to serve as senior raters for evaluation reports. Policy Clarification: Note: A promotable noncommissioned officer is one who is on a promotion list and is currently serving in a position authorized for the next higher rank or grade. AR 623-3, Table 2-1 Unclassified 7

Senior Rater Grade Requirements (cont.) Personnel authorized to serve as senior raters: An officer or NCO of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, or a DOD civilian (or non-appropriated fund employee). Senior executive service (SES) members serving in DOD positions. Ambassadors serving at U.S. Consulates. Under unique circumstances, requests for other U.S. Government officials to serve as senior raters may be granted as an exception to policy. Note: All senior raters of Reserve and National Guard NCOs must serve a minimum of 90 calendar days versus the minimum 60 calendar day requirement for Active Component. AR 623-3, Para 2-7b Unclassified 8

Supplementary Reviewer Policy Change: Updates and defines supplementary review policy to incorporate DA Form 2166-9 series NCOERs. Policy Clarification: Mandatory supplementary reviews are required for: 1) all NCOERs having senior raters in the rank of 2LT-1LT, WO1-CW2, or SFC-1SG/MSG; 2) when no uniformed Army-designated rating official in the rank of CSM/SGM, CW3-CW5, or CPT and above is in the rating chain for the rated NCO; and 3) Relief for Cause evaluation reports when the senior rater or an individual outside of the rating chain directs the relief. The supplementary reviewer will be senior to the senior rater and a uniformed Army-designated rating official in the rank of CSM/SGM, CW3CW5, or CPT and above. The individual will be designated as a Uniformed Army Advisor to monitor evaluation practices and provide assistance/advice needed to rating officials (as required) on matters pertaining to Army evaluations. AR 623-3, Para 2-15 2-18 & Para 3-10

Unclassified 9 Loss of a Rating Official Policy Change: Updates policy for loss of a rating official for NCOs. Policy Clarification: When the rater is eliminated from the rating chain for any of the reasons cited in paragraph 2-19, it will be determined whether the minimum rating period for an NCOER has been met (see Para 210a(1)). If the minimum rating period has not been met, the period is nonrated and a new rater will be designated. If the minimum rating period has been met, the senior rater will perform the rater's function, but only if they feel qualified to rate and have served in the rating chain for 60 or more calendar days. AR 623-3, Para 2-19b

Unclassified 10 Rater Assessment (applies to SSG-CSM/SGM) Policy Change: Includes a new NCOER rater assessment, rater tendency label, and rater tendency report for NCOs of all components, by rank, for Staff Sergeant through Command Sergeant Major. Policy Clarification: Rater Assessment For DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG-1SG/MSG), Part IV, block i, and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM), Part IV, block e, box checks will be an assessment of the rated NCOs overall performance during the rating period. This performance is evaluated in terms of rated NCO compared against other NCOs, of the same rank, the rater currently (and previously) rates.

DA Form 2166-9-2, Part IV, block i DA Form 2166-9-3, Part IV, block e AR 623-3, Para 3-7b & Para 3-11 Unclassified 11 Rater Tendency Label (applies to SSG-CSM/SGM) 2 3 6 1

Total Ratings: 12 Note: This is the raters capstone assessment of performance and opportunity to stratify / quantify. Key information includes the following: Rater tendency (i.e., rating history) the value below each box equals the overall history of those ratings in this grade Rater tendency label will be imprinted on the NCOER and viewable within the Evaluation Entry System (EES) by the raters rater and senior rater Unclassified 12 Rater Tendency Report (applies to SSG-CSM/SGM) Rater tendency report For NCOERs only, a documented rating history, compiled at HQDA; it displays the raters rating history by grade.

Raters do not maintain a rating tendency on NCOs in the rank of SGT and below. Retired NCOs recalled to active duty are not included in the tendency population. HQDA makes this information and other administrative information available to the rater and senior rater using the rater tendency report. AR 623-3, Para 3-7b & Para 3-11 Unclassified 13 Senior Rater Four-Box-Check System Policy Change: Incorporates the senior rater four-box-check system and senior rater profile label for DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG) and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM). Policy Clarification:

In part V, block a, the senior rater will assess the rated NCOs potential compared to all NCOs of the same rank: MOST QUALIFIED Identify NCOs with strong potential for promotion in the secondary zone; ahead of peers (Note: Senior raters are limited to 24% of the ratings in a grade to retain the MOST QUALIFIED label.) HIGHLY QUALIFIED Identify NCOs with strong potential for promotion with peers. QUALIFIED Identify NCOs who demonstrate potential to be successful at the next level; promote if able. NOT QUALIFIED Identify NCOs who do not demonstrate potential for promotion; recommend separation. AR 623-3, Para 3-9 Unclassified 14 Senior Rater Four-Box-Check System (cont.) Senior Rater Profile Label

HQDA electronically generated label that reflects the senior raters profile at the time the report processes. HQDA COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATERS PROFILE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED HIGHLY QUALIFIED RNCO: SMITH, BOB SR: DODD, JANE DATE: 2017-05-01 TOTAL RATINGS: 3 RATINGS THIS NCO: 1 AR 623-3, Para 3-9 Unclassified 15

Senior Raters Managed Assessment Policy Change: Includes a new senior raters managed assessment for DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG) and DA Form 2166-9-3 (CSM/SGM) reinvigorating the importance of the senior rater to the overall assessment process and reinforcing accountability. Policy Clarification: Senior raters have a constrained profile which limits the senior raters profile for MOST QUALIFIED ratings to 24%. For senior raters first establishing a profile (separated by grade), only one of the first four NCOERs received for processing at HQDA for any given grade may be rated as MOST QUALIFIED. AR 623-3, Para 3-9b Unclassified 16

Broadening Assignment Recommendation Policy Change: Adds one broadening assignment recommendation for NCOs on DA Form 2166-9-1(SGT), DA Form 2166-9-2 (SSG 1SG/MSG), and DA Form 2166-93 (CSM/SGM) to assist in talent management. Policy Clarification: The senior rater will identify two successive duty assignments and one broadening assignment for which the rated NCO is best suited, focusing 3 to 5 years out. Note. Two successive duty positions and one broadening position will be listed on DA Form 2166-9 series NCOERs to include retirement and Relief for Cause NCOERs. An exception to this rule exists for NCOERs on which the rater indicates DID NOT MEET STANDARD either by box check or content within the rater overall performance and the senior rater indicates a rating of NOT QUALIFIED. On these NCOERs only, no successive duty and broadening assignments are required (DA Pam 623-3). AR 623-3, Para 3-9b & Para 3-11

Unclassified 17 Performance and Potential Comments Policy Change: Clarifies policy when performance and potential comments may be entered by rating officials on evaluation forms. Policy Clarification: For NCOERs, raters will only comment on performance when writing assessments. Potential comments are reserved for senior raters on NCOERs. AR 623-3, Para 3-17 & Para 3-18 Unclassified

18 Army Evaluation Principles Policy Change: Updates processing procedures for Army National Guard NCOERs. Policy Clarification: After evaluation reports are completed by the rating officials and provided to the rated NCO for signature, the forms are forwarded to HQDA (officer AERs and OERs and NCOERs). The State EPM office will continue to process NCO AERs. Disposition procedures for ARNG evaluation reports are shown in table H2. AR 623-3, Para 3-33 & App H Unclassified

19 Mandatory Enclosures Policy Change: Mandates enclosures to DA Form 2166-9 series NCOERs must be in either a .pdf, .jpg, or .tiff format for acceptance as an authorized attachment to the completed evaluation. Policy Clarification: Enclosures submitted in other format types will not be accepted and will result in a delay of processing the evaluation. Authorized enclosures: - Supplementary review comments - HQDA-approved exception to policy authorizing a rating official to evaluate - Statement from person who directed Relief for Cause NCOER if other than rating official - Thirty-day waiver approval for a Relief for Cause NCOER - Approved DCS, G1 waiver of compliance with AR 6009

- Enclosures that are part of the electronic DA Form 2166-9 AR 623-3, Para 3-35 Unclassified 20 Evaluation Report Redress Program Policy Change: Updates policy for newly received derogatory information to incorporate NCOERs. Policy Clarification: Rating officials will submit an addendum to a previously submitted OER, NCOER, or AER when they become aware of new information that would have resulted in a lower evaluation of the rated Soldier (officer for OERs, noncommissioned officer for NCOERs, officer or NCO for AERs) after an OER, NCOER,

or AER has been processed to the rated Soldiers AMHRR and is a matter of record. AR 623-3, Para 3-38 & Para 4-5 Unclassified 21 Evaluation Report Redress Program Policy Change: Updates policy for when requesting commanders or commandants inquiry. Policy Clarification: Requests for inquiry will occur no later than 60 days after the signature date of the rated Soldier (or senior rater, if rated Soldiers signature is omitted) for OERs and NCOERs, or authenticating official for AER-S.

AR 623-3, Para 4-5f Unclassified 22 Summary Army Regulation 623-3 Summary of Change Allied Armed Forces Rating Officials Senior Rater Grade Requirements Supplementary Reviewer Loss of a Rating Official or Rated Soldier Rater Assessment Rater Tendency Label / Rater Tendency Report Senior Rater Four-Box Check System Senior Raters Managed Assessment Broadening Assignment Recommendation Mandatory Enclosures

Evaluation Report Redress Program Unclassified 23 Questions Unclassified 24

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Mating Systems - Algoma University

    Mating Systems - Algoma University

    Mating Systems Psychology 3107 Introduction For the most part, males' involvement in mating, well, ends after the mating Females pay for the mating a lot more Physiologically Post birth/hatch care Therefore, we should expect Polygyny where males have more than...
  • Figure 13-1 Number of Full-Time Federal Employees

    Figure 13-1 Number of Full-Time Federal Employees

    Figure 13-1 Number of Full-Time Federal Employees. Despite the widespread view that the federal bureaucracy grows ever larger, the number of federal employees has been relatively stable since an expansion in the 1960s.
  • Learning Target: What are the important recurring themes of ...

    Learning Target: What are the important recurring themes of ...

    Objective: Students will be able to enhance their vocabulary skills by applying their acquisition of new vocabulary words.. Agenda. A.) Do Now: Vocabulary Quiz on List #5/Show HW. B.) Work Period: Independently, finish reading Act III of . Hamlet. Take...
  • Structure Determination by Broadband Fourier Transform ...

    Structure Determination by Broadband Fourier Transform ...

    David Pratt, Steve Shipman, Bob Field, David Perry, Tom Gallagher Mike McCarthy, Tony Remijan, Joanna Corby, Phil Jewel, Susanna Widicus-Weaver Rick Suenram, Frank Lovas, David Plusquellic
  • HEAT RELEASE - Mechanical Engineering Online

    HEAT RELEASE - Mechanical Engineering Online

    The late combustion is where the heat release continues at a lower rate well into the expansion stroke At time of injection the air in the cylinder has a pressure of 50 to 100 atm, and temperature about 1000 K...
  • PUBLIC POLICY AND PARKINSONS DISEASE Supporting the PD

    PUBLIC POLICY AND PARKINSONS DISEASE Supporting the PD

    makers target symptoms and aspects of PD most relevant to improving quality of life and speeding progress toward new therapies. ... Telemedicine is the remote delivery of health care services and clinical information using telecommunications technology, including internet, cellular, wireless...
  • San Luis Obispo Bar Association Estates and Trust

    San Luis Obispo Bar Association Estates and Trust

    R&T 63. Spousal Exclusion. Tina. Tom. Tina = 60% No CIO. The interest of one spouse is not attributable to the other spouse - each own interest as an individual. Tom and Tina do . not have control of this...
  • Master Training Specialist Supplemental Training Course Peter M.

    Master Training Specialist Supplemental Training Course Peter M.

    Method: Adoption of Smith and Ragan Evaluation Model Purpose: to determine the weakness in the instructional process so that revisions can be made to make them more effective and efficient during development (Smith and Ragan, 2004). a. Design Reviews. Independent...