How to Fill Out and Submit DA Form 67-10-1: Officer Evaluation Report

To fill out DA Form 67-10-1, the Officer Evaluation Report for Army company grade officers (Second Lieutenant through Captain) and Warrant Officers (WO1 and CW2), you work entirely inside the Evaluation Entry System (EES) at evaluations.hrc.army.mil. The rated officer and rater build a support form at the start of the rating period, the rater writes the performance assessment, the senior rater writes the potential assessment, signatures are applied in a fixed order, and the report is transmitted to Human Resources Command (HRC). Army Regulation 623-3 and DA Pamphlet 623-3 govern every step.¹

Start With the OER Support Form

The OER Support Form (DA Form 67-10-1a) is the foundation of the evaluation, and it has to be in place well before the OER itself is due. At the beginning of the rating period, the rated officer and rater sit down together to outline principal duties, key objectives, and the standards those objectives will be measured against. The rated officer then maintains the support form throughout the year, updating it with accomplishments, completed training, and significant contributions. When the OER comes due, the rater draws directly from the support form to write the performance narrative. A blank or neglected support form usually produces a weaker evaluation, because raters evaluating a dozen officers at once cannot remember every achievement from the past twelve months.

Specific, dated entries carry the most weight later: a major field exercise led, a deployment readiness cycle run, a unit program built from scratch, each with measurable outcomes.

Complete the Administrative Section in EES

The administrative portion links the evaluation to the right officer and the right time period. You enter this data in EES, the Army’s secure web portal for all evaluation reports.² The key fields:

Rated officer identification: full name, DoD ID, rank, branch, and unit of assignment.
Rating period: the exact “From” and “Thru” dates, with any non-rated time subtracted. Non-rated time covers periods when the officer was not performing duty under a valid rating chain, such as breaks in service, suspension periods, or time in the Inactive Ready Reserve.¹
Reason for submission: a code explaining why the report is being filed. Common codes include Annual (12 rated months), Change of Rater, Change of Duty, Complete the Record (before a selection board), and Relief for Cause. The reason code sets the minimum rating period and signals to promotion boards why the report exists.³
Duty description: the Principal Duty Title and a concise summary of daily responsibilities, drawn from the support form.

Incorrect unit identification codes, mismatched rating period dates, or a wrong DoD ID number will cause HRC to return the report for correction, delaying its appearance in the officer’s permanent file and possibly missing a promotion board.

Minimum Rating Period

Not every short assignment produces an OER. AR 623-3 generally requires at least 90 rated days under a designated rater before a report can be filed. Some situations, such as initial tours of extended active duty for Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers or Reserve Component soldiers on annual training, require 120 rated days.¹ If the minimum has not been met when a rater departs or the officer changes duty, the period is recorded as non-rated time and a new rater takes over without a report being filed.

Designate the Rating Chain

The rating chain must be established and documented before the rating period begins, not assembled after the fact when the report is due. A standard chain has three members:

Rater: the officer’s immediate supervisor, responsible for the performance assessment. The rater must have direct knowledge of day-to-day work.
Intermediate rater (when used): an official between the rater and senior rater in the chain of command. Not every chain includes one; when present, the intermediate rater provides a separate narrative.
Senior rater: typically at least two organizational levels above the rated officer, responsible for evaluating potential.¹

AR 623-3 sets specific rank and organizational relationship requirements for each role. An improperly designated rating chain can itself become grounds for an administrative appeal later.

Write the Rater’s Performance Assessment

The rater’s section evaluates actual job performance. The rater checks a box placing performance into one of four categories:³

Excels: exceeds the majority of officers at the same grade.
Proficient: meets or surpasses standards.
Capable: meets minimum standards with room for growth.
Unsatisfactory: fails to meet standards.

Below the box check, the rater writes a narrative providing the evidence behind the rating. This is where the support form pays off. Strong narratives cite specific accomplishments: a platoon that achieved a 95 percent qualification rate, a logistics operation with measurable savings, a training event designed and executed by the rated officer. Vague language wastes the limited narrative space.

The rater also assesses leadership attributes across character, presence, and intellect. On the company grade form these are not separate box checks; they are woven into the narrative. Exceptional judgment under pressure or a shortfall in physical fitness standards goes here.

Write the Senior Rater’s Potential Assessment

The senior rater’s section answers a different question: what should this officer do next? The senior rater places the officer into one of four potential designations:³

Most Qualified: strong potential for below-the-zone promotion and command; ahead of peers.
Highly Qualified: strong potential for promotion with peers.
Qualified: capable of success at the next level; promote if able.
Not Qualified: not recommended for promotion.

The narrative typically recommends specific next assignments, military schooling such as the Captain’s Career Course or Intermediate Level Education, or broadening opportunities that align with the officer’s career trajectory.

Profile Constraint on “Most Qualified”

Senior raters cannot hand out top ratings without limit. The Army enforces a profile system that caps the percentage of “Most Qualified” designations a senior rater can award within each grade they evaluate. If a senior rater exceeds the profile limit, EES automatically downgrades the rating to “Highly Qualified,” a result the Army calls a “misfire.” The misfire still counts against the senior rater’s profile as a “Most Qualified” attempt, but the rated officer receives only the downgraded label on the permanent report.⁴

Sign and Submit the Report

Once all narrative sections and box checks are complete, the report moves through a signature sequence in EES. The rater signs first, certifying the performance assessment. Only after the rater’s digital signature is applied can the senior rater access the signature block to validate the potential assessment.⁵ If an intermediate rater is part of the chain, that signature falls between the rater’s and senior rater’s. The rated officer signs last.

The rated officer’s signature acknowledges that the evaluation took place and that the administrative data is accurate. It does not mean the officer agrees with the performance or potential ratings. Catch administrative errors before signing, because corrections after submission require a formal process.

If any signature has to be removed to fix an error before submission, signatures come off in reverse order: rated officer first, then senior rater, then rater. Removing them out of order locks users out of the report in EES.⁵

After all signatures are applied, the report is electronically submitted to HRC through EES. The system runs a final automated check for technical errors before accepting the transmission. Once HRC processes the report, it is permanently uploaded to the officer’s Army Military Human Resource Record, accessible through iPERMS.⁶ Verify through iPERMS that the evaluation appears correctly, especially before a promotion board convenes.

If Something Is Wrong After Submission

Evaluation reports accepted into the permanent file carry a presumption of administrative correctness. Overturning one requires proof “clearly and convincingly” that a material error or injustice exists.⁷ Purely clerical problems, such as an incorrect rating period, an error in height and weight data, or a deviation from the established rating chain, go to HRC’s Evaluation Appeals Branch (AHRC-PDV-EA). Minor administrative errors alone rarely result in removal; HRC will only pull an evaluation if keeping it in the file would create a clear injustice.

Problems that go beyond paperwork, such as bias, prejudice, inaccurate ratings, or unjust assessments, are substantive appeals and are adjudicated by the Army Special Review Board (ASRB). Substantive appeals require strong supporting evidence: statements from third parties who directly observed performance, statements from rating officials addressing factual errors or bias, and official documents that support the claim. Results from a Commander’s Inquiry can also bolster a substantive appeal.

All OER appeals must be received within three years of the “Thru” date on the evaluation. Appeals submitted after that window are rejected unless the officer can justify the delay. If the appeal is denied at the HRC or ASRB level, the officer’s final administrative recourse is the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.⁸

1
Department of the Army. Army Regulation 623-3 – Personnel Evaluation Evaluation Reporting System
2
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Evaluation Systems Homepage
3
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Army Evaluation Reporting System
4
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Profiling
5
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Evaluation Entry System (EES) User’s Guide
6
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Accessing or Requesting Your Official Military Personnel File
7
U.S. Army Fort Campbell. NCOER and OER Appeal
8
United States Army. Army Review Boards Agency