How to Fill Out and Submit DA Form 67-10-2: Field Grade OER

DA Form 67-10-2 is the Officer Evaluation Report for company grade officers (O-1 through O-3) and junior warrant officers (W-1 and W-2). You complete and submit it through the Evaluation Entry System (EES): the rated officer’s support form feeds the duty description and narratives, the rating chain signs in a fixed order, and the finished report goes to Headquarters, Department of the Army for filing in the officer’s record. Army Regulation 623-3 governs the process end to end.

Who This Form Covers

Use DA Form 67-10-2 for Second Lieutenants, First Lieutenants, Captains, Warrant Officers One, and Chief Warrant Officers Two. If the rated officer has been promoted above Captain or CW2, this is the wrong form; field grade and senior warrant officers are evaluated on DA Form 67-10-1. Check the rank on the day the rating period ends, not the day you sit down to write.

What to Have Ready Before You Open EES

The report goes faster when the inputs are already in hand. Before starting the draft, pull together:

The completed DA Form 67-10-1A (OER Support Form). The rated officer fills this out at the start of the rating period with goals, duties, and a self-assessment. The rater has to confirm on the final OER that a support form was received and considered.
Administrative identifiers: the rated officer’s DoD ID number, the Unit Identification Code, and the exact FROM and THRU dates of the rating period.
Physical fitness data: the most recent Army Combat Fitness Test score with pass or fail status, plus current height and weight verified against Army body composition standards.
Duty description details: principal duty title, position area of concentration or branch, and the significant duties and responsibilities drawn from the support form.

Verify EES access before the THRU date approaches. Access issues are one of the most common reasons reports slip past their deadlines.

Filling In the Duty Description

Part III captures who the officer is, what position they hold, and what they actually did during this rating period. The principal duty title and position branch or area of concentration go in dedicated fields. The significant duties and responsibilities block is a concise summary of the officer’s role for this period specifically, not a generic job description carried over from the last report.

The support form is the primary reference. When the rated officer has documented goals and accomplishments on DA Form 67-10-1A throughout the period, the duty description writes itself. When the support form is thin, the rater is guessing, and the vagueness carries through the rest of the evaluation.

Rater’s Assessment: Attributes and Competencies

The rater evaluates the officer against the Army Leadership Requirements Model. Attributes are character, presence, and intellect.¹ Each attribute needs a narrative describing how the officer demonstrated it. A blank block or a single generic sentence will not survive review.

On the competency side, the rater assesses how the officer leads others, develops subordinates, and achieves results. Tie specific actions to measurable outcomes. “Led a 12-Soldier platoon through a brigade-level field exercise with zero safety incidents” tells a promotion board something. “Demonstrates strong leadership potential” tells them nothing. Each narrative block has a character limit, so every word has to earn its place.

Senior Rater’s Box Check and the Profile Constraint

The senior rater writes a narrative on the officer’s potential and selects one of four box checks:

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

“Most Qualified” is only available when fewer than 50 percent of the senior rater’s completed reports already carry that top box check. Once the profile hits 50 percent or higher in the top block, the system triggers a misfire warning and the top available label shifts to “Highly Qualified.”² The narrative must match the box. A “Most Qualified” check paired with a lukewarm narrative is the kind of inconsistency promotion boards catch immediately.

When a Supplementary Reviewer Is Required

A supplementary review is mandatory when the senior rater holds the rank of Second Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Warrant Officer One, or Chief Warrant Officer Two.³ It is also required for a Relief for Cause report when the senior rater directed the relief or when someone outside the rating chain ordered it.

The supplementary reviewer must outrank the senior rater and hold the rank of Captain or above, Chief Warrant Officer Three or above, or Command Sergeant Major/Sergeant Major. This reviewer must appear on the published rating scheme at the start of the evaluation period, not be added after the fact.

ACFT Failure and Referred Reports

If the officer failed the ACFT during the rating period, the rater enters the failure in the comments block using the prescribed format: “ACFT: FAIL” followed by the date in YYYYMMDD format.⁴ The narrative must explain the failure, note any mitigating circumstances, and describe progress toward the standard.

An ACFT failure also triggers referred report procedures. Mark the report as referred in Part II by answering “Yes” to the question about negative comments in the narrative; in EES, this is the “Yes” selection when prompted about annotating negative comments.⁴ A referred report gives the rated officer the opportunity to submit a written response before the evaluation is finalized, so build in extra processing time.

Signature Order and Submitting Through EES

EES enforces a fixed signature sequence: the rater signs first, then the intermediate rater if one exists in the chain, then the senior rater, then the rated officer, and finally the supplementary reviewer if one is required.⁵ Signing out of turn is a hard-stop validation, and the system will reject the submission.

The rated officer’s signature does not mean agreement with the ratings. It confirms the officer has seen the completed report and that the administrative data is accurate. Disagreement is handled through the commander’s inquiry or formal appeal, not by refusing to sign.

Once all signatures are applied, the report submits electronically to HQDA for administrative review. That review checks formatting, regulatory compliance, and profile consistency. You can monitor submission status through the EES portal dashboard. When accepted, the evaluation is filed in the officer’s official military personnel record and becomes part of the packet future promotion and selection boards read.

Common Reasons Reports Get Returned

EES runs both hard-stop and soft-stop validations before submission.⁵ Hard stops block submission entirely and are typically triggered by out-of-order signatures, missing required fields, or incorrect rating period dates. Soft stops generate warnings but let the rating chain proceed after acknowledging the issue.

Reports also come back from HQDA review for height and weight data that doesn’t match official records, incomplete duty descriptions, or a senior rater narrative that doesn’t align with the box check. Read the narrative alongside the box check one more time before signing. Ten minutes there saves weeks of correction cycles later.

If the Rated Officer Disagrees

Two avenues exist, on different timelines.

Commander’s Inquiry

The commander’s inquiry is the faster, less formal option. The rated officer submits a written request to the commander one level above the rating chain, identifying specific errors, injustices, or regulatory violations. The request must be filed within 60 days of the rated officer’s signature date.⁶ The commander may give the rating chain the opportunity to voluntarily correct the report, but cannot order a rating official to change a good-faith assessment. This option closes once the evaluation is accepted at HQDA.

Formal Appeal

After the report is filed at HQDA, the rated officer can file a formal appeal. Appeals must be received within three years of the evaluation’s THRU date.⁶ The route depends on the type of error:

Administrative errors, such as incorrect rating periods, wrong height and weight entries, or deviations from the published rating chain, go to the HRC Evaluation Appeals Branch. Minor administrative errors alone rarely result in a report being removed unless keeping it on file would cause a clear injustice.
Substantive errors, meaning allegations of bias, prejudice, or inaccurate ratings, go to the Army Special Review Board. These appeals require evidence that is “strong and compelling,” such as third-party statements, rating official statements, or the results of a prior commander’s inquiry.

The officer carries the burden of proof in either case. The Army presumes every filed evaluation is correct, and the appellant has to show clearly and convincingly that the presumption should not apply.⁶ Start gathering supporting documentation right after signing rather than waiting for the deadline; witnesses forget, and rating officials move to new assignments.

1
Department of the Army. ADP 6-22 – Army Leadership
2
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Evaluation Entry System Senior Rater Profile Guidance
3
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Policy Updates to Army Regulation 623-3
4
United States Army Human Resources Command. Army Combat Fitness Test on Evaluation Reports
5
U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Evaluation Entry System 4.3.0 Release Hard-Stop and Soft-Stop Validations
6
U.S. Army Fort Campbell. NCOER and OER Appeal