DID NOT MEET STANDARD: What the Rater Must Document, and What Met Never Asks For

I’ve spent years on the rating chain writing and reviewing these evals, and the DID NOT MEET conversations are the ones that go wrong in both directions. Raters check it with nothing behind it but frustration, and the eval gets torn apart. Or raters refuse to check it in situations where the regulation already made the decision for them, and the eval is wrong in a way a reviewer will catch. Both failures come from the same place: nobody reads what the pamphlet actually requires. So here it is, cited by paragraph. If you want the classroom version of this box, the Academy lesson on DID NOT MEET STANDARD walks the same rules inside the full tier-calibration sequence.

// 01The definition, verbatim

(1) Did not meet standard. Rated NCO fails to meet or maintain the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; does not enforce or meet the standard for the unit or those in his or her charge; exhibits or displays minimal or no effort; actions often have a negative effect on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army. DA PAM 623-3, ¶3-11a(1)

Read the verbs. Fails to meet or maintain. Does not enforce. Minimal or no effort. Negative effect. This is not the box for “had a rough quarter” or “I don’t like his attitude.” It describes a documented failure against a standard, with a real effect on the mission or on Soldiers. One more thing worth knowing: on the SGT form (DA Form 2166-9-1), blocks c through h offer exactly two choices, Met or Did Not Meet, and the definitions are word for word the same as the SSG-and-above form (¶3-6a). The four-box scale with Exceeded and Far Exceeded only exists on the 2166-9-2.

// 02What the box requires from you: a bullet, and receipts behind it

First rule: checking DID NOT MEET does not excuse you from writing. The bullet is mandatory no matter which box you check.

Bullet comments are mandatory regardless of the box check rating given (at least one bullet will be entered in each block of c through i). DA PAM 623-3, para 3-6b

And the bullet has to support the box check (para 3-6b(5)). A DID NOT MEET box over a vague bullet is a self-contradicting form. What supports it? The same thing that supports any bullet, pointed the other direction: a specific standard, a specific failure against it, in past tense, inside the rating period. The regulation also puts two hard limits on what you can write:

Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation report ... No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation. AR 623-3, ¶3-20 (Unproven derogatory information)

Verified means the shortfall is established fact, not suspicion. And if the 15-6 or the inquiry is still running, it does not exist for NCOER purposes. You cannot write “currently under investigation for” anything. In practice, the receipts for a defensible DID NOT MEET are the counseling trail: the DA 4856s that named the standard, documented the shortfall when it happened, and recorded the corrective action you gave the NCO. If that trail does not exist, you do not have a DID NOT MEET. You have a feeling, and a form that will not survive review.

// 03The case where the box is not your call: substantiated SHARP, EO, or EEO

Most raters think every box check is judgment. There is one place the pamphlet removes the judgment entirely:

For NCOs who are found with substantiated SHARP, equal opportunity, or EEO complaints resulting from an AR 15-6 investigation or other official investigation by military or civil authorities, a “DID NOT MEET STANDARD” entry will be annotated in part IV, block c. and a bullet comment “does not support SHARP, equal opportunity, and EEO” will be annotated by the rater in part IV block c comments section. Additionally, the senior rater will annotate a bullet comment in part V, block b. DA PAM 623-3, Table 3-4 (block c, Character); repeated in Table 3-9

Note every piece of that. The finding must be substantiated by an official investigation, which squares with the AR 623-3 rule above: while it is pending, you write nothing. Once it is substantiated, the box in Character is prescribed, the bullet text itself is prescribed, and the senior rater owes a comment too. A rater who checks Met in Character over a substantiated SHARP finding is not being loyal to their NCO. They are filing an incorrect evaluation. The pamphlet also requires the rater to comment on the full range of substantiated findings here: committing an act, failing to report one, failing to respond to a complaint, or retaliating against the person who made it.

// 04Relief for Cause: the box that explains itself

The second place the regulation does the arguing for you is the Relief for Cause NCOER:

The rater’s overall performance assessment in part IV on NCOERs must reflect “DID NOT MEET STANDARD” or “MET STANDARD.” An assessment of “DID NOT MEET STANDARD” is consistent with a relief action and does not need further explanation. However, raters who select “MET STANDARD” must explain their recommendation and reasons in view of the action to relieve. DA PAM 623-3, ¶3-20g

Read that twice, because it inverts the burden most raters assume. On an RFC, DID NOT MEET is the box that needs no justification. It is consistent with the relief; the relief is the explanation. The box that has to be defended in writing is Met: check that on a Soldier who just got relieved and you owe the form an explanation of how both things are true. The same logic applies one level up, where a senior rater’s Not Qualified is consistent with the relief but a Qualified must be explained (¶3-20h). And regardless of who directed the relief, the rater enters the required comment that the rated NCO has been notified of the reason for it (¶3-20a, e).

// 05What one DID NOT MEET does to the rest of the form

Three knock-on effects most raters learn the hard way:

• It caps the overall box. “An assessment of ‘DID NOT MEET STANDARD’ in previous blocks c through h by the rater results in only an overall performance assessment of ‘MET STANDARD’ or ‘DID NOT MEET STANDARD’ able to be rendered by the rater” (Table 3-9). One DID NOT MEET anywhere in c through h and Exceeded or Far Exceeded overall is off the table. No exceptions.
• It can waive the future-assignments entry. When the rater indicates Did Not Meet Standard in the overall performance, by box check or by content, and the senior rater marks Not Qualified, AR 623-3 ¶3-9 says no successive duty and broadening assignments are required. The form itself stops projecting a future.
• There is no referral safety net. Unlike an OER, an NCOER is not a referred report. AR 623-3 is explicit that the referral process “does not apply to NCOERs,” and that the rated NCO’s review “will occur following authentication signature.” On an OER, a derogatory report triggers a formal referral with a suspense for the rated officer to comment before it processes. An NCO gets no such packet. Which means the due process an NCO actually gets is the counseling you did, or did not do, during the rating period. If the NCOER is the first time your Soldier hears they did not meet the standard, the failure on that form is not only theirs.

// 06The contrast: what a plain Met requires for SSG and above

Now put the bottom box next to the one sitting right above it, because the difference in burden is the whole lesson:

(2) Met standard. Rated NCO successfully achieves and maintains the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; effectively meets and enforces the standard for the unit and those in his or her charge; succeeds by taking appropriate initiative in applying the leader competencies and attributes; results have a positive impact on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; this level of performance is considered normal and typically demonstrated by a majority of NCOs of the same grade. DA PAM 623-3, ¶3-11a(2)

Look at what Met asks the rater to prove: nothing beyond the bullet itself. No counseling trail requirement. No verified-derogatory standard. No prescribed comments, no caps on the rest of the form, no explanation owed to anyone. “Successfully achieves and maintains” the standard, “appropriate initiative,” “positive impact,” performance “typically demonstrated by a majority of NCOs of the same grade.” Met is the regulation’s own description of an NCO doing the job. It is not an insult and it does not have to be defended; the pamphlet says this level is normal. You do not have to build an upper-third case, quantify an immediate impact, or show an enduring effect. Those are Exceeded and Far Exceeded burdens.

One guardrail worth quoting on the other side, because it protects Soldiers from local inflation of the bottom box: an NCO who meets Army minimum fitness standards but misses tougher unit standards “will not be given rating of ‘DID NOT MEET STANDARDS’” in Presence on that basis alone (Table 3-4). DID NOT MEET measures the Army standard, not your commander’s ambitions for the formation.

// 07Where BulletForge holds this line

BulletForge enforces this doctrine as a refusal, in both directions. Ask it for a DID NOT MEET bullet and give it nothing but frustration, no documented shortfall, no standard, no dates, and it will not write one. It tells you what the box requires: the specific standard that was not met, when it happened, and what corrective action you took, then waits for the facts. And it will never dress up praise under a DID NOT MEET label, because the definition in ¶3-11a(1) describes failure against the standard, not success. Refusals cost you nothing; you pay nothing to be told the truth. No other tool we know of will argue with you about the bottom box. That is the point.

For the full four-tier ladder quoted verbatim, read DA PAM 623-3 ¶3-11a explained: the four NCOER tiers in plain English. For the top-end boundary, read Far Exceeded vs Exceeded: the one discriminator the regulation actually draws.

← Back to The Field Manual