NCOER Signature Order: Who Signs First, the Rating Chain, and the 90-Day HQDA Clock

01The signing order, in the pamphlet’s words

DA PAM 623-3 states the order for the NCOER as three rules in its Part II instructions:

To facilitate the rated NCO in signing the NCOER after authentication by the rating officials, the NCOER can be signed and dated by each individual in the rating chain up to 14 days prior to the “THRU” date of the NCOER; however, the NCOER cannot be forwarded to HQDA until the “THRU” date of the NCOER.
a. The supplementary reviewer’s signature and date cannot be before the senior rater’s signature.
b. The senior rater’s signature and date cannot be before the rater’s signature.
c. The rated NCO’s signature and date cannot be before the rater’s or senior rater’s signature. DA PAM 623-3, ¶3-4, p.91 (excerpt)

The regulation adds who signs last among the rating chain and the rated Soldier, and where the supplementary review falls:

(2) The rated Soldier will always be the individual to sign the evaluation report last after rating officials.
(3) Supplementary reviews, when required, will occur after reports have been authenticated by the rated Soldier and all rating officials. AR 623-3, ¶3-34k(2) and (3), pp.68-69 (excerpt)

Our reading: the pamphlet’s rule (a) only says the reviewer cannot sign before the senior rater; the regulation’s (3) puts the review after the rated Soldier too. Both point the same way. The regulation also says only the rating chain and the rated Soldier may sign, and that nobody signs a blank report or has someone sign for them (¶3-34k(1)).

02The 14-day window and the Thru date

The regulation’s version of the timing rule spells out what happens to a report sent early:

(4) To facilitate the rated Soldier signing the evaluation report after its completion and signature by the rating officials, the evaluation report may be signed and dated by each individual in the rating chain up to 14 days prior to the “Thru” date of the evaluation report. However, the evaluation report cannot be forwarded to HQDA until the “Thru” date of the evaluation report. Evaluation reports submitted prior to the “Thru” date will be rejected and returned; a new evaluation report with signatures that complies with submission date requirements must be resubmitted to HQDA. AR 623-3, ¶3-34k(4), p.69

Our reading of ¶3-34k(4): two separate limits. Signing can start 14 days before the Thru date. Sending to HQDA cannot happen before the Thru date. A report sent early is rejected and returned, and a new report “with signatures that complies with submission date requirements” has to go in its place.

03What the rated NCO’s signature means, and what it does not

The pamphlet’s instruction for Part II, block d2:

Action required: The rated NCO will sign and date the NCOER after it has been completed and signed by the rater and senior rater in the rating chain.
• The rated NCO acknowledges that he or she has seen the completed NCOER and verifies the accuracy of administrative data in part I (except part I, block m), the rating officials and counseling dates in part II, the duty description in part III, and the APFT and height and weight entries in part IV, block a and block b. This action increases administrative accuracy of the NCOER since the rated NCO is most familiar with and interested in this information. Confirmation of the administrative data also will normally preclude an appeal by the rated NCO based on inaccurate administrative data. Any administrative errors noted by the rated NCO will be brought to the attention of the rating officials and corrected prior to his or her signature. It is important that rated NCOs and rating officials clearly understand that the rated NCO’s signature does not constitute agreement or disagreement with the evaluations of the rater or senior rater. Rating officials will ensure that the rated NCO is aware of the redress process. DA PAM 623-3, Table 3-2, part II block d2, p.93

Our reading of block d2: signing says “I saw it, and the admin data is right.” It does not say “I agree with my ratings,” and it does not say “I disagree.” The time to fix a wrong date, a wrong rating official or a wrong duty description is before you sign, because a signature on bad admin data will normally preclude an appeal on that data. For the counseling side of what you are verifying, see the support form post and the counseling frequency post.

The regulation’s list in ¶3-34k(3) is shorter (Part I data, the rating officials, APFT, and height and weight) and does not mention counseling dates or the duty description. The two lists overlap; the pamphlet’s is the one written for the NCOER form.

That does not mean the regulation leaves counseling dates out. Its list of what the rated Soldier does, ¶2-10b(5), names them:

The rated Soldier’s signature verifies that administrative data, including DoDID number, rating chain, counseling dates, APFT, and height and weight entries on the evaluation report are correct and confirms that the rated Soldier has seen the completed evaluation report. AR 623-3, ¶2-10b(5), p.19 (excerpt)

Our reading: both publications tie your signature to the counseling dates. If the dates on your report are for counselings that never happened, read what your signature means when you were never counseled before you sign.

If content changes after the NCO signs, the regulation says the change will “invalidate the electronic signature approval” and the report has to be revalidated by the individual whose content was changed (¶3-34k(5)(b), p.69).

04When the rated NCO refuses or is not available

The NCOER still moves. The senior rater either fixes the problem or says why the signature is missing:

• If the rated NCO is physically unavailable to sign his or her NCOER (and the NCOER cannot be forwarded to him or her to sign), unable to sign the NCOER digitally or manually, or refuses to sign the NCOER for any reason, the senior rater will either resolve the problem or explain the reason for the lack of a signature. Using the wizard application associated with the electronic form within the EES, the senior rater will check the appropriate “NO” box response to the question “Is the rated Soldier available for signature?” or the comment “Rated Soldier refused to sign.” The applicable statement will then be entered in part V, block b (“Soldier unavailable for signature” or “Soldier refused to sign”). DA PAM 623-3, Table 3-2, part II block d2, p.93

One excuse is called out by name:

Note. If the rated NCO’s signature is left blank in block d2, and the wizard application associated with the electronic form within the EES is not used to enter the appropriate status, the EES may not allow the NCOER to be submitted. A NCOER stating that the NCO cannot sign due to CAC issues is unacceptable, and such NCOERs will not be processed. DA PAM 623-3, Table 3-2, part II block d2, p.94

The NCO still gets a copy: if the rated Soldier “is unavailable to sign, or refuses to sign an evaluation report, an electronic or paper copy will be provided to them” (AR 623-3, ¶2-14b(6), p.22).

Our reading: refusing to sign does not stop the report, and it is not a way to register disagreement, since the signature never meant agreement in the first place (section 03). A missing rating official signature is different. The regulation says reports with “omitted rating official’s signatures will not be processed” (¶3-34k(5)(a), p.69).

05When a supplementary reviewer is required

The senior rater marks block c1 “Yes” or “No” for supplementary review. The pamphlet lists when one is required:

Action required: A documented supplementary review will be performed by a uniformed Army advisor in the rank of SGM or CSM, CW3 through CW5, or CPT and above, designated in the NCOs rating chain, senior to the senior rater -
(1) When a senior rater within the rated NCO’s rating chain is an NCO in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC) through master sergeant (MSG) or 1SG.
(2) When a senior rater within the rated NCO’s rating chain is a warrant officer in the rank of WO1 through CW2.
(3) When a senior rater within the rated NCO’s rating chain is an Army officer in the rank of 2LT through 1LT. DA PAM 623-3, Table 3-2, part II blocks c1 through c7, pp.92-93 (excerpt, items 1 to 3 of 9)

Items 4 to 9 of the same list cover a rating chain with no uniformed Army designated rating officials, a senior rater who is not a uniformed Army designated rating official over a rater in the grades named, and “Relief for Cause” reports.

The same table repeats the timing, “Supplementary reviews are conducted after rating officials and the rated Soldier have signed the completed evaluation,” and bars the reviewer from “evaluative statements about the rated NCO” (Table 3-2, part II blocks c1 through c7, p.93).

06Who can rate whom: the rater (can an E-6 rate an E-6?)

c. DA Form 2166-9 series rater eligibility. The military rater will be a SGT or above and senior to the rated NCO by grade or date of rank (see AR 600-20). AR 623-3, ¶2-5c, p.10 (excerpt)

Our reading of ¶2-5c: the operative words are “by grade or date of rank,” so a SSG who is senior by date of rank meets this sentence when rating another SSG. Separately, ¶2-5a says the rater “will be the immediate supervisor of the rated Soldier” (p.9). The rater also needs time: “a minimum period of 90 calendar days” as supervisor, or 120 for USAR TPU, DIMA, drilling IRR and ARNG Soldiers (¶2-5a(2), p.9). A rater on a promotion list who is in an authorized position for the next grade “will be considered to be serving in the next grade,” and the “P” goes after the current rank on the NCOER (¶2-5c(2), p.10).

07Who can senior rate: minimum grades and the promotable exceptions

AR 623-3 Table 2-1 sets the minimum grade of a military senior rater. Our condensed summary of its NCO rows (column heads shortened, and “master sergeant promotable (MSGP)” shortened to MSGP):

AR 623-3, Table 2-1, p.14 (NCO rows only, condensed).

The promotable exceptions come from ¶2-7b(13) and (14): the regulation allows a “staff sergeant promotable (SSGP) serving in an authorized position for the next grade” to senior rate a SGT, and a “sergeant first class promotable (SFCP) serving in an authorized position for the next grade” to senior rate a SSG (pp.13-14). For MSG through CSM, the senior rater must be “senior in grade or date of rank to the other members of the rating chain” (¶2-7b(16), p.14).

The senior rater “will be the immediate supervisor of the rater” and needs 60 calendar days as the rated NCO’s senior rater to render a written NCOER, 90 for USAR TPU, DIMA, drilling IRR and ARNG Soldiers, with exceptions the paragraph cross-references (¶2-7b(3), p.13). A senior rater short of that time still signs. The pamphlet: “The senior rater will sign the NCOER even if he or she is unable to evaluate the rated NCO due to lack of qualification” (Table 3-2, part II block b, p.92).

08The 90-day clock is measured at HQDA, not at your S1

l. Timeliness of submission. Evaluation reports will be forwarded error-free to reach HQDA no later than 90 days after the “Thru” date of the evaluation report. The senior rater is responsible for ensuring the timely submission of OERs and NCOERs to HQDA; the reviewing official is responsible for the timely submission of AERs to HQDA. However, HQDA centralized selection, promotion, and school board requirements may mandate receipt by a date that is earlier than 90 days after the “Thru” date of the evaluation report (see app F). AR 623-3, ¶3-34l, p.69

Our reading of ¶3-34l: the clock runs from the Thru date to arrival at HQDA, error-free. Day 89 in the battalion S1’s queue is not on time if it lands at HQDA on day 95. The senior rater owns it. The same paragraph says what happens when a report is late:

HQDA will process any valid evaluation report to prevent disservice to the rated Soldier. Complete Record evaluation reports not received at HQDA in a timely manner will not be processed and will be returned. AR 623-3, ¶3-34l(2), p.69 (excerpt)

Our reading of ¶3-34l(2): a routine NCOER that arrives late is still processed if it is valid. A Complete the Record report that misses its board’s receipt date is returned. Late reports also show up against the senior rater: the Senior Rater Evaluation Timeliness report counts how many of their OERs and NCOERs were received no later than 90 days after the Thru date (¶3-11c(6)(a), p.49).

If you are the one keeping every report in the formation on time, the unit board tracks every NCOER’s Thru date and the 90-day clock for your battery, company or troop (free).

09What HQDA rejects, and what EES shows you

The pamphlet’s processing chapter lists the outright rejections:

(4) Evaluation reports submitted by any means will be rejected when -
(a) The senior rater does not meet minimum qualifications.
(b) Signature dates are more than 14 days before the “THRU” date of the evaluation report.
(c) A “Complete the Record” evaluation report is not received in a timely manner or in accordance with the published MILPER message.
(d) The evaluation report is from a previous rating system (for example, DA Form 67-8 or DA Form 2166-7, which are now obsolete).
(e) The evaluation report contains other errors that cannot be corrected at the HQDA level.
(f) Copies of the evaluation report are faxed. Faxed reports will be discarded without a record of rejection in the EES. DA PAM 623-3, ¶5-1a(4), p.166

The NCOER chapter adds a rejection for a receipt date “prior to the ‘THRU’ date on the NCOER,” for a rating period that “does not meet minimum time requirements,” and for an overlapping period covered that still fails minimum rating requirements once the From date is corrected (¶3-25b to d, pp.132-133). Several of these grounds hit the points in this post directly: early signatures, early submission, an unqualified senior rater and a late Complete the Record report.

Not every problem is a rejection. Admin errors put the report on hold instead:

b. NCOERs with administrative errors will be placed in an “On hold-returned to field” or “pending” status awaiting corrected NCOERs from the rating officials, BN or BDE S1, or administrative office. DA PAM 623-3, ¶3-24b, p.132 (excerpt)

The next subparagraph says to review “the system administrative notes that identify the errors,” correct them, and re-submit the corrected NCOER to HQDA using the EES (¶3-24c, p.132).

Our reading of ¶3-24 and ¶3-25: the statuses the pamphlet names are “On hold-returned to field,” “pending,” “rejected,” and returned to the sender in the EES, with the system administrative notes telling you what to fix. We do not add code numbers or a step-by-step EES checklist, because the passages quoted here give none.

10Check the source

Every passage above is from AR 623-3 (14 February 2025), paragraphs 2-5a(2), 2-5c, 2-7b, 2-10b(5), 2-14b(6), 3-11c(6)(a), 3-34k and 3-34l, and Table 2-1; and DA PAM 623-3 (12 February 2025), paragraphs 3-4, 3-24, 3-25 and 5-1a(4), and Table 3-2. Both are free on the Army Publishing Directorate. If this page and a publication ever disagree, the publication wins, and we want to know.

← Back to The Field Manual