Evaluation Addendum Process Map and Templates for OERs/NCOERs

Once in a Soldier’s IPERMs file, (except for RARE circumstances) evaluations cannot be changed or removed. The addendum process is used to add information to an evaluation when new, verified derogatory (or positive) information comes to light about an Officer or NCO, that would have had an effect on their ratings, bullets/comments on a previous evaluation.  It can be a tricky, confusing process for an S1 who never done it before.

Attached is a one shot process map that takes the guidance of AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3, as well as AR 25-50, and combines them with templates for the addendum memorandums required at the various stages of the process. I had to take some formatting liberties since there were details not explicitly shown in the examples given in the 623-3’s in order to route the memos through the applicable state levels (ARNG), so I’d appreciate any feedback to ensure these are solid. The products are:

Addendum for Evaluations Procedure Process Map – Overall process that takes notes and steps from the AR and DA PAM 623-3, along with the templates imbedded into the form for simplicity.

Addendum 1 Commander template – The final (current) commander’s forwarding memorandum/addendum,

Addendum 2 Rating Chain template – Addendum memorandums required from each of the rating chain members who wish to make comment.

Addendum 3 Referral template – Referral template required to inform the Officer/NCO about the addendum, and their requirement to acknowledge and provide their own comments by a suspense.

Background:

I recently had my first instance of new found derogatory information that required an addendum to a previous evaluation. While the AR/DA PAM explanation and preparation steps (table 5-2 in the DA PAM) were clear to a point, they left some questions (at least for me) as to how the overall packet and forms should look in order to also fall in line with AR 25-50 guidance.  Like everything else, I wanted to create something that M-Day (TPU/Traditional) National Guard and Reservist S1s could use to simplify the addendum process, and take some of the “TCTTCDND” (too complicated/too time consuming – did not do) out of the process. Managing and completing evaluations accurately and fairly is a two way street; if I’m going to make sure Soldiers get the kudos they deserve, I absolutely need to make sure they get the negative side of that same coin.

I look forward to the feedback.

Brock