How to Change Your Rater in EES After a Reorganisation

A unit reorganisation can leave an evaluation record out of step with the chain of command. A new company, section, duty position or reporting relationship may be established before the change appears in the Evaluation Entry System (EES). If the former rater remains attached to an NCOER or OER, the record may require correction before it moves through signatures and approval. Learn more about Unitevamag.com.

The process is administrative rather than automatic. Soldiers should confirm who had rating responsibility, identify the effective date of the change and work with the S1, G1 or unit HR professional before editing the evaluation. For personnel in Australia, access, time zones and local command arrangements can make early coordination especially important.

Confirm the Effective Change

Start with the official reorganisation documentation, duty appointment, assumption-of-command memorandum or local fragmentary order. The key issue is not simply who now supervises the soldier. It is the date on which the new reporting relationship became effective and whether the previous rater completed a valid portion of the rating period.

A rater change may be appropriate when a soldier moves sections, a supervisor changes jobs, a unit is redesignated or a command team is replaced. It may also require a non-rated period, a change-of-rater evaluation or a regular evaluation with separate rater input. The applicable Army regulation and evaluation guidance should decide the format, rather than an informal agreement between the soldier and supervisor.

Australian-based users should allow for AEST or AEDT when arranging calls with a U.S. unit. A request sent late on a Friday in Brisbane or Townsville may not reach the supporting HR office until the next U.S. duty day, particularly around Australian public holidays or a field exercise such as Talisman Sabre.

Check the Rating Chain Before Editing

Before opening EES, write down the rated soldier, rater, senior rater, unit identification code and relevant dates. Compare those details with the unit rating scheme, organisational chart and the evaluation support form. A new first-line supervisor is not necessarily the authorised rater if the formal chain places another leader in that role.

The senior rater also matters. A reorganisation can affect both the direct supervisor and the senior rater, and changing only one field can create an inconsistent evaluation. If the rating chain is unclear, ask the S1 or G1 to confirm it in writing. Soldiers can also review Army evaluation guidance for related administrative explanations, while remembering that an informational website is not a substitute for official personnel advice.

EES may restrict edits once an evaluation has been signed, completed or routed. Take a screenshot of the current status and retain copies of relevant orders before requesting a correction. These records can help show why the change was needed and prevent repeated explanations to different administrators.

Submit the Correct EES Request

The exact EES menu options can vary with the evaluation type and record status. In general, the authorised administrator may need to amend the rating chain, return the evaluation for correction or cancel and recreate the entry. Do not create a duplicate evaluation simply because the original lists the former rater.

Provide a concise explanation that includes the reorganisation date, the old and new duty relationships, the evaluation period and the supporting document. If the former rater already observed a substantial part of the period, the command may decide that the person should complete a report for that portion rather than disappear from the record.

For background on using performance documentation effectively, see this guide on OER command boards. It explains why accuracy, duty context and a credible chain of assessment matter when an evaluation is later reviewed for a selection process.

Handle Signatures and Access Problems

After the administrator updates the record, check every role and date before the new rater signs. The soldier should review the evaluation through the normal process, identify factual errors and avoid treating the signature as an endorsement of every statement. A signature generally confirms receipt or participation in the process, depending on the form and applicable policy.

Access can be a practical problem for personnel working from Australia. CAC readers, certificates, Defence networks and U.S. Army portals may behave differently on a home connection or a workstation at RAAF Base Darwin. Use an approved Army or Defence network, follow local cyber instructions and avoid sending protected personnel documents through a personal email account or unapproved cloud storage.

When a portal is unavailable, document the error with the date, time, browser message and help-desk reference. This is particularly useful when a suspense date falls across the U.S.-Australia date line. A short, factual record is stronger than an unsupported claim that the system would not work.

Keep the Record Audit-Ready

Once the rater change is complete, save the approval or transaction evidence according to local records policy. Check that the evaluation appears under the correct unit, period and soldier profile, then confirm that the routing sequence has not reverted to the former chain. If the record later appears in iPERMS, compare the uploaded document with the signed version.

A clean audit trail should show the reason for the change, the authority behind it and the dates involved. This approach is useful beyond evaluation files: administrative corrections often depend on traceable records, similar to the way payment records explained can clarify who authorised and received a transaction.

For wider EES references, the EES Army resource can help locate articles on NCOERs, OERs, promotion points and personnel documents. It remains sensible to verify any time-sensitive process with the unit S1, G1, servicing HR office or the current Army policy source.

Documents to Keep With the Request

• The reorganisation order, duty appointment or assumption-of-command memorandum
• The effective date of the new rating relationship
• The unit rating scheme or written confirmation from S1 or G1
• Screenshots showing the evaluation status before and after correction
• Help-desk tickets, access-error details and routing notifications
• A copy of the final signed evaluation and any approved amendments

A well-supported request reduces the risk of an incorrect rater, duplicated evaluation or delayed signature chain. It also gives the soldier and command team a clear record if the evaluation is later examined during a promotion, command selection or personnel-file review. For Australian readers supporting U.S. Army personnel, keeping times, dates and network details in Australian local time while noting the U.S. duty date can prevent avoidable confusion.