How to Correct a Rating Chain Error in EES

An incorrect rating chain in the Army Evaluation Entry System (EES) can affect an evaluation’s accuracy, approval path, and official record. Common problems include the wrong rater or senior rater, outdated duty positions, incorrect rank or organization data, and dates that do not match the Soldier’s actual assignment.

The best response depends on when the error is found. A discrepancy identified before an evaluation is submitted is usually easier to correct than one discovered after signatures, approval, or filing. Prompt action also creates a clearer administrative record if the correction requires command involvement.

EES is an administrative tool, not a substitute for the governing Army regulations, local procedures, or guidance from the S1, MPD, or servicing personnel office. Soldiers should verify the correct process with their chain of command while preserving documents that show who supervised the rated Soldier during the evaluation period.

Identify The Type Of Rating Chain Error

Start by comparing the EES entry with the actual duty relationship during the rating period. Check the rater’s identity, senior rater, intermediate rater if applicable, supplementary reviewer, organization, duty title, rank, and evaluation dates. A rating chain should reflect the official supervisory relationship, not simply the Soldier’s current assignment.

Some discrepancies are data-entry problems, while others involve a substantive disagreement about who was authorized to evaluate the Soldier. A former supervisor may remain relevant if that person served as the rater during the required period. Conversely, a newly assigned leader may not automatically replace the previous rater for an evaluation period that began before the change.

Review the applicable evaluation regulation and local command policy before requesting a correction. NCOERs, OERs, and AERs have different forms and administrative requirements, so the correction should match the evaluation type and the circumstances.

Check The Evaluation Before Submission

If the report is still in draft status, notify the rating chain and unit administrator immediately. The person with the appropriate EES administrative permissions may be able to correct the rating chain before the evaluation moves forward. Do not assume that editing the Soldier’s profile will automatically update every field in an active evaluation.

Provide a short explanation of the error and attach supporting records when appropriate. Useful evidence can include assignment orders, assumption-of-command documents, duty descriptions, counseling records, rating chain memorandums, and official personnel data. The goal is to establish the correct supervisory relationship and the dates when it applied.

After the entry is corrected, review the entire evaluation again. A rating chain change may affect routing, signature blocks, duty descriptions, and the evaluation’s administrative data. Confirm that the corrected version appears for every required participant before anyone signs.

Handle Errors After Routing Or Signature

A rating chain problem discovered after routing requires more care. First determine whether the evaluation is awaiting signatures, has been approved, or has already been submitted for processing and filing. The available correction method may differ at each stage, and attempting to create a second report without guidance can cause duplicate or conflicting records.

Notify the rating chain, S1, and the appropriate evaluation support office as soon as possible. Ask whether the report can be returned for correction, administratively amended, or withdrawn and re-created. Keep copies of the original report, correspondence, and evidence supporting the requested change.

An administrative correction should address the rating chain without changing substantive comments unless those comments are also affected. If the error appears to have influenced the evaluation’s content or fairness, the Soldier may need to use the applicable appeal or inquiry process rather than treating the matter as a simple data correction. Guidance on common OER errors can help distinguish an administrative issue from a broader evaluation concern.

When the error is found	Primary action	Documents to gather	Common risk
Before draft routing	Request an EES correction through the unit administrator or rating chain	Orders, duty records, rating chain memorandum	Signing an incorrect report
During routing	Ask the authorized administrator whether the report can be returned	Original evaluation, routing status, supporting records	Creating a duplicate evaluation
After approval	Contact S1 and the servicing evaluation support office	Approved report, evidence, command correspondence	Using the wrong amendment process
After filing	Follow the official correction or appeal procedure	Filed report, personnel records, statements, proof of error	Treating a substantive appeal as a data fix

Confirm The Correct Rating Relationship

The strongest correction requests explain the actual relationship between the rated Soldier and each evaluator. State who supervised the Soldier, the relevant dates, the organization involved, and why the current EES entry is inaccurate. Avoid relying on informal statements such as “everyone knew who the rater was” without supporting documentation.

Temporary duty, platoon or section changes, command transitions, and reorganizations can make rating chains difficult to reconstruct. In these situations, a memorandum for record or command-approved rating chain document may clarify the timeline. The document should be consistent with assignment records and the evaluation’s covered period.

A rating chain correction does not guarantee a particular evaluation result. It ensures that the report is reviewed by the officials who had the proper responsibility and firsthand knowledge. That distinction is important when communicating with leaders and personnel offices.

Protect The Official Record

Once the correction is made, verify that the final report contains the right names, ranks, duty titles, organization, and dates. Save a copy of the approved evaluation and any correction-related correspondence according to unit policy. Soldiers should also check the version that reaches their official personnel record when applicable.

If a report is intended for filing in iPERMS or another official system, confirm that the corrected version—not an earlier draft or rejected version—is the one submitted. A future records review may rely on the filed document rather than email discussions or local working copies.

Evaluation records can affect career administration, but they are only one part of a Soldier’s personnel profile. Soldiers reviewing career effects may also benefit from understanding promotion point calculations, while remembering that an administrative correction should be based on accurate records rather than an expected promotion outcome.

Build A Clear Correction Packet

A concise packet helps the chain of command act quickly and reduces repeated requests for the same information. Include the evaluation type, evaluation period, current EES status, specific error, requested correction, and contact information. Organize evidence chronologically so the supervisory relationship is easy to verify.

Use these practices when submitting the request:

• Identify each incorrect field and provide the correct information.
• Attach official documents that establish assignment, duty, and supervision dates.
• Explain whether the report is in draft, routing, approved, or filed status.
• Ask the S1 or authorized EES administrator which correction route applies.
• Retain copies of the request, response, corrected report, and final filing evidence.

Keep the tone factual and professional. A correction request should focus on the record, applicable procedures, and documented timeline rather than blame. If the issue involves possible bias, reprisal, or materially inaccurate content, document those concerns separately and request guidance on the appropriate review or appeal channel.

Correcting a rating chain error promptly can prevent an inaccurate evaluation from moving further through the Army’s administrative process. Review the EES entry, gather proof of the actual rating relationship, involve the appropriate unit and personnel officials, and verify the final record after the correction is complete. Use the documented process that matches the report’s status, and retain every important version and response for your records.