How to Update Unit Information in EES for Accurate Evaluations

Accurate unit information in the Evaluation Entry System (EES) helps ensure that an NCOER, OER, or AER reflects the soldier’s actual assignment and rating relationship. A wrong unit name, UIC, duty position, or organizational relationship can create confusion during preparation, routing, signatures, and later record reviews.

EES data may connect with broader Army personnel and administrative systems, so users cannot always correct every field directly. Some changes require action by a rating official, unit administrator, S1, HR professional, or servicing personnel office. Early review gives the unit time to resolve discrepancies before an evaluation reaches a critical deadline.

This guide explains how to review unit details, request corrections, document changes, and protect the accuracy of an official evaluation. Procedures and permissions can vary by component, unit configuration, and current Army policy, so personnel should verify local requirements before submitting a final form.

Review Your Assignment Details Before Starting

Begin by checking the information displayed in EES before creating or editing an evaluation. Confirm the organization, unit identification code, duty title, duty position, rank, and period of observation. Compare the information with current orders, assignment instructions, duty appointment documents, and local personnel records.

Pay special attention after a permanent change of station, intra-post transfer, deployment, attachment, or change in duty position. A soldier may physically work with one organization while remaining administratively assigned to another. That distinction can affect the correct unit data and the rating chain shown on the evaluation.

If the displayed unit is incorrect, avoid simply selecting a similar organization from a list. Similar unit names can have different UICs, headquarters relationships, or administrative responsibilities. Capture the incorrect field and the supporting information needed to establish the correct assignment.

Identify Which Information Needs Correction

Unit information can include several connected details rather than one single entry. The evaluation may reflect the rated soldier’s organization, the rater’s organization, the senior rater’s organization, duty location, position, and rating period. Correcting one field may not correct the others.

Separate a data-entry error from a personnel-record error. If official assignment records are wrong, EES may continue displaying outdated information even after a user attempts an update. In that situation, the underlying personnel or administrative record may need correction first.

A useful first step is to compare EES with the soldier’s current orders and the organization’s approved rating chain. The NCOER application can also provide general context about evaluation preparation and the administrative information commonly associated with an NCOER.

Coordinate With the Correct Unit Representative

Most soldiers should report a unit-information discrepancy to the immediate supervisor, rating official, unit administrator, or S1 section. Explain precisely what appears in EES, what the correct information should be, and which documents support the requested change. A clear request reduces repeated follow-up and helps the responsible office identify the source of the problem.

The appropriate correction path depends on the field. A unit administrator may address organizational routing, while S1 or HR personnel may need to update assignment data. Rating officials may also need to verify the duty relationship and dates before an evaluation is reopened or routed again.

Keep a record of the request, including the date, recipient, supporting documents, and any ticket or case number. This documentation can help establish that the discrepancy was reported before the evaluation was completed and can support later administrative review.

Information to verify	Why it matters	Common correction route
Unit name and UIC	Identifies the organization responsible for the evaluation	Unit administrator or S1
Duty title and position	Connects performance to the correct role	Supervisor, HR, or personnel office
Rating chain	Determines who prepares, reviews, and endorses the report	Rater, senior rater, and unit leadership
Assignment and observation dates	Ensures the report covers the correct period	S1, HR, and rating officials
Attached or deployed status	Explains differences between administrative and working locations	Unit leadership and personnel staff

Update the Evaluation Carefully

Once the responsible representative confirms the correction, review whether the existing evaluation must be edited, withdrawn, or recreated. Do not start a duplicate evaluation unless the unit directs you to do so. Duplicate forms can create conflicting drafts, confusing routing histories, and unnecessary delays.

Check every connected field after the change is made. A corrected UIC may still leave an outdated duty position or rating chain. Review the form as a complete record, including the rated soldier’s information, rater details, senior rater details, counseling dates when applicable, and evaluation period.

If the evaluation is already in a signature or approval stage, editing permissions may be limited. The form may need to be returned through the workflow by an authorized user. Make sure all affected officials understand what changed before they sign again.

Handle Changes During Deployment or Transfer

Transfers and deployments often create the greatest risk of mismatched unit data. A soldier may begin an evaluation under one organization, serve temporarily with another, and complete the rating period after returning or transferring. The correct arrangement depends on the actual period of observation, command relationships, and governing evaluation policy.

When a rater is unavailable, the unit should document the reason and use the authorized alternate process rather than changing the rating chain solely to make the workflow move forward. Guidance on deployed rater actions may help personnel understand the administrative issue, but local officials must apply current Army rules to the specific case.

Before a transfer, ask the losing and gaining organizations to confirm who owns the evaluation and which unit information should appear. Provide copies of orders, rating-chain documentation, and any correspondence that clarifies the dates and responsibilities.

Validate the Record Before Final Signatures

A final review should happen before the evaluation enters the signature sequence. Compare the EES form against official records and ensure that the organization, duty position, rating officials, and period dates are internally consistent. Small differences can become more difficult to correct after signatures are complete.

Use the following checks as a practical review:

• Confirm the unit name and UIC against current assignment documentation.
• Verify the duty title, position, rank, and observation dates.
• Check that the rater and senior rater belong to the correct rating chain.
• Ensure attachments, transfers, and temporary duty relationships are documented.
• Save supporting correspondence and verify the corrected form before signing.

After completion, retain copies according to unit procedures and monitor the soldier’s official personnel record when appropriate. If the evaluation later appears in iPERMS or another records system with incorrect unit information, report the discrepancy through the appropriate administrative channel rather than altering unrelated records.

Accurate unit data supports fair performance documentation, clean promotion records, and fewer delays during personnel actions. Review the assignment information early, coordinate corrections through authorized unit channels, and complete a full validation before the evaluation is signed and filed.