Reviewing Rater History in the Army Evaluation Entry System

The Army Evaluation Entry System (EES) can help soldiers understand how performance reports move through the evaluation process. It is especially useful when checking an NCOER or OER for routing status, assigned roles, comments, and administrative accuracy.

Reviewing a rater’s past evaluations requires care, because EES is not a general search tool for every report that a leader has written. Access normally depends on your role, the evaluation workflow, permissions, and the records connected to your own profile.

For US Army personnel living in Australia, the process may involve different time zones, limited access to government networks, and coordination with a unit in the United States. A soldier posted in Brisbane, Darwin, or Canberra may need to plan around Australian Eastern, Central, or Western time while contacting an American headquarters.

This guide explains what EES can show, what it cannot reveal, and how to use available information without breaching privacy or relying on unofficial assumptions.

What EES Can Show About Evaluation History

EES may display evaluations connected to your current duties, including reports where you are the rated soldier, rater, senior rater, or reviewer. Depending on your permissions, the system can show workflow status, rating-chain roles, dates, and whether an evaluation has been submitted or returned for correction.

A rater’s previous reports are generally not open for unrestricted browsing. You may be able to see information relevant to an active evaluation, such as a senior rater profile or historical profile data, but that does not mean you can open every report the individual has completed.

The EES Army resource centre can provide general background on evaluation administration, although it is an informational website rather than an official Army portal. Always treat the current EES interface and your unit’s instructions as the controlling sources.

Confirm Your Authorised Role First

Sign in through the approved Army environment and check which evaluation or profile you are connected to. A soldier may see different menus from a rater, senior rater, reviewer, or unit administrator, so missing options do not automatically indicate a technical fault.

Look for the evaluation record, rating-chain details, or profile information associated with your authorised duties. Avoid attempting to use another person’s credentials, shared sessions, screenshots containing protected information, or browser tools designed to bypass normal access controls.

If you are reviewing a report because of a promotion packet, appeal, or administrative concern, identify the specific purpose first. This keeps the review focused on information you are entitled to use rather than turning it into an informal investigation of a leader’s entire reporting history.

Finding Profile Information Without Opening Private Reports

A rater profile can provide useful context about rating patterns, especially when a senior rater has completed several evaluations. The information may include profile averages, distribution data, or the relationship between a current recommendation and the senior rater’s historical profile.

The guide to senior-rater averages explains one common area soldiers investigate when reviewing NCOER information. Use such guidance to understand terminology, then verify the figures inside the authorised Army system.

Profile data should not be treated as a complete substitute for reading your own evaluation. A numerical average cannot explain duty position, grade, assignment conditions, performance expectations, or the narrative evidence supporting a rating.

Checking Your Own Evaluation Record

Start with your personal record rather than the rater’s history. Confirm your name, rank, duty title, rated period, organisation, and the identities of the rater, senior rater, and reviewer. Small errors in these fields can affect filing, promotion consideration, and future record searches.

Read every section of the NCOER, OER, or AER carefully. Compare duty descriptions and accomplishments with your counselling notes, support forms, award recommendations, and official correspondence. If a statement appears inaccurate, preserve the relevant documents and raise the issue through the chain of command.

EES and iPERMS serve different purposes. EES supports preparation and routing, while iPERMS is commonly used for the official personnel record after documents are processed. A missing document in one system may require a separate administrative correction rather than repeated searching in EES.

Handling Access Problems From Australia

Government systems may perform differently on Australian commercial internet connections, particularly when a soldier is working from accommodation, a shared office, or a base network with restrictive security settings. Use an approved device, browser, and connection, and follow local information-security rules.

Time differences can complicate returned evaluations and correction windows. A message sent from Canberra during an Australian morning may arrive during the previous evening in the United States, while daylight-saving changes do not occur uniformly across every Australian state and territory.

Keep copies of error messages, transaction dates, and support-ticket numbers without saving unnecessary personal information. If EES is unavailable, contact the appropriate unit administrator, S1, HR professional, or help desk rather than using commercial record-retrieval services.

Respecting Privacy and Record-Security Rules

Evaluation reports contain sensitive personnel information. The US Army’s access rules govern EES, while Australian privacy expectations still matter when records are viewed, stored, or discussed locally. The Privacy Act 1988 is a familiar Australian reference point for responsible handling of personal information, although it does not replace Army policy for military records.

Do not forward a rater’s profile, evaluation comments, or identifying details through personal email, consumer messaging apps, or an unsecured cloud drive. Australian workplaces often rely on everyday services such as personal phones and local file-sharing accounts, but convenience is not a reason to move protected records outside approved systems.

If you believe a report contains an error, discrimination, reprisal, or an improper rating action, use formal Army channels. A supervisor, legal assistance office, inspector general representative, or personnel support office can explain the available review process without requiring you to collect unauthorised records.

Practical Checks Before You Act

A disciplined review is easier when you separate factual verification from opinions about a rater’s leadership style. Record what the system shows, compare it with documents you are authorised to hold, and identify the exact correction or explanation you need.

The following checks can help keep the process accurate and secure:

• Confirm that you are viewing the correct evaluation, rated period, and rating chain.
• Record workflow status and submission dates using approved notes or systems.
• Review authorised profile information without seeking unrelated reports.
• Compare administrative fields with counselling records and duty documentation.
• Report access failures through the unit or official technical-support channel.
• Protect screenshots and downloaded documents as personnel information.

Using Official Guidance and Unit Support

Online explanations can help decode terms such as rater profile, senior-rater average, referred report, and evaluation entry. The site’s author information may help readers understand the general source of published guidance, but it does not establish Army policy.

For an official answer, ask the unit S1, G1, administrative officer, or designated evaluation point of contact. They can confirm current procedures, explain role-based permissions, and tell you whether a document should be corrected in EES, uploaded to iPERMS, or addressed through another process.

A careful review should leave you with a verified personal record, a clear understanding of any visible profile data, and a documented route for correcting genuine problems. It should never depend on accessing reports that the system has not authorised you to view.