Using EES to view senior rater profile history

The U.S. Army Evaluation Entry System (EES) records and processes NCOERs, OERs and AERs. It is not the standard evaluation system for the Australian Defence Force, so Australian readers should first confirm that the soldier, sponsor or administrator has a legitimate U.S. Army connection. EES is a role-based work system, not a public database of Army personnel.

Historical profile data in EES generally means the prior evaluation history an authorised senior rater or reviewer may consult when preparing or checking an evaluation. Depending on permissions and the system version, it can show evaluation periods, forms, duty information, processing status and senior-rater comments. It is not automatically a complete military personnel file.

The direction of access matters. In common EES use, a senior rater opens the profile of a subordinate to understand earlier evaluations before writing the current report. A subordinate generally cannot browse their own senior rater’s confidential history merely because the report names that officer. Personal records and official copies instead follow Army personnel or evaluation-office channels.

A sound workflow is to sign in with the correct identity, confirm the reporting chain, open the authorised profile, filter by evaluation period, and record only what your role permits. For Australians working with U.S. units, access should be arranged through the named Army sponsor rather than borrowed credentials or an informal request.

Know which records EES can show

EES supports evaluation preparation, entry and review rather than unrestricted record browsing. An Evaluation Entry System overview explains the main functions and terminology used in the site’s guidance. NCOERs apply to noncommissioned officers, OERs to commissioned officers and AERs to warrant officers; each may appear in a senior rater’s authorised review set. The useful distinction is between what EES contains and which history the current user may lawfully view.

The profile view should be distinguished from IPERMS, where official personnel and evaluation documents are retained, and from a DD Form 214, which records separation information rather than a full appraisal history. Awards, disciplinary material and personnel actions are governed by separate access rules. Treat a profile as a working view that may contain fewer records than the authoritative personnel file.

Sign in and find the profile tools

Sign in through the approved EES portal using the credential and device required for the account, normally a Common Access Card or another issued access method. Shared workstations, borrowed identification and unapproved browser extensions create security and audit problems. An Australian-based administrator may need the Army sponsor to arrange account activation, role assignment and any security training before the profile option appears.

From the main menu, open Evaluation Entry and look for Senior Rater Profile, Rater Profile or a related profile-history option; labels differ with EES versions and permissions. The rating chain tool guide helps distinguish an immediate rater from a senior rater and shows why a person may have access to one history but not another. Select the soldier only from the authorised profile list, verify the organisation and reporting period, then open the available history. Do not treat a name search as permission to inspect another person’s record.

Review evaluation history by period

Once the profile opens, use the period, organisational and status filters to narrow the results. Sort the evaluations chronologically and check each form’s dates, duty position, review status and relationship to the current rating chain. Where access permits, the individual evaluation may reveal prior recommendations or senior-rater comments. A missing document can mean that it was never uploaded, belongs to another profile, remains restricted or was created under a different identifier; the filter alone cannot tell you which.

Good recordkeeping depends on a reliable date trail. A useful administrative analogy is an activity notice model used in Italy to record when productive activity begins: the dated entry creates an audit trail. The same discipline applies to an EES review. Note the evaluation period, form type, processing date and source for every relevant item, and do not infer a fact from a blank field. Keep working notes separate from the authorised record.

Protect access and Australian handling requirements

Profile information can contain personally identifiable information and, in some cases, controlled or sensitive evaluation material. Access it only for official duties, avoid unnecessary downloads and never circulate screenshots through personal email or consumer messaging apps. Australian Privacy Principles and Australian Defence security procedures may apply when an Australian organisation handles the material, while U.S. Army rules continue to govern access inside EES.

The organisational picture also matters. The Australian Defence Force does not use EES as its normal evaluation platform, and a service member based in Canberra, Brisbane or Adelaide will normally use Australian personnel channels unless assigned to a U.S. Army unit or expressly sponsored. Australian firms commonly connect payroll, identity and document services for their local market, but those platforms do not create EES access. In Australian workplace language, the requirement is to keep the paperwork watertight: a named sponsor, approved account and recorded authorisation matter more than informal local assistance.

Verify findings and resolve gaps

Verify every entry against the displayed evaluation and any official copy obtained through IPERMS or the evaluation office. Confirm whether a form is a draft, submitted, returned or final, and make sure names, periods and duty positions have not been confused with a similarly indexed record. If the profile is incomplete, revisit the filters and reporting period before treating the gap as evidence that no evaluation exists.

Access problems should be routed to the unit evaluation office, human resources representative or Army account administrator who can explain role assignment. Record discrepancies in the approved workflow rather than editing another user’s evaluation or creating a private substitute. EES access rules and the site’s general guidance are not an official determination of a soldier’s record status. The defensible outcome is an authorised, date-verified evaluation history with every unresolved discrepancy referred to the responsible Army evaluation office.