Drafting a Strong OER in EES as a New Rater

Writing an Officer Evaluation Report for the first time can feel difficult because the process combines counseling, performance assessment, Army writing standards, and electronic routing. The Evaluation Entry System, commonly called EES, gives raters a structured place to enter and review the report, but the quality of the OER depends on the evidence and judgment behind each entry.

A new rater should treat EES as the final stage of an ongoing evaluation process rather than a blank form to complete at the end of the rating period. Counseling notes, duty expectations, measurable results, and regular feedback provide the foundation for a fair and defensible report.

Before starting, verify the current governing regulations, local command procedures, and rating chain requirements. General resources such as the EES Army guide can help explain related administrative processes, but official Army guidance and your unit’s instructions control when requirements differ.

Confirm the Rating Chain and Reporting Period

Begin by verifying that you are listed as the correct rater for the rated officer. Check the senior rater, intermediate rater if applicable, duty position, organization, and rating period. Errors in the rating chain can delay processing or require the report to be corrected and resubmitted.

Confirm the officer’s basic information before drafting narrative content. Rank, name, duty title, organization, and dates should match the official personnel information available to your unit. If the report is an annual, change-of-duty, departure, or other applicable evaluation, make sure the event and period type are accurate.

A new rater should also review the support form and initial counseling. These documents clarify responsibilities, priorities, developmental goals, and expected outcomes. They should guide the evaluation without limiting the rater to only the tasks listed at the beginning of the period.

Gather Evidence Before Opening the Form

Strong OER comments are based on observable behavior and results. Collect award recommendations, completed missions, inspection results, training outcomes, counseling records, professional development achievements, and feedback from appropriate leaders or stakeholders. Organize the information by major responsibility rather than copying disconnected accomplishments.

Look for the effect of the officer’s actions. “Managed training” is weaker than a statement explaining that the officer planned and executed training for a specific number of personnel, improved qualification results, or corrected a readiness shortfall. Facts make the evaluation clearer and help distinguish performance from general praise.

Keep the evidence balanced. A report should address both successful results and meaningful areas for development when appropriate. Avoid introducing a serious weakness for the first time in the final evaluation; performance concerns should ordinarily be discussed during counseling so the officer has an opportunity to respond and improve.

Complete Each EES Area Deliberately

Open the correct OER workflow in EES and work through the form in sequence. Save regularly, especially before moving between sections or attaching supporting information. If the system displays a missing field or validation warning, resolve it rather than trying to route an incomplete report.

The narrative should align with the applicable leadership attributes and competencies. Connect the officer’s conduct to areas such as character, presence, intellect, leads, develops, and achieves when those categories apply. Avoid forcing every comment into identical language; the report should reflect the individual’s actual duties and level of responsibility.

Use the performance and potential portions for different purposes. Performance describes what the officer did during the rated period and the quality of those results. Potential addresses readiness for increased responsibility, future development, and the level at which the officer may serve effectively. These judgments should be supported by the record, not by vague comparisons.

OER drafting area	What to verify	Useful evidence
Duty description	Responsibilities reflect the actual position	Mission requirements, duty position documents
Performance narrative	Results are specific and measurable	Readiness data, training results, completed missions
Attributes and competencies	Examples support the selected assessment	Counseling notes, observed leadership behavior
Potential assessment	Future capacity matches demonstrated performance	Scope of responsibility, developmental progress
Administrative data	Names, dates, ratings, and organization are correct	Official records and unit information

Write Clear and Defensible Comments

Effective OER writing usually follows a simple pattern: action, context, and result. Identify what the officer did, explain the scale or situation, and state why it mattered. This approach produces concise comments that a senior reviewer can understand without additional explanation.

Use active verbs and avoid inflated language. Words such as “led,” “planned,” “developed,” “synchronized,” “improved,” and “mentored” are useful when the evidence supports them. Replace broad statements like “excellent leader” with an example that demonstrates leadership and its effect on the team or mission.

Be precise when discussing development. A developmental recommendation should identify a realistic next step, such as broadening experience, improving a technical skill, pursuing a relevant course, or taking on a larger leadership assignment. For perspective on how evaluation language may be explained in a career setting, review this low NCOER explanation, while remembering that an OER and NCOER apply to different officer and noncommissioned officer evaluation processes.

Review the Draft Before Routing

Read the complete report as a single document rather than checking each box in isolation. The duty description, narrative comments, performance assessment, and potential assessment should tell a consistent story. A high assessment paired with weak or generic evidence may appear unsupported, while strong accomplishments paired with an overly negative assessment may require clarification.

Check grammar, spelling, rank abbreviations, dates, numbers, and pronouns. Remove personal opinions that are unrelated to duty performance, speculation about protected matters, and language that could be interpreted as retaliatory or discriminatory. Keep comments professional and focused on leadership, conduct, results, and development.

Give the rated officer the appropriate opportunity to review and discuss the report under current procedures. A disagreement does not automatically mean the rater must change an accurate assessment, but it can reveal unclear wording, missing context, or a factual error. Correct legitimate mistakes before the report moves forward.

Recommendations for a Reliable EES Workflow

A repeatable process helps a new rater avoid last-minute edits and administrative delays.

• Maintain brief, dated counseling and performance notes throughout the rating period.
• Match every major assessment to observable actions, outcomes, or documented feedback.
• Use plain, concise language instead of repeated superlatives.
• Review the entire rating chain and all administrative fields before routing.
• Save copies of permitted drafts and supporting records according to unit policy.

EES is an electronic submission tool, so technical readiness also matters. Use an approved computer and current access credentials, and address login or certificate issues early. If a CAC expires or access problems affect administrative tasks, consult CAC replacement guidance along with your installation’s official identification-card office.

A thoughtful OER draft gives the senior rater a reliable basis for review and gives the rated officer useful information for future development. Start gathering evidence early, draft from documented performance, and use EES to present a clear, accurate evaluation that can withstand administrative and professional review.