2–1. Overview
This chapter governs the purpose and development of rating chains based on qualifications and special evaluation report requirements.
2–2. Fundamentals
a.
Commanders, commandants, and organization leaders will establish rating chains and publish rating schemes within their units or organizations in accordance with locally developed procedures and ARs. Rating schemes for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations) and below will be approved by the next higher commander, commandant, or organizational leader.
Established rating chains will correspond as nearly as practicable to the chain of command or supervision within a unit or organization, regardless of component or geographical location. Rating schemes will identify the name of the rated Soldier and the effective date for each of the rating officials (date on which the rating official assumed their role as the rating official for the rated Soldier).
Rating schemes will be published and made accessible, either manually or electronically, to each rated Soldier and each member of the rating chain. Any changes to a rating scheme will be published and distributed, as required. No changes may be retroactive.
b.
Pooling, or elevating the rating chain beyond the senior rater’s ability to have adequate knowledge of each Soldier’s performance and potential, in order to provide an elevated assessment protection for a specific group, runs counter to the intent of the Evaluation Reporting System and is prohibited.
Rating schemes created based on pooling erode Soldiers’ confidence in the fairness and equitable application of the Evaluation Reporting System and in their leaders. Senior raters must evaluate and identify their best Soldiers based on performance and potential, regardless of the particular position they occupy.
2–3. Rating chain information
a.
A rating chain is established by the commander, commandant, or leader of an organization and approved by the next higher commander, commandant, or leader of an organization for two-star level commands (or equivalent organizations). Once established and approved, rating chains are maintained by rating officials to provide the best evaluation of an individual Soldier’s performance and potential. A rating chain also ties the rated Soldier’s performance to a specific senior or subordinate relationship. This allows for proper counseling to develop the rated Soldier and accomplish the mission. These functions are normally best achieved within an organization’s chain of command or supervision.
b.
In the absence of a comprehensive published unit rating scheme (such as a duty position residing in the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and so on, or an organization fails to establish a rating scheme), the support form can serve as a means to notify the individual Soldier of who is serving as their rating officials.
c.
Generally, the evaluation of Soldiers by persons not involved in the chain of command or chain of supervision is inappropriate (see paras 2–19, 2–21, 3–46 and G–5).
d.
Special rules for designating rating officials are outlined to cover the death, missing status, relief, incapacitation, or suspension of a rating official (see para 2–19).
e.
Special rules governing the rating officials for officers under dual supervision; officers serving in the Chaplain’s Corps, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC), or the U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD); and professors of military science are addressed in paragraphs 2–21, 2–22, and 2–23.
f.
Specific rules by report include the following:
(1) DA Form 67–10 series rating chains.
(a)
These normally will consist of the rated officer, the rater, the senior rater, and in some instances, a supplementary reviewer. The senior rater will accomplish the final rating chain review. The rating officials must meet specific qualifications (see paras 2–5 through 2–8 and table 2–1).
(b)
For specialty branches (Chaplain Corps, JAGC, and AMEDD), dual supervisory situations, and/or situations in which the rater’s immediate supervisor would be the logical senior rater, but does not meet senior rater eligibility requirements as outlined in table 2–1 rated officer’s rating chain may involve another level of supervision, or dual supervision and assigned different duties by two qualified but separate chains of command or chains of supervision throughout the entire rating period. In these situations, an intermediate rater is designated as a technical expert in the chain of command between the rater and senior rater (see para 2–6).
(c)
For USAR troop program unit (TPU), drilling individual mobilization augmentee (DIMA), individual mobilization augmentee (IMA), and drilling Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) officers who conduct required training away from the host unit, the intermediate rater may be the rated officer’s supervisor at the training organization.
(d)
In some cases, a rated officer’s rating chain may have a qualified rating official or supervisor who serves as both rater and senior rater (see para 2–20).
(e)
Some cases exist when a supplementary review may be required for evaluations. In these cases, a uniformed Army advisor will be identified and included in the rating chain (see para 2–8a(2)).
(2) DA Form 2166–9 series rating chains.
(a)
These normally will consist of the rated NCO, the rater, the senior rater, and a supplementary reviewer as provided in paragraphs 2–15 through 2–18. The senior rater will accomplish the final rating chain review. The rating officials must meet specific qualifications (see paras 2–5, 2–7, 2–8, and table 2–1).
(b)
In some cases, a rated NCO’s rating chain may have a qualified rating official or supervisor who serves as both rater and senior rater (see para 2–20).
(c)
Some cases exist when a supplementary review may be required for evaluations. In these cases, a uniformed Army advisor will be identified and included in the rating chain (see para 2–8a(2)).
(d)
In most cases, NCOs will have one chain of command or supervision within a single organization. The NCO rating chains will not include an intermediate rater.
(3) DA Form 1059 series rating chains.
These rating chains will consist of the authorized rater and a reviewing official as designated by the commandant or appropriate civilian academic authority (see para 2–9).