Prohibited OER Comments

July 10, 2025

This article is meant to addressed prohibited OER comments and narratives in the Army. What can, and cannot, be written on an OER is explained in depth in AR 623-3, Chapter 3, available at this link.

To begin, any comments referencing/ratings based on actions outside of the rated time period are prohibited. If misconduct or performance issues occur before the rated time period, then an addendum can be added to the previous OER. If misconduct or performance issues occur after the rated time period, then the subsequent OER is the appropriate evaluation to note this issues. Furthermore, it does not matter when an investigation concludes; instead, regarding OERs, it matters when the conduct at hand occurred. For example, if an investigation into misconduct concludes in March of 2025 for misconduct that occurred in June of 2024, then it can only be referenced on evaluation reports covering June 2024, not March 2025. Any violation of these rules constitutes prohibited OER comments or narrative. The only exceptions are for substantiated EO/SHARP complaints and to note the reasons for a relief for cause OER (i.e. the relief is based on reasons from a previous rated time period).

Other prohibited OER comments and narratives include:

comments relating to conduct during non-rated time periods
abbreviations that are not in the ABCA database (authorized abbreviations, brevity codes, and acronyms) without spelling them out first
brief unqualified superlatives or phrases
bullet comments
underling
excessive use of capital letters
unnecessary quotation marks
repeated use of exclamation points
excessive spacing between words or double spacing
use of italics or bold text
compressed type
handwritten comments (very limited exceptions)
exaggerated margins
references to box checks not given (i.e. Officer would have been "Most Qualified" if profile supported OR Officer is "Most Qualified," if such box check was not given)
comments referencing race, color, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, or national origin
comments relating to any protected communications (i.e. an IG complaint) that were made
comments about spouse, partner, intimate partner, or marital status
any comments about participation in SUDDC, ASAP, or EBH, if self-referred, unless a positive comment
performance as a member of a Court-Martial or Selection Board
any comments relating to zealous representation at a Court-Martial or separation board by a JAG

Furthermore, prohibited OER comments include reference to unproven derogatory information. There should be no reference to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal). This also includes references to actions being taken, like a Court-Martial, unless that Court-Martial is completed. In these cases, the conduct itself can be referenced, but not the process (i.e. Court-Martial). If such a comment is made, and the Officer is later found not-guilty of the conduct in question at a Court-Martial or Article 15, then the comment should be removed. The only exception to this rule is regarding substantiated SHARP allegations. This rule also does not prevent verified derogatory information from being mentioned on an OER, even if an investigation is pending. The rating officials have discretion over what is "verified;" however, it is risky to mention allegations under investigation on an OER, as they might be unsubstantiated, resulting in corrections that need to be made to the OER.

Evaluation reports will not be delayed during an investigation/trial, unless the Officer in question has been removed and is in a suspended status.

If an Officer believes that his/her evaluation has prohibited OER comments or narratives, then he/she can challenge it. The first step should always be to seek a direct conversation with the rater and/or senior rater. If that fails, then a request for a Commander's Inquiry should be submitted, and then an OER Appeal. These needed to be submitted in a timely manner, and are explained in detail at this link.

Any negative comment or rating on an OER can result in promotion stagnation, and even the initiation of elimination/the start of the Board of Inquiry process, explained more at this link. Therefore, it is crucial to fight the OER early, as timing is crucial. While the on-post Legal Assistance Office is available to assist, they are often overworked, inexperienced, and unwilling to put the work in required to successfully challenge an OER. Officers can retain Civilian Counsel, which allows them to choose an experienced military lawyer with great former client reviews.

This Article was written by Attorney Matthew Barry. Attorney Barry is highly rated by former clients and has a proven track record of success. He has also dealt extensively with OER appeals in Army.

The Law Office of Matthew Barry represents Servicemembers and Veterans worldwide. He has offices on the East Coast, West Coast, and in the Central U.S.