THE NEW OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORTING SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2013
• Sequence Number: 75
• Publication Date: April 24, 1963
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9 j_25
OFFIC RS' CALL
OFFICER
EFFICIENCY
REPORTING
SYSTEM
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
READ CAREFULLY REFERENCED SECTION IN AR 623-105 BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO FILL OUT ANY ITEM
PART I - PERSONAL DATA (Reed Section IV, AR 623-105)
S. BRANCH
6.INITIAL APMT
1. LAST NAME- FIRST NAME- MIDDLE INITIAL
12. SERVICE NUMBER
3. GRADE
4. DATE OF RANK
BASIC
DETAIL
YES
NO
7. UNIT, ORGANIZATION, STATION AND MAJOR COMMAND
PART II - REPORTING PERIOD AND DUTY DATA (Reed Sections IV end V. AR 623-105)
B. PERIOD COVERED
9. REASON FOR RENDERING REPORT (Check)
10 REPORT BASED ON (Check)
RATER
INDORSER
FROM
TO
ANNUAL
DAILY CONTACT
DAY
MONTH
YEAR
DAY
MONTH
YEAR
CHANGE OF RATER
FREQUENT OBSERVATION
PCS RATED OFFICER
INFREQUENT OBSERVATION
DUTY DAYS
OTHER DAYS
CHANGE OF DUTY FOR RATED OFFICER
RECORDS AND REPORTS
OTHER (Specify)
OTHER (Specify)
DUTY ASSIGNMENT FOR RATED PERIOD
11 PRINCIPAL DUTY 12. DUTY 13. AUTH
MOS GRADE
14MAJOR ADDITIONAL DUTIES
PART III MANNER OF PERFORMANCE (Read paragraph 210,AR 623-105)
IS. RATER
I6. INDORSER
I AM UNABLE TO EVALUATE THIS OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
D A I 7,-"16, 67-5
REPLACES DA FORMS 67-4, 1301 AND 1775 WHICH ARE OBSOLETE
EFFECTIVE 30 SEPTEMBER 1961.
US ARMY OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT
(AR 623-105)
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
P'ERFORMANCE COUNSELING
While the following discussion centers on thn required annual.
counseling session, (pare 2e, AR 623-105), the princin/es and techniques
are applicable in some degree to every counseling. situation.
Judging and guiding the performance, motivation and development
of another human being are perhaps the most critical aspects of the
complex funetion-called.leadership. Effective counseling is possible
only when the counselor's approach to his responsibility is firmly .
rooted in the traditional American conviction that each person is in-
herently important. This is not something that can be pretended it
must. be genuine.
The counselor must think about and plan the scope and contents of
each counseling session. He must be constructive in his correction and
guidance. Care mutt be taken not to leave any individual counseled
confused as to what is required and how the demised results can be
achieved. if he is -required to counsel 10 officers, there will be 10
distinct areas of. discussion -- although. he may have several points that
deserve emphasis in all 10 sessions. The counselor should insure that
he is familiar with the officer's career background and record by a
perusal of the officer's 201 file. Re should also know the officer's
duties and must have well in mind the standards or criteria for judging
the manner of performance of these duties.
A blank Efficiency Report form provides a good guide for the
discussion. For example, the counselor might review each section of the
form from the standpoint of "if I were preparing your Efficiency Report
today, this is probably how I would rate your performance.?
Each session should be scheduled well in advance, and the nfticer
informed of the exact time and place. This advance notice should advise
the officer to be prepared to discuss his duties in their order of
importance, his accomplishment6? what he is doing for professional im-
provement, and any other matter he may wish to bring up.
The atmosphere of the counseling session is largely a reflection of
the counselor's personality- and way of doing things. The only essential
tlement in all counseling is privaey. The fact that it is a formal session
does not necessarily mean that the discussion must be conducted in an
atmosphere of military formality.. Some counselors prefer a ?man-to-mane
approach. The experience and grade of the officer being counseled should
be taken into account in deciding such matters. Beyond this, there are
no hard and fast rules for effective counseling. The techniques of one
counselor are not necessarily the best for another. There are, however,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
several common elements that apply regardless of the manner chosen.
These are accuracy, firmnese, consistency and clarity of standards, and
balanced appraisal.
Accuracy. The counselor's criticism of the officer's performance
must be based upon facts. The individual may enter the session with a
different viewpoint on these facts, but there should be no doubt at the
outset that the counselor knows the facts. If his criticism seems to
the individual to be based upon a misunderstanding or misinterpretation
of the facts, the counseling session will accomplish nothing.
Firmness. The session can -- and usually should -- be an essentially
friendly conversation, even when the counselor is dealing with facts
that are in themselves unpleasant. Straightforward honesty in criticizing
the individual's performance is essential. Such criticism achieves its
purpose of pointing the way to improved performance only when the individual
is aware that this is the purpose of the criticism.
clarity of Usually the officer will
previously have been made aware of the standards by which his performance
is to be judged. The counselor should review those standards in order
to show how the officer's performance has failed to meet them. It is
extremely important that the standards discussed at the formal counseling
do not contradict any previous statements the officer has been given.
Ba._I_aced_xp_AsAar. Very few counseling sessions involve an
individual whose performance has been a failure in every respect. In his
preparation the counselor should look for facts that deserve praise as
well as those that deserve criticism. It Should be kept in mind, however,
that the primary purpose of counseling is improvement; praise should not
be regarded merely as a device to soften the pain of sharp criticism.
2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
IV
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
UNITED STATES ARMY
THE CHIEF OF STAFF
TO ALL OFFICERS AND WARRANT OFFICERS:
Beginning in September 1961, all officers and warrant officers
will be rated by means of an improved efficiency reporting system.
Several substantial changes, both in concept and procedure, justify
its being called a "new" system. At the same time, features of
proven value from the "old" system have been retained.
The effectiveness of any efficiency reporting system depends
in large measure upon the people who operate and are affected by it.
This, of course, means every officer in the Army. Under our system,
every officer is rated and sooner or later every officer is also a rater.
The new system will succeed in its important purposes to the degree
that all officers understand these purposes and support them by con-
scientious adherence to the basic concepts and prescribed procedures.
This OFFICERS' CALL is one means of promoting such under-
standing of and support for the new efficiency reporting system.
G. H. DECKER
General, United States Army
Chief of Staff
TAGO 10001A?Jun
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
THE NEW OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORTING SYSTEM
Why We Have Efficiency Reports
There may have been times in the Army's
history when the officer corps was small enough
for most officers to know each other personally
or by reputation. Senior officers could often
rely upon their memories in making important
personnel decisions. If they did not know per-
sonally the officers under consideration, chances
are a colleague would be able to furnish infor-
mation based on firsthand knowledge.
Even for an officer corps of a few thousand,
of course, such an informal and unstandardized
"efficiency reporting system," would be a hap-
hazard method of evaluating the performance
and abilities of individual officers. For a corps
of 100,000 officers, it would be completely un-
workable.
Today, almost all armies (as well as most
large business organizations) employ some
kind of standardized method of reporting and
recording information about duty performance
and personal characteristics of specified groups
of personnel. In our own Army the practice
of requiring an annual efficiency report on each
officer began early in this century. A standard
rating scale was first employed during World
War I.
The present Efficiency Report form, how-
ever, is a direct descendant of the first Form 67
adopted in the early 1920s. Form 67 remained
in effect for many years. It provided the first
Army-wide standards or "yardsticks" by which
all raters could assess the qualifications and
achievements of their officers. In "scoring" this
report, the rater chose the appropriate adjecti-
val rating from a group of five standard rat-
ings, ranging from "Unsatisfactory" to
"Superior." Later a revised Form 67 replaced
the adjectival ratings with a numerical scoring
procedure, but space was provided for raters
and indorsers to supplement the numerical
score with brief descriptive comments of their
own. Many raters continued to employ the
original adjectival ratings in their comments.
For example, when an officer received a score
above a particular level, the rater's comment
would be quite likely to describe him as a
"superior officer."
Form 67 was a useful document, but over
2
the years the gradual distortion in the meaning
of the adjectival ratings greatly reduced its
validity. In the last few years of Form 67,
almost all officers were receiving ratings that
put them in the "Superior" or "Excellent" cate-
gories. So far as the efficiency report was con-
cerned, genuinely outstanding officers were in-
distinguishable from those of lesser abilities.
Officers themselves could no longer estimate
how they stood in relation to their fellows. For
example a captain who consistently received
"Excellent" ratings might actually be the most
(or least) effective of all those who received
the same rating; but he had no way of knowing
this important fact. Nor could his rater know
it, nor the Army as a whole. His "Excellent"
rating had lost the meaning originally intended
for it; it had declined to something like "Same
as Most Officers."
In 1947 DA Form 67-1 was issued as the
main instrument of a greatly revised efficiency
reporting system. The new form featured a
series of multiple choice sections; raters and
indorsers were required to choose the most ap-
propriate descriptive phrases from the list.
This "forced choice" feature was not popular.
Raters complained that in many cases none of
the listed phrases adequately described the
rated officer. Even less popular was the fea-
ture that prevented raters and indorsers from
knowing whether they were giving high or low
ratings. Form 67-1 was designed to elicit their
objective judgment without regard to whether
that judgment might result in a high or a low
rating. Based on the descriptive data furnished
by raters and indorsers, the Department of the
Army arrived at the numerical scores for each
officer. This report for the first time used a
method of translating the actual or raw nu-
merical scores into index or relative scores on
a standard scale.
In 1950, the adoption of DA Form 67-2
eliminated the unpopular "forced choice"
items from the system. In 1952, DA Form 67-3
introduced several additional changes of con-
cept and method, but the main features were
retained. DA Form 67-4, adopted in 1956, fur-
ther modified the report form without substan-
tially changing the system. It can be said,
therefore, that for more than 10 years no sub-
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
stantial changes were made in the basic
methods of efficiency reporting.
Why A New System Was Needed
When the validity or acceptability of any
system becomes questionable because of chang-
ing conditions, the system must be brought up
to date. The efficiency rating system has been
revised to make it a more effective and mean-
ingful instrument of personnel management.
Evaluation reporting, like all Army person-
nel procedures, is always under close study. The
desirable (and sometimes undesirable) effects
of various changes in the system are followed
closely. Each rating cycle produces a great
body of statistical and other information that
verifies the soundness of certain concepts and
procedures, or points to needed modifications.
For the past several years evidence has been
growing that the efficiency reporting system
was in need of substantial change. In the two
extremely important qualities of validity and
acceptability, the system was losing ground and
not accomplishing its purpose.
In 1958 work began on the development of
a reporting form and philosophy in keeping
with present-day requirements. The revised
form will be instituted beginning with the
annual rating cycle in September 1961. The
revised system is based upon extensive studies
over the past three years. Among the inde-
pendent or related studies, the following were
typical:
? 60 Regular Army colonels of broad ex-
perience analyzed 19,000 efficiency report files
and recommended changes both in the report
form, and in the policies and concepts of the
system.
? A subpanel of the Army Scientific Ad-
visory Council evaluated the Army system in
comparison with systems used in large civilian
organizations.
? The principal "users" of efficiency reports
at Department of the Army?the Officer As-
signment Directorate, the career branches, The
Adjutant General's Office, and the Special Re-
view Board of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel?contributed findings and recom-
mendations for revision of the system.
? Studies were made of the systems used by
AGO 10001A
the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and
the forces of Great Britain, Canada, and
Germany.
? In a field test, more than 5,000 efficiency
reports?incorporating four variations of basic
evaluation concepts?were completed and care-
fully analyzed.
? These and other studies helped to deter-
mine the strengths and weaknesses of the exist-
ing system, and to point the way toward needed
revision.
The New System Is Partly Old
Before examining the new system in detail,
it may be helpful to review certain existing
concepts and procedures that will be continued
?unchanged or with minor adaptation?in the
new system.
? Every officer will be rated at least
annually.
? The rating cycle will be phased by grade
beginning with warrant officer and
lieutenant.
? There will be three rating officials?
rater, indorser, reviewer.
? The same report form (DA Form 67-5)
will be used for all officers (including
warrant officers).
? Efficiency reporting will continue to be
an instrument of centralized personnel
management; evaluation of officers is a
function separate from?though natu-
rally related to?the function of coun-
seling.
? Officers will be rated both for perform-
ance during the rating period and for
their estimated potential?but the new
system more clearly separates these two
evaluations.
? Raters and indorsers will continue to
make their evaluations independently?
but will be required to give particular
explanation for each unusually high or
low rating.
? Department of the Army will continue
to check reports for administrative error
and return them to the field for correc-
tion.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
The New Features
The new Efficiency Report (DA Form 67-5),
which will be examined in some detail later in
this pamphlet, differs in several important re-
spects from its predecessor. Some of these
physical differences reflect significant changes
both in the concepts and the procedures of the
efficiency reporting system. It will be helpful
to consider these changes before turning to the
basic instrument itself.
A new scoring method. For more than 10
years the Army has employed a standard scale
or index in the scoring of efficiency reports.
Each year the actual or raw scores of all offi-
cers have been averaged and the Army-wide
average score has been assigned a value of 100
on a standard scale of 51 to 150. All raw scores
have then been converted to appropriate index
numbers on this standard scale. This converted
score has constituted each officer's Annual
Efficiency Index (or AEI) . His Overall Effi-
ciency Index (or OEI) has been computed by
averaging his seven most recent AEIs. In the
new system, the rated officer's actual or raw
score becomes the score of record. It will not
be converted to an index number on a standard
scale. Furthermore, the rater and indorser
will compute and enter this score on the effi-
ciency report. In the former system, the
Department of the Army determined the nu-
merical raw score from the data entered in the
scored sections by the rater and indorser.
To facilitate analysis of an individual's
record, an annual numerical score will be used
as the score of record. When only one report
is rendered on an officer in a year, the com-
posite score of his report is also his annual
score. However, most officers receive more
than one efficiency report during a year. Their
annual scores are determined by the method
shown below. Consideration is given to the
number of duty days covered by each report, on
the premise that a report covering a long
period is more significant than one covering a
short period.
How the Annual Score is Derived From Two Reports
in 1 Year
Composite
Score
Number of
Duty Days
1st Report
145
multiplied by
240
=34,800
2nd Report
160
multiplied by
90
=14,400
Totals
330
49,200
4
ANNUAL SCORE: (49,200 divided by
330) 149. The same method yields the
annual score for more than two reports
in a year.
The rated officer is not shown his report.
For several years the showing of efficiency
reports to rated officers at the time of rating
has been a matter of local option. Mandatory
showing of the report was in effect during one
earlier period. It has been found that of the
relatively few raters who elect to show reports
to officers at rating time, many have tended
(mistakenly) to regard this practice as an
aspect of their counseling responsibility. In
the new system, mandatory counseling well in
advance of the rating period is prescribed.
This requirement, together with specific safe-
guards against rater bias, has made it possible
to discontinue even optional showing of reports
to rated officers. Under the new policy officers
will not see their reports at rating time. This
policy does not alter in any way the existing
policy under which any officer may personally
examine his 201 file at Department of the
Army, or deputize another officer to do so.
Special requirements for award of the high-
est or lowest rating. Unwarranted rater
leniency harms both the validity and accept-
ability of an efficiency reporting system. Un-
warranted rater severity, besides working an
injustice on the rated officer, is equally harm-
ful to the system as a whole. As a safeguard
against both of these influences, the new pro-
cedures require raters and indorsers to furnish
specific factual support for each award?of the
highest or lowest numerical rating. This re-
quirement is explained more fully below.
Increased role of the reviewing officer. For a
number of years the reviewing officer has been
an important link in the efficiency reporting
system. In the new system his functions are
both broader and more clearly defined than
before. He serves, in effect, as the initial
screening agency for Department of the Army,
and has been accorded some of the procedural
authority that formerly was exercised only
after the efficiency reports had reached
Washington for analysis. The reviewer's sig-
nature on an efficiency report is intended to
affirm that the report contains no unexplained
or unsupported evaluations. In every case the
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
reviewer is required to insure that proper
rater-indorser channels have been observed. In
any "unusual" case he is empowered to take
any of several specified actions to assure the
accuracy and objectiveness of the report. If a
rating is unusually high or low, the reviewer
makes sure that the report contains adequate
explanatory support of the rating. If the rater
and indorser differ markedly in their evalua-
tion, the reviewer must assure himself that the
report reflects the honest views of both. Be-
sides carefully inquiring into the circumstances
of such a report, he may require the rater and
indorser to prepare further clarifying com-
ments for attachment to the report. If he
believes that his own view and findings are
essential to a clear picture, he may attach his
own remarks (including his narrative evalua-
tion of the rated officer) to the report. The
reviewing officer has considerable latitude in
the choice of appropriate actions; but his pri-
mary objective is to assure that the interests
of rated officers and of the Army are upheld.
In the great majority of cases this purpose is
served when he is satisfied that a report is
accurate and objective. His responsibility be-
comes a more critical one whenever he must
deal with an "unusual" report--one that con-
tains the highest or lowest rating; or that lacks
sufficient supporting facts for such a rating; or
that show wide divergence between the rater's
and indorser's evaluations.
Mandatory Counseling. The new regulations
on efficiency reporting (AR 623405) em-
phasize that the rater's counseling respon-
sibilities are distinct from (though related to)
his rating responsibilities. To assure that this
distinction will be observed in practice, the
regulations now prescribe a formal counseling
session for each rated officer about 4 months
before his efficiency report is prepared. This
formal session, consisting of an overall ap-
praisal of the officer's performance, is in turn
considered to be distinct from any informal or
special counseling that the rater is expected
to perform as needed during the period covered
by the efficiency report. The requirement for a
formal counseling session well in advance of
rating time is intended to underline the im-
portant difference in purpose between counsel-
ing and efficiency reporting. The purpose of
counseling is to advise (sometimes to admonish
AGO 10001A
or praise) the officer, to encourage his maxi-
mum self-improvement and development, to
help him improve his performance. The pur-
pose of efficiency reporting is to present an
objective evaluation of the officer's performance
and to estimate his potential for professional
growth and improvement. Both counseling and
efficiency reporting are more effectively per-
formed when all concerned have a clear under-
standing of the important distinction between
these separate but complementary aspects of
leadership.
Greater Emphasis Upon Performance of
Current Duty. In earlier efficiency reporting
systems, raters and indorsers were required to
attempt an evaluation of the man rather than
an appraisal of his manner of performance.
The new system changes the emphasis from a
description of the rated officer to an evaluation
of measurable demonstrated performance of
duties during the rated period. While the in-
dividual's potential value to the Army is un-
questionably important, it is difficult to
measure and can probably be estimated most
accurately by his actual performance of all
assigned duties over an extended period.
Factual data and specific instances provide a
sound basis for measurement and permit an
accurate and objective appraisal to be made.
U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report?
DA Form 67-5
The new Efficiency Report, reproduced in
sections below (and in full on the inside front
and back covers) is a 2-page, 8- by 10-inch
form. In the following part-by-part examina-
tion of its contents, principal attention is given
to those concepts and procedures that have
resulted in major revision of the format and
substance of the report form.
Parts I and II are self-explanatory, and are
substantially same as sections I and II of DA
Form 67-4.
Part III?Manner of Performance
The corresponding section of DA Form 67-4
was headed "Description of Rated Officer and
Comments." The new designation is signi-
ficant?the rater and indorser are no longer
asked to "describe the officer," but rather to
describe and evaluate his performance. The
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
READ CAREFULLY REFERENCED SECTION IN AR 623-105 BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO FILL OUT ANY ITEM
PART I- PERSONAL DATA (Read Section IV, AR 623-105)
S. BRANCH
6.INITIAL APMT
I. LAST NAME- FIRST NAME- MIDDLE INITIAL
2. SERVICE NUMBER 13. GRADE
4. DATE OF RANK
BASIC
DETAIL
YES
NO
7. UNIT, ORGANIZATION, STATION AND MAJOR COMMAND
PART II- REPORTING PERIOD AND DUTY DATA (Read Sections IV and V. AR 613-105)
a. PERIOD COVERED
9. REASON FOR RENDERING REPORT (Check)
10. REPORT BASED ON (Check)
RATER
INDORSER
FROM J
TO
ANNUAL
DAILY CONTACT
DAY
MONTH
YEAR
DAY
MONTH
YEAR
CHANGE OF RATER
FREQUENT OBSERVATION
PCS RATED OFFICER
INFREQUENT OBSERVATION
DUTY DAYS
OTHER DAYS
CHANGE OF DUTY FOR RATED OFFICER
RECORDS AND REPORTS
OTHER (Specify)
OTHER (Specify)
DUTY ASSIGNMENT FOR RATED PERIOD
II. PRINCIPAL DUTY 12. DUTY IS. AUTH
MOS GRADE
14. MAJOR ADDITIONAL DUTIES
PART III - MANNER OF PERFORMANCE (Read paragraph 21c. AR 613405)
IS. RATER
16. INDORSER
I AN UNABLE TO EVALUATE THIS OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
6
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
new requirement becomes even clearer when it
is noted that this section no longer contains an
instruction specifically asking for comments
about "strengths, weaknesses, behavior, per-
sonality, character or other qualities which
distinguish this officer." The new regulations
emphasize, in fact, that part III is not the
proper place for comments concerning qualities
of character; the new part IV covers this kind
of information.
Part III is still designed to contain the
rater's and indorser's "word picture"?but
with emphasis upon manner of performance,
described by means of facts and instances
rather than by generalizations or adjectival
phrases. All entries in this part should be care-
fully and conscientiously prepared for the pri-
mary purpose of describing the manner of
performance so as to convey an accurate and
objective impression to persons and agencies
using the report. From their viewpoint the
entire efficiency report is a substitute for per-
sonal knowledge of the officer and his perform-
ance; part III in particular is intended to give
them a "personal" look at the rated officer's
performance.
The rater's or indorser's writing ability is
not intended to decide the fate of the rated
officer. Entries in part III are required merely
to be concise and factual, rather than literary
gems. Obvious padding with unsupported
general impressions and opinions should be
avoided; but too brief a description is also un-
desirable. The example given below should not
be regarded as a typical or model description,
since each description of an individual's per-
formance should be based only on the rater's
and indorser's personal knowledge and judg-
ment. The example is a "good" one because it
deals mainly with observed facts of duty per-
formance, and the rater's personal impressions
are closely related to the recorded facts. It
should be remembered also that these facts and
judgments, in an actual report, would be ex-
pected to support (and be supported by) re-
lated entries in the scored sections of the
report.
Example: "Lieutenant White's performance
of duty as troop leader has been more accept-
AGO 10001A
able than his performance of administrative or
logistical duties. His medium tank platoon
compares favorably with the other two, having
ranked 1st in tank gunnery, 2d in platoon tests,
and 3d in individual training proficiency tests.
In the weekly training and maintenance in-
spections, his platoon was usually 3d (but
occasionally 2d) in administration. As a troop
leader he sets a fine example by his physical
vigor, appearance, and fitness. On one occasion
I had to remind him of the importance of shar-
ing with his men certain discomforts and hard-
ships incident to field training. After that time
I noted a marked improvement in this respect.
As company supply officer he tends to accept
statements of subordinates without sufficient
checking and other supervision. This has re-
sulted in minor deficiencies in company supply
records on several occasions. In three in-
stances, needed clothing and equipment was
not on hand, and the failure was clearly
attributable to the tendency described above.
Lieutenant White is a fine troop instructor, and
was particularly effective as instructor of map
reading at the battalion officer's school. He is
very effective in his verbal instructions to his
platoon, but I have had no occasion to judge
his ability to express himself in writing."
Whenever the rater or indorser awards (in
the column headed Overall Demonstrated Per-
formance in part VI) a score denoting a rating
of Outstanding, Exceptional, Marginal, or In-
adequate, part III takes on additional impor-
tance. The reviewing officer must, in every
such instance, make certain that the high or low
rating is fully justified and supported in part
III by factual information specifically related
to the score awarded in part VI. As already
mentioned, he may ask the rater or indorser
(or both) to furnish additional comment sup-
porting their rating, for attachment to the
report. He may take similar action when the
rater's and indorser's comments in part III
contradict each other, or one or both of their
ratings awarded in part VI are inconsistent
with the facts furnished in part III. Thus the
new system features more specific and manda-
tory correlation of parts III and VI than was
formerly required. These two key sections are
intended to be carefully checked one against
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
RATED OFFICERS NAME AND SERVICE NUMBER ?
PART IV- PERSONAL QUALITIES (Reed paragraph 2Id, AR 623-10S)
LEGEND
DEGREE
INADEQUATE MARGINAL BELOW AVERAGE AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE EXEMPLARY
NUMBER
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5
RATER
INDORSER
gi. ADAPTABILITY (Adjusts to new or changing situations & stresses; bears up under preaaure)
.
.
.
.
S. AMBITION (Seeks and welcomes additional and more important responsibilities)
.
.
C. APPEARANCE (Possesses military bearing and Is neat, smart, and well-groomed)
. .
.
d. COOPERATION (Works in harmony with others as a team member)
.
.
e. DEPENDABILITY (Consistently accomplishes desired actions with minimum supervision)
.
.
1. ENTHUSIASM (Motivates others by his zeal)
.
.
g. EXPRESSION (Expresses himself clearly and concisely both orally and in writing)
?
.
.
h. FORCE (Executes actions vigorously)
?
.
.
t, INGENUITY (Finds solutions to problems regardless of obstacles)
.
.
I. INITIATIVE (Takes necessary and appropriate action on hie own)
.
.
k. INTELLIGENCE (Acquires knowledge and grasps concepts readily)
.
.
1. JUDGEMENT (Thinks logically and makes practical deciaions)
.
.
m. LOYALTY (Renders faithful and willing support to auperiora and aubordinates)
.
.
n. MORAL COURAGE (Intellectual honesty, willingness to stand up and be counted)
.
.
o. SELF-DISCIPLINE (Conducts himself in accordance with accepted standards)
.
.
p. SELF-IMPROVEMENT (Takes action to improve himself)
.
?
O. SOCIABILITY (Participates freely and easily in social and community activities)
.
?
r. STAMINA (Performs successfully under protracted physical and mental stress)
?
?
s. TACT (Says or does whet is appropriate without giving unnecessary offense)
?
?
t. UNDERSTANDING (Appreciation of mother persona viewpoint)
.111...... SCORE
the other?by the rater and indorser, then by
the reviewing officer, and finally by the Depart-
ment of the Army. Contradictory or incon-
sistent entries in the other parts of the report
are- of course undesirable, but in these two
sections such entries are not likely to survive
the screening procedures undetected.
Part IV?Personal Qualities
This part is comparable to Section V of DA
Form 67-4, which was entitled Traits,
Qualities, and Characteristics. But the new
part IV covers a wider range of personal
qualities, and expresses them in more specific
terms, in contrast to the general and somewhat
subjective phrases formerly used. The paren-
thetical entries after each quality are intended
to assure that raters and indorsers will base
their evaluation on a uniform understanding
of the exact meaning of the listed qualities.
While part IV is one of the two scored sec-
tions of DA Form 67-5, the comparatively low
value assigned to its contents deserves corn-
8
ment. The fact that listed personal qualities
are scored in tenths rather than whole numbers
in no way implies that these qualities are re-
garded as unimportant. The low scoring weight
is simply based on the recognition that assess-
ment of personal qualities is inherently a sub-
jective process in which opinion is necessarily
the main basis for the rating. The rater begins
with his own personal conceptions of the mean-
ing of the listed qualities, and applies those
conceptions to his evaluation of the rated
officer. Rater differences are therefore bound
to be greater in this area than in the sections
which call for factual information. The per-
sonal qualities of an officer are an essential
element of his value to the service, and there-
fore belong in any overall evaluation. But in
the interest of fairness and valid appraisal, the
scoring of personal qualities is designed to
have the smallest effect on the total numerical
score. An additional safeguard, of course, lies
in the fact that the requirement for con-
sistency of ratings, already discussed, applies
also to this section of the report. An unusually
high or low score in part IV is normally ex-
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14 : CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
PART V? APPRAISAL OF QUALIFICATIONS
-
(Read paragraph 21e, AR 623-105)
DUTIES
RATER
INDORSER
A. COMMAND A TACTICAL UNIT
IS COMO NON-TACTICAL UNIT
C. STAFF
-
UNIT (U)
a GENERAL (G)
OR
a JOINT (J)
PERSONNEL
( )
(
)
INTEL.
( )
(
)
OPERATIONS
( )
(
)
LOGISTICS
( )
(
)
R 6 0
( )
(
)
COMPT
( )
(
)
d. SPECIAL STAFF
- RATER (Specify)
- INDORSER (Specify)
e. SPECIALIST
- RATER (Specify)
INDORSER (Specify)
_ f. WITH OTHER US FORCES
OR AGENCIES
a ? WITH FOREIGN FORCES
OR GOVERNMENTS
? INSTRUCTOR
WITH RESERVE COMPONENTS
pected to be clearly consistent with the evalua-
tions in part III and part VI. Marked dis-
crepancy in this respect would certainly be
noticed by the reviewing officer or in the re-
viewing procedures at Department of the
Army.
Part V?Appraisal of Qualifications
This corresponds to Section IV, Estimated
Performance of Other Duties, of DA Form
67-4. The new version, however, is consider-
ably more specific in the kind of data it covers.
The entries made in this section have no nu-
merical value in the computing of the rated
officer's score in part VII. On the old form,
evaluation of estimated performance was ac-
complished by use of a 5-step scale ranging
from satisfactory to outstanding. On the new
form, raters and indorsers are not required to
characterize their estimates so precisely. They
are required only to select at least four of the
kinds of duty listed, and to designate (by num-
bers from 1 to 4 or more, in order of priority)
those in which the rated officer is believed most
likely to perform successfully. The degree of
probable effectiveness is consequently only a
relative evaluation, limited to the duties se-
lected. In short, part V is for indicating what
the rated officer is believed capable of doing
effectively, in varying degrees. However,
raters or indorsers may enter L (for limited)
after any duty area to indicate that the rated
officer might be handicapped in performance of
this duty because of particular circumstances.
When the designation L is used it must be sup-
ported by brief explanation in part III.
The parentheses in the rater and indorser
columns of part V are for entering the letters
U, G, or J, to indicate that the staff abilities of
the rated officer are best suited for duties at
the unit, general, or joint staff level. For ex-
ample in the case of an officer considered to
be especially qualified for logistics staff assign-
ments below the level of commands having a
general staff, a proper entry opposite Logistics
might be 1(U).
PART VI ? OVERALL DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE AND ESTIMATED POTENTIAL (Read paragraphs 211 and 21g. AR 623-105)
RATING
EXPECTED DISTRIBUTION OF ISO OFFICERS RATED
OVERALL DEMONSTRATED
PERFORMANCE
(1)
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
(2)
RATER
VALUE
INDORSER
RATER
VALUE
INDORSER
.I. OUTSTANDING
I
?
100
?
10
b. EXCEPTIONAL
it
*
90
?
9
c. SUPERIOR
Mt
.80
8
iiitiftlititi
70
7
d. EXCELLENT
illtittilittliittliffitilitti I
60
6
ittitillittilittlitiMlittiti
50
5
e. EFFECTIVE
iffittittnit
40
4
II/I
)
30
3
I. MARGINAL
I/
?
20
2
t INADEQUATE
I
?
10
?
1
SCORE
k.
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Under d. Special Staff, and e. Specialist,
raters and indorsers are asked to indicate the
kind of special staff assignment or specialist
field for which they enter an appraisal.
Part VI?Overall Demonstrated Performance
and Estimated Potential
This section has no single counterpart in DA
Form 67-4. Instead it comprises elements of
the old Sections VI, Performance of Present
Duty, and Section VIII, Overall Value to the
Service?Section VII of the old form was headed
Promotion Potential. Form 67-5 contains no
items specifically related to promotion poten-
tial. The Efficiency Report as a whole is in-
tended to provide such an estimate.
For the first time in many years, actual
scores are determined by raters and indorsers
and entered on the report. Except for the small
scoring weight yielded by part IV, the rated
officer's score is determined by the rater's and
indorser's entries in part VI. None of the other
parts of the report affect the numerical score.
The division of part VI into the two sections
headed (1) Overall Demonstrated Perform-
ance and (2) Estimated Potential is significant.
It is a reminder that the main purpose of the
report is to evaluate demonstrated perform-
ance during the rated period. This is empha-
sized by the relatively higher scoring weight
given to the ratings under demonstrated
performance, compared to the ratings under
estimated potential.
As already explained above in the discussion
of part III, award of the highest or lowest
rating in part VI (under Overall Demonstrated
Performance) requires specific justification in
part III. This requirement applies specifically
to the score of 90 or 100 on lines a or b, and
scores of 10 or 20 on lines f or g. This require-
ment does not apply to ratings awarded under
Estimated Potential.
Reviewing officers and the Department of
the Army will of course compare the ratings in
part VI with all other substantial parts of the
report, to assure that the numerical ratings
are consistent with the evaluations awarded in
10
the other portions, including those parts which
do not affect the numerical score.
The graphic representation under "Expected
Distribution of 100 Officers Rated" is a new
item. Every officer should clearly understand
why it appears on the report. The most im-
portant point to remember is that it shows the
expected distribution of ratings, per 100
officers, for the Officer Corps as a whole. In a
particular command or particular group of
officers, a quite different distribution of ratings
would not necessarily indicate that the ratings
are higher or lower than they should be. Raters
and indorsers are particularly cautioned
against using this diagram as a rigid standard,
in the mistaken belief that this is the proper
distribution for every 100 ratings they award.
The proper use of the diagram is rather to
enable raters and indorsers to evaluate their
rating patterns and tendencies over a period of
time. They should always bear in mind that
the expected distribution pattern cannot be
validly related to the small number of officers
rated by them in a single rating cycle, nor to
the ratings awarded to specific officers of a
given command at a particular time. In short,
the expected distribution is an Army-wide
statistical or "actuarial" concept and is valid
?
only in that context.
The 6 adjectival ratings in the left-hand
column of part VI are defined for efficiency re-
porting use in AR 623-105. These adjectives
are not exactly matched with those used in the
corresponding steps of part IV. The inten-
tional variance emphasizes the distinction
between the subjective evaluations of personal
qualities contained in part IV and the objective
assessment of demonstrated performance that
is the major element of part VI.
PART VII - NUMERICAL VALUE
(Read paragraph 21h, AR 623-105)
(Scores to be entered by rater and indorser,
and verified by a personnel officer)
SCORES
RATER
INDORSER
PART IV
PART VI (1)
PART VI (2)
TOTAL
COMPOSITE SCORE
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
PART VIII - AUTHENTICATION (Read paragraph 211, AR 623-105)
17. SIGNATURE OF RATER
DATE
TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT
18. SIGNATURE OF INDORSER
DATE
TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT
19. REVIEWER (Read Section VI, AR 623-105) MY REVIEW
INDICATES NO FURTHER ACTION n RESULTS IN ACTION STATED ON CONTINUATION SHEET
SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND
DUTY ASSIGNMENT
DATE
20.
THIS REPORT HAS
INCLOSURES. (Insert .0" if appropriate)
21. DATE ENTERED ON DA FORM ER
22. PERSONNEL OFFICERS INITIALS
Part VII?Numerical Score
The rater and indorser enter here the scores
they have awarded in parts IV and VI, and
total them. The sum of their respective total
scores becomes the composite score. Once again
it is emphasized that part IV yields a maxi-
mum of 20; scores below the maximum are
likely to contain whole numbers and tenths?
such as 17.2, 11.3, 13.8.
Part VIII is self-explanatory, and consists
of items corresponding to portions of section
III in DA Form 67-4. Item 21 (same as item
20 in DA Form 67-4) is sometimes misinter-
preted. It requires the personnel officer to enter
the date that the record entry was made on
the officer's DA Form 66. Regulations prohibit
entry of numerical scores or other efficiency
report data on field copies of DA Form 66.
What Happens to the 0E1?
The Overall Efficiency Index (OE') is a 7-
year average of Annual Efficiency Index
(AEI) scores. Since there will no longer be an
AEI, no new OEI will be computed. The "old"
or most recent OEI, however, will continue for
a time to be ONE of a- number of personnel
management factors for use in connection with
certain personnel actions. Each new annual
rating under the new system will decrease the
significance of the OEI, since the most recent
information will be given the greatest weight.
Eventually the accumulation of annual ratings
under the new system will be sufficient to per-
AGO 10001A
mit dropping the OEI entirely as a factor in
personnel actions.
The significance and uses of the OEI are
often misunderstood. The OEI was (and will
be until it is dropped from the system) useful
only as a broad screening device. In important
personnel decisions such as selection for pro-
motion or for higher service schooling, the OEI
provided a ready means of screening records
for further and more detailed consideration.
It also proved useful as a basis for qualitative
distribution of officers among the major com-
mands. But as a comparative measure of in-
dividual efficiency the OEI has meaning only
when it is related to other information in the
officer's file.
How Extensively Are Efficiency Reports
Reviewed by Department of the Army?
It is recognized that even with the increased
role to be performed by command-level review-
ing officers, some efficiency reports will contain
administrative errors as well as more serious
irregularities. Consequently one of the im-
portant procedures being retained consists of
a carefully managed system of reviewing effi-
ciency reports after they reach Department of
the Army. The purely administrative errors are
corrected by returning faulty reports to the
initiating command for resubmission.
In order to detect and correct the more sub-
stantial errors, long-standing procedures will
continue to be used in screening and reviewing
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
11
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
all incoming efficiency reports. These pro-
cedures are as follows:
? In the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel (DCSPER) every efficiency re-
port is reviewed by the appropriate Career
Division before it is placed in the officer's
branch file. If this review discloses significant
variance (either in scoring or other reporting
factors) with the officer's past reports, his file
is "flagged" to indicate that his subsequent re-
ports are to be given particularly careful
scrutiny in relation to the questioned report. .
In most cases no further action is taken solely
on the basis of the first or most recent report.
The careful monitoring of several subsequent
reports generally determines whether the
earlier doubtful report was an exception to the
officer's usual pattern of performance, or the
first of several valid reports reflecting a new
efficiency trend on his part.
? However, when a single report appears to
be so untypical as to suggest a significant lack
of validity, it is forwarded along with the
officer's entire 201 file to a Special Review
Board of DCSPER. This also is done when
several successive reports indicate the possible
invalidity of a particular earlier report.
? The Special Review Board, a full-time ac-
tivity, consists of senior officers of broad pro-
fessional experience. If the board finds sub-
stantial grounds for doubting the validity of
an efficiency report, it may recommend that the
entire report or specified parts of it be voided
and withdrawn.
? Besides reviewing reports referred to it by
the Career Divisions of DCSPER, the Special
Review Board reviews reports upon request by
The Adjutant General and, in certain cases, by
the rated officers themselves.
These reviewing procedures are automatic?
the rated officer does not have to initiate them.
He may do so, however, if he believes that his
efficiency report does not fairly or accurately
evaluate his performance, personal qualities, or
other substantial efficiency factors. Such a re-
quest is advisable only if he can provide sub-
stantial evidence in support of his belief. A
request that merely alleges an unjust rating
is not substantial evidence. Not even a sharp
12
drop in numerical score is considered, by itself,
to be grounds for Review Board attention.
Fluctuations in scores are to be expected?it is
the reasons for the fluctuation that interest re-
viewing authorities. If such reasons, in the
form of substantive fact, cannot be given by
the rated officer a request for review is neither
necessary nor desirable. The automatic review-
ing procedures described above are quite likely
to detect and rectify actual injustices or other
adverse aspects of his efficiency reports. A re-
quest for review which lacks the required
evidence to support a claim of bias or injustice
could actually work to the officer's disadvan-
tage, since the request becomes part of his
overall file, available to the Review Board and
other personnel action agencies.
The Officer and the System
The new efficiency reporting system directly
affects the career of every officer; in the long
run every officer also affects the validity and
acceptability of the system. Newly commis-
sioned officers usually are not raters, but quite
early in their career this important respon-
sibility begins, and continues more or less
regularly through the years. All officers are
rated, and most officers are raters, or indorsers,
or both.
Every objectively accurate efficiency report
contributes to the validity of the system; every
report that is less than objectively accurate re-
duces the validity of the system. This implies
that all officers and raters have a relatively
similar set of standards with which to judge
performance of duty. It follows that the rater
or indorser who departs from the principle of
objectivity, intentionally or otherwise, affects
not only the rated officer but himself as well.
Rater leniency and rater severity are equally
undesirable when not justified by the facts. An
unusually high rating is not a lenient one if it
is deserved; nor is the lowest rating necessarily
an example of rater severity. In every case the
validity of an efficiency report is determined by
the degree of thoughtful, unbiased, assessment
of performance that attends its preparation.
These same factors, multiplied by the number
of reports rendered each year, determine the
long range validity and acceptability of the
efficiency reporting system.
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Performance Counseling
There are many kinds of counseling situa-
tions, each having its specific purpose. This
discussion deals only with performance coun-
seling and its relation to officer efficiency re-
porting. The Efficiency Report provides an
evaluation of the individual in the form of a
standard record designed to meet the require-
ments of a centralized personnel management
system. Performance counseling is an act of
leadership designed to help the individual
/ improve his performance in his present posi-
tion. Counseling of broader scope?such as
guidance in career development and pro-
fessional growth?is often properly included in
a performance counseling situation, but is not
a major purpose of it.
Although performance counseling is a con-
tinuing function of leadership its practical
application usually involves three distinct
phases over a period of time.
First, when the individual reports for duty
on a new assignment, he should be given
specific counseling regarding the goals of the
organization, what is expected of him, his re-
sponsibilities, and the standards by which his
performance will be judged. In effect this is
performance counseling "before-the-fact" but
is a highly important part of the counseling
picture.
Second, the officer should be counseled
whenever necessary throughout the year.
There should be no delay in informing him of
any failure to meet required standards, and a
specific counseling session is the most likely
means of correcting his deficiency.
Third, the officer is counseled formally and
within the time limit prescribed by paragraph
2c, AR 623-105.
While the following discussion centers on
this mandatory annual counseling session, the
principles and techniques are applicable in
some degree to every counseling situation.
Judging and guiding the performance and
development of another human being are
perhaps the most critical aspects of the com-
plex function called leadership. Effective
counseling is possible only when the counselor's
AGO 10001A
approach to his responsibility is firmly rooted
in the traditional American conviction that
each person is inherently important This is
not something that can be pretended; it must
be genuine.
The counselor must think about and plan the
scope and contents of each counseling session.
If he is required to counsel 10 officers, there
will be 10 distinct areas of discussion?
although he may have several points that de-
serve emphasis in all 10 sessions. For each
officer to be counseled, he should prepare by
carefully putting on paper the officer's duties
in order of importance, and the standards or
criteria for judging his performance of them.
Each session should be scheduled well in
advance, and the officer informed of the exact
time and place. This advance notice should
also advise the officer to prepare himself for
the session by listing his jobs in order of im-
portance, his accomplishments, what he is
doing for his professional improvement, and
any other matter he may wish to include.
The counselor's preparations should also in-
clude review of the individual's performance
record during the past year. In the counseling
session itself, these records should be at hand.
A blank Efficiency Report form provides a
good guide for the discussion. For example,
the counselor might review each section of the
form from the standpoint of "if I were
preparing your Efficiency Report today, this is
probably how I would rate your performance."
The atmosphere of the counseling session is
largely a reflection of the counselor's per-
sonality and way of doing things. The only
essential element in all counseling is privacy.
The fact that it is a formal session does not
necessarily mean that the discussion must be
conducted in an atmosphere of military for-
mality. Some counselors prefer a "man-to-
man" approach. The experience and grade of
the officer being counseled should be taken into
account in deciding such matters. Beyond this,
there are no hard and fast rules for effective
counseling. The techniques of one counselor
are not necessarily the best for another. There
are, however, several common elements that
apply regardless of the manner chosen. These
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
13
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
are accuracy, firmness, consistency and clarity
of standards, and balanced appraisal.
Accuracy. The counselor's criticism of the
officer's performance must be based upon facts,
and upon a clearly conceived set of high
standards. The individual may enter the
session with a different viewpoint on these
facts, but there should be no doubt at the con-
clusion that the counselor knows the facts. If
his criticism seems to the individual to be based
upon a misunderstanding or misinterpretation
of the facts, the counseling session will accom-
plish nothing.
Firmness. The session can?and usually
should?be an essentially friendly conversa-
tion, even when the counselor is dealing with
facts that are in themselves unpleasant.
Straightforward honesty in criticizing the in-
dividual's performance is essential. Such
criticism achieves its purpose of pointing the
way to improved performance only when the
individual is aware that this is the purpose of
the criticism.
Consistency and clarity of standards. Usually
the officer will previously have been made
aware of the standards by which his perform-
ance is to be judged. The counselor should
14
review those standards in order to show how
the officer's performance has failed to meet
them. It is extremely important that the
standards discussed at the formal counseling
do not contradict any previous statements the
officer has been given.
Balanced Appraisal. Very few counseling
sessions involve an individual whose perform-
ance has been a failure in every respect. In
his preparation the counselor should look for
facts that deserve praise as well as those that
deserve criticism. It should be kept in mind,
however, that the primary purpose of counsel-
ing is improvement; praise should not be re-
garded merely as a device to soften the pain
of sharp criticism.
Effective counseling is one of the more de-
manding responsibilities of leadership. Each
counseling session is an exercise in human re-
lations. Both counselor and counseled are
people, and both are more important than any
set of techniques. Inexperienced counselors
can improve their counseling skills by study,
by practice, and by discussing counseling prob-
lems with more experienced officers. There are
excellent guides and handbooks in the counsel-
ing field?and many not so excellent. But the
best guide is?be yourself.
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
HEADQUARTERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON 25, D.C., 22 June 1961
Department of the Army Pamphlet 355-25, Officers' Call, The New Officer Efficiency Re-
porting System, is published for the use of all concerned.
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
Official:
R. V. LEE,
Major General, United States Army,
The Adjutant General.
Distribution:
Active Army: One (1) copy per Officer
OSD (2)
SA (2)
USofA (2)
ASA (FM) (2)
ASA (LOG) (2)
ASA (MP&RF) (2)
CofS (2)
DASA (2)
DCSPER (50)
ACSI (10)
DCSOPS (10)
DCSLOG (10)
ACSRC (2)
CA (2)
CoA (2)
CARROTC (2)
CofF (2)
CINFO (50)
CNGB (2)
CLL (2)
DRD (2)
CRD (2)
CMH (2)
TIG (2)
TJAG (2)
TPMG (2)
TAG (2)
CofCh (2)
Tech Stf, DA (2)
Bd (1)
USCONARC (10)
ARADCOM (10)
ARADCOM Rgn (10)
OS Maj Comd (10)
OS Base Comd (1)
Log Comd (1)
NG: State AG (5).
G. H. DECKER,
General, United States Army,
Chief of Staff.
and Warrant Officer plus:
MDW (10)
Armies (10)
Corps (5)
Div (5)
Bde (2)
Regt/Gp/bg (2)
Bn (2)
Co/Btry (1)
Det/Team (1)
Instl (1)
USMA (3)
Svc Colleges (2)
Br Svc Sch (2)
Jt Sch (2)
Specialist Sch (2)
USARIS (100)
PMS Sr Div Units (1)
PMS Jr Div Units (1)
PMS Mil Sch Div Units (1)
Gen Dep (1)
Dep (1)
Army Hosp (2)
USA Hosp (2)
WRAMC (2)
BAMC (2)
Pers Cen (1)
POE (OS) (1)
Army Terminals (1)
OSA (1)
PG (1)
Arsenal (1)
Plants & Works (1)
USA Corps (25)
MAAG (5)
Mil Msn (5)
USAR: None.
For explanation of abbreviations used, see AR 320-50.
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICES 1961-600212
AGO 10001A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
15
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
FATED OFFICERS NAME AND SERVICE NUMBER
PART IV - PERSONAL QUALITIES (Read paragraph 21d, AR 623'105)
PART V - APPRAISAL OF QUALIFICATIONS
(Read paragraph 21e, AR 623-105)
LEGEND
DEGREE
INADEQUATE MARGINAL BELOW AVERAGE AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE EXEMPLARY
NUMBER
.0 A .2 .3 .4 5
DUTIES
RATER
INDORSER
RATER
INDORSER
a. COMMAND A TACTICAL UNIT
_
a ADAPTABILITY (Adjusts to new or changing situations gr. stresses; bears up under pressure)
b COND NON-TACTICAL UNIT
.
?
b. AMBITION (Seeks and welcomes additional and more important responsibilities)
s STAFF
PERSONNEL
)
( )
c. APPEARANCE (Possesses military bearing and is neat, smart, and well-groomed)
UNIT (U)
INTEL.(
)
( )
d. COOPERATION (Works in harmony with others as a team member)
GENERAL (0)
OPERATIONS
( )
( )
?
h
e. DEPENDABILITY (Consistently accomplishes desired actions with miniirom supervision)
OR
LOGISTICS
( )
( )
?
I. ENTHUSIASM (Motivates others by his zeal)
JOINT (J)
R a D
( )
( )
?
?
g. EXPRESSION (Expresses himself clearly and concisely both orally and in writing)
. SPECIAL
RATER (Specify)
INDORSER (Specify)
COMPT
STAFF
(? )
( )
?
h. FORCE (Executes actions vigorously)
?
i. INGENUITY (Finds solutions to problems regardless of obstacles)
.1. INITIATIVE (Takes necessary and appropriate action on his own)
k. INTELLIGENCE (Acquires knowledge and grasps concepts readily)
I. JUDGEMENT (Thinks logically and makes practical decisions)
e. SPECIALIST
RATER (Specify)
INDORSER (Specify)
m. LOYALTY (Renders faithful and willing support to superiors and subordinates)
n. MORAL COURAGE (Intellectual honesty, willingness to stand up and be counted)
.
a SELF-DISCIPLINE (Conducts himself in accordance with accepted standards)
.
p. SELF-IMPROVEMENT (Takes action to improve himself)
I. WITH OTHER US FORCES
OR AGENCIES
q. SOCIABILITY (Participates freely and easily in social and community activities)
C. STAMINA (Performs successfully under .protracted physical and mental stress)
g. WITH FOREIGN FORCES
OR GOVERNMENTS
I
s. TACT (Says or does what is appropriate without giving unnecessary offense)
.
.
I. UNDERSTANDING (Appreciation of another person's viewpoint)
h. INSTRUCTOR
i. wiTH RESERVE COMPONENTS
.641 SCORE
PART VI - OVERALL DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE AND ESTIMATED POTENTIAL (Read paragraphs 211 and 21g. AR 623-105)
RATING
EXPECTED DISTRIBUTION OF 100 OFFICERS RATED
OVERALL DEMONSTRATED
PERFORMANCE
. (1)
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
(2)
RATER
VALUE
INDORSER
RATER
VALUE
INDORSER
a OUTSTANDING
1
100
10
b EXCEPTIONAL
tt
90
9
c. SUPERIOR
Mt
80
8
illtiffittitt
70
7
d. EXCELLENT
ffillitiffittlittlititittiftlit _
60
6
IttlitIttittfttlittilititiffit I
50
5
e. EFFECTIVE
Ittftffititil
40
4
Mt
30
3
1. MARGINAL
it
20
2
g INADEQUATE
i
10
I
SCORE
PART VII - NUMERICAL VALUE
(Read paragraph 21h, AR 623-105)
(Scores to be entered by rater and indorser,
and verified by a personnel officer)
PART VIII - AUTHENTICATION (Read paragraph 21i, AR 623-1051
17. SIGNATURE OF RATER
DATE
SCORES
TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT
RATER
INDORSER
PART IV
PART VI (1)
19, SIGNATURE OF INDORSER
DATE
PART VI (2)
TOTAL
TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT
COMPOSITE SCORE
19. REVIEWER (Read Section VI AR 623-105) MY REVIEW INDICATES NO FURTHER ACTION 7 RESULTS IN ACTION STATED ON CONTINUATION SHEET
SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TYPED NAME. GRADE, BRANCH. SERVICE NUMBER. ORGANIZATION, AND
DUTY ASSIGNMENT
DATE
20.
THIS REPORT HAS INCLOSURES. (Insert "0" if appropriate)
21. DATE ENTERED ON DA FORM 66
22, PERSONNEL OFFICER'S INITIALS
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: /96/ 0-593716
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/14: CIA-RDP78B05707A001200010075-9