BY ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2406
6 AUGUST 2024
Personnel
OFFICER AND ENLISTED
EVALUATIONS SYSTEMS
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY
ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at
www.e-Publishing.af.mil for downloading or ordering.
RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.
OPR: AFPC Certified by: SAF/MR
Supersedes: DAFI36-2406, 4 August 2023 Pages: 289
This publication implements Department of the Air Force Policy Directive (DAFPD) 36-24,
Military Evaluations. It provides guidance and procedures for implementing the United States Air
Force (USAF) Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems. It also describes how to prepare, submit,
and manage forms. This instruction has been developed in collaboration between the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services (AF/A1); Chief of the Air Force Reserve (AF/RE);
and the Director of the Air National Guard (NGB/CF). This publication applies to the Regular Air
Force (RegAF), Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard; it does not apply to the United
States Space Force (USSF). This instruction requires the collection and or maintenance of
information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 authorized by Department of Defense Instruction
(DoDI) 5400.11, DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Program. The applicable SORN F036 AF PC
A, Effectiveness/Performance Reporting Systems and F036 AFPC T, Officer Performance Report
(OPR)/Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) Appeal Case Files are available at
https://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNs/. Ensure all records generated as a result of processes
prescribed in this publication adhere to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 33-322, Records Management
and Information Governance Program, and are disposed in accordance with the Air Force Records
Disposition Schedule, which is located in the Air Force Records Information Management System.
Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the office of primary
responsibility using the Department of the Air Force (DAF) Form 847, Recommendation for
Change of Publication; route DAF Forms 847 from the field through Air Force Personnel Center
Promotions, Evaluations and Recognitions Policy Branch (AFPC/DP3SP), 550 C, JBSA-
Randolph, TX 78150 or [email protected]. Field agencies (i.e., major command
[MAJCOM], numbered Air Force [NAF], Wing, field operating agency [FOA], etc.) will not
2 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
publish supplements that change basic policies and procedures or merely duplicate the text of these
instructions. Supplements initiated at the major command (MAJCOM) level or below require
Military Force Policy Division (AF/A1PP), and AFPC/DP3SP approval before publication. Send
published copies of approved supplements to AF/A1PP, AFPC/DP3SP, and Air Reserve Personnel
Center Promotion Board Secretariat (ARPC/PB). Field agencies must get AFPC/DP3SP and
Promotions and Evaluations Policy Branch (AF/A1PPP) approval before using a locally created
version of the DAF and Air Force (AF) Forms prescribed by this instruction. The authorities to
waive wing or unit level requirements in this publication are identified with a Tier (“T-0, T-1, T-2,
T-3”) number following the compliance statement. See Department of the Air Force Manual 90-
161, Publishing Processes and Procedures, for a description of the authorities associated with the
tier numbers. Submit requests for waivers through the chain of command to the appropriate Tier
waiver approval authority; for non-tiered items AFPC/DP3SP is the approval authority.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
This rewrite has been significantly modified and must be reviewed in its entirety. It (1) implements
the use of Airman Leadership Qualities (ALQs) evaluations for all RegAF and Air Reserve
Component (ARC) enlisted grades; (2) changes MSgt and SMSgt stratifications for RegAF and
ARC; (3) defines accounting date, ALQ evaluations, officer performance brief, and enlisted
performance brief in the “Terms” section; (4) updates terminology of “vice commander” to
“deputy commander”; (5) provides clarification on promotion recommendation forms (PRF) for
colonels; (6) corrects Table 8.3, “Senior Rater “Definitely Promote” Allocation Rate Table –
Active Duty List Officers”; (7) updates the format of letters of evaluation (LOE) to performance
statement format; (8) lowers the higher level reviewer (HLR) for captains and lieutenants; (9)
updates rater and HLR requirements for military treatment facility (MTF) directors/market
directors; and (10) makes administrative changes/updates throughout the instruction.
Additionally, this re-write removes guidance for the United States Space Force.
Chapter 1—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 9
1.1. Purpose. ................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Forms - Purpose and Utilization. ............................................................................. 9
1.3. General Guidelines. ................................................................................................. 10
1.4. Preparing and Processing Evaluations. .................................................................... 11
1.5. Evaluator Requirements. .......................................................................................... 18
1.6. Roles and Responsibilities. ...................................................................................... 20
1.7. Rating Chain Deviations and Evaluator Changes. ................................................... 27
1.8. Evaluator’s Mandatory Considerations. ................................................................... 29
1.9. Mandatory Comments. ............................................................................................. 33
1.10. Disagreements. ......................................................................................................... 34
1.11. Referral Evaluations. ............................................................................................... 34
1.12. General Prohibited Evaluator Considerations and Comments. ................................ 40
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 3
1.13. Policy Deviations and Waiver Requests. ................................................................. 44
1.14. Missing, Late and Removed Performance Evaluations. .......................................... 44
1.15. Wartime or National Emergency Provisions. .......................................................... 46
Figure 1.1. Example Referral Memorandum. ............................................................................. 47
Figure 1.2. Example Referral Memorandum (Continued). ........................................................ 48
Table 1.1. Mailing Addresses for Correspondence. .................................................................. 49
Table 1.2. Missing and Late Evaluations (See Notes 1, 2, and 3). ........................................... 52
Chapter 2—PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK PROCESS 53
2.1. Purpose. ................................................................................................................... 53
2.2. Responsibilities. ....................................................................................................... 53
2.3. Who Requires a Performance Feedback Assessment. ............................................. 54
2.4. Guidance for Conducting Performance Feedback Sessions. ................................... 54
2.5. When to Conduct Documented Performance Feedback Sessions............................ 54
2.6. The Performance Feedback Assessment Notice. ..................................................... 55
2.7. Performance Feedback Assessment Forms. ............................................................. 55
2.8. Preparing the Performance Feedback Assessment. .................................................. 56
2.9. Disposition and Access. ........................................................................................... 56
2.10. Failure to Conduct or Document a Performance Feedback Assessment. ................ 56
2.11. Tracking Performance Feedback Assessments. ....................................................... 56
Table 2.1. Performance Feedback Assessment Requirements. ................................................. 57
Table 2.2. Preparing AF Form 931, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (AB thru TSgt). ..... 58
Table 2.3. Preparing AF Form 932, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (MSgt – CMSgt). .. 62
Table 2.4. Preparing AF Form 724, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (Lt thru Col). ......... 66
Table 2.5. Preparing AF Form 724-A, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum. ....... 68
Chapter 3—OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS/OFFICER ALQ
EVALUATIONS 69
3.1. General Guidelines. ................................................................................................. 69
3.2. Purpose. ................................................................................................................... 69
3.3. Who Requires an Officer ALQ Evaluation. ............................................................. 69
3.4. Who is Not Authorized an Officer ALQ Evaluation. .............................................. 71
3.5. When to Submit an Officer ALQ Evaluation – Officer Performance Brief (OPB). 71
3.6. Annual Reports. ....................................................................................................... 71
4 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
3.7. Change of Reporting Official Reports (including emergencies or no-notice
departures). .............................................................................................................. 72
3.8. Directed by HAF, NGB, or Commander (MAJCOM, wing, group, or squadron,
as appropriate). ......................................................................................................... 72
3.9. 365-day Extended Deployment Officer ALQ Evaluations. ..................................... 73
3.10. “FROM” Dates. ....................................................................................................... 75
3.11. “THRU” Dates. ........................................................................................................ 76
3.12. Number of Days of Supervision. ............................................................................. 76
3.13. Performance Feedback Assessment. ........................................................................ 77
3.14. Higher Level Reviewer. ........................................................................................... 77
3.15. Stratifications. .......................................................................................................... 78
3.16. Unauthorized Evaluator Considerations and Comments. ........................................ 83
3.17. Extensions of Close-out Dates. ................................................................................ 86
3.18. Ratee’s Acknowledgement. ..................................................................................... 86
Table 3.1. Instructions for Preparing an Officer ALQ Evaluation (Output Product). ............... 87
Table 3.2. When to Prepare Officer Evaluations (Lieutenant thru Colonel). ............................ 100
Table 3.3. Static Close-out Date Chart for Officers. ................................................................. 101
Table 3.4. Accounting Dates for Static Close-out Date Evaluations. ....................................... 101
Table 3.5. Summary of Authorized Stratification Peer Groups. ............................................... 102
Chapter 4—ENLISTED ALQ EVALUATIONS/ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEFS
(EPBS) 105
4.1. General Guidelines. ................................................................................................. 105
4.2. Enlisted Evaluation Forms. ...................................................................................... 105
4.3. When to Accomplish an Enlisted Evaluation. ......................................................... 105
4.4. Evaluations not Authorized...................................................................................... 106
4.5. When to Submit an Enlisted Evaluation. ................................................................. 107
4.6. “FROM” Dates. ....................................................................................................... 107
4.7. “THRU” Dates. ........................................................................................................ 107
4.8. Number of Days of Supervision. ............................................................................. 110
4.9. Completing Evaluations. .......................................................................................... 110
4.10. Promotion Time-In-Grade (TIG)/Time-In-Service (TIS) eligibility (AB - TSgt
only). ........................................................................................................................ 110
4.11. Time-In-Grade (TIG)/Senior Rater Stratification/Endorsement Eligibility (MSgt
– SMSgt only). ......................................................................................................... 110
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 5
4.12. Higher Level Reviewers and Single Evaluators. ..................................................... 114
4.13. Higher Level Reviewer Responsibilities. ................................................................ 116
4.14. Performance Feedback Assessment. ........................................................................ 116
4.15. Authorized Evaluator Considerations and Comments. ............................................ 117
4.16. Inappropriate Comments Referring to Separation/Retirement, Civilian
Employment, and Professional Military Education. ................................................ 117
4.17. Ratee’s Acknowledgement. ..................................................................................... 118
4.18. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution (SrA – TSgt only). ........................................... 119
Table 4.1. Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel Scale. ............................................................... 127
Table 4.2. When to Submit Enlisted Evaluations for RegAF, Active Guard Reserve, and
Stat Tour. ................................................................................................................. 127
Table 4.3. When to submit Enlisted Evaluations for ARC Non-AGR. ..................................... 130
Table 4.4. Static Close-out Date Chart for RegAF, Active Guard Reserve, and Stat Tour. ..... 131
Table 4.5. Static Close-out Date Chart for ARC Non-AGR. .................................................... 131
Table 4.6. Accounting Dates for Static Close-out Date Evaluations. ....................................... 131
Table 4.7. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution Allocation Table (SrA). ................................... 132
Table 4.8. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution Allocation Table (SSgt and TSgt). .................. 133
Table 4.9. Instructions for Preparing an Enlisted ALQ Evaluation (Output Product). ............. 134
Table 4.10. (RegAF and AFR only) MSgt Stratifications. ......................................................... 150
Table 4.11. SMSgt Stratifications (RegAF and AFR only). ....................................................... 150
Table 4.12. Time-in-Grade (TIG) Senior Rater Eligibility Chart. .............................................. 151
Table 4.13. The United States Air Force Band (3N2X1) and The United States Air Force
Academy Band (3N3X1) Direct Reporting from Basic Military Training and
Promotion to TSgt. ................................................................................................... 153
Chapter 5—DAF FORM 77, LETTER OF EVALUATION 154
5.1. Purpose. ................................................................................................................... 154
5.2. Types of LOEs. ........................................................................................................ 154
5.3. Who Can Prepare. .................................................................................................... 156
5.4. Administrative Practices. ......................................................................................... 157
5.5. Completing DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation. .................................................... 157
5.6. Routing, Updating and Disposition Responsibilities. .............................................. 157
5.7. MPF, CSS/HR Specialist, and PERSCO Team Responsibilities. ............................ 158
Table 5.1. Instructions for Completing the DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (See Note 5). 160
Table 5.2. When to submit a Letter of Evaluation. ................................................................... 167
6 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Chapter 6—DAF FORM 475, EDUCATION/TRAINING REPORT 169
6.1. When to Use Training Reports (TRs). ..................................................................... 169
6.2. Who Prepares Training Reports. .............................................................................. 171
6.3. Referral Training Reports. ....................................................................................... 171
6.4. Routing and Responsibilities. .................................................................................. 171
Table 6.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 475, Training Report (Officers Only). ..... 173
Table 6.2. When to Prepare DAF Form 475, Training Report. ................................................ 176
Chapter 7—GENERAL OFFICER EVALUATIONS 179
7.1. Overview. ................................................................................................................. 179
7.2. Forms Used. ............................................................................................................. 179
7.3. Reasons for Reports. ................................................................................................ 179
7.4. General Instructions. ................................................................................................ 179
7.5. Processing General Officer Evaluations. ................................................................. 181
7.6. Extensions of Close-out Dates. ................................................................................ 182
Table 7.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 78, Department of the Air Force General
Officer Promotion Recommendation. ...................................................................... 183
Table 7.2. Instructions for DAF Form 77 for General Officers. ............................................... 186
Chapter 8—PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL
REVIEW (MLR) PROCESS 189
8.1. DAF Form 709 (for ADL officers). ......................................................................... 189
8.2. DAF Form 709 for RASL Officers. ......................................................................... 199
8.3. Management Level Reviews (ADL Lieutenant Colonel and Below). ..................... 204
8.4. Special Provisions (applies to ADL officers only). ................................................. 217
8.5. Correction of Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF) (ADL Officers) (“Stop
File” process). .......................................................................................................... 221
8.6. Correction of PRFs (ResAF Officers) (“Stop File” Process). .................................. 221
8.7. Promotion Recommendations for Colonels. ............................................................ 222
8.8. Supplemental Management Level Reviews for Recommendation Upgrade Post-
Central Selection Board (For ADL Only). ............................................................... 224
Figure 8.1. Officer's Right to Submit a Memorandum to the Central Selection Board or
ResAF Central Selection Board (see DAFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and
Selective Continuation, for further guidance). ......................................................... 225
Table 8.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, (for
officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below). ............................................ 226
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 7
Table 8.2. What to Enter in (Group Size) on the PRF (ADL Lt Col and below only). ............. 231
Table 8.3. Senior Rater “Definitely Promote” Allocation Rate Table – Active Duty List
Officers. ................................................................................................................... 232
Table 8.4. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, (for
officers in the grade of colonel). .............................................................................. 234
Chapter 9—DAF FORM 3538, RETENTION RECOMMENDATION FORM (RRF) 239
9.1. When to Use the DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation. ........................... 239
9.2. Responsibilities. ....................................................................................................... 239
9.3. Retention Recommendation Form Submission........................................................ 240
9.4. Air Force Advisor Examination. .............................................................................. 240
9.5. Correction of a Retention Recommendation Form. ................................................. 240
Figure 9.1. Officer's Right to Submit a Memorandum to the Central Selection Board (CSB). . 241
Table 9.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation. .......... 242
Chapter 10—CORRECTING OFFICER AND ENLISTED EVALUATIONS 244
10.1. Purpose. ................................................................................................................... 244
10.2. Program Elements. ................................................................................................... 244
10.3. Correcting Evaluations. ........................................................................................... 247
10.4. Responsibilities. ....................................................................................................... 248
10.5. Meeting Time Limits and Expedited Requests. ....................................................... 251
10.6. Using Classified, Privacy Act, and Restricted Release Information. ....................... 251
10.7. Requesting Special Selection Board (SSB) or Supplemental Promotion
Consideration. .......................................................................................................... 252
10.8. Resubmitting an Appeal. .......................................................................................... 252
Table 10.1. How to Submit Requests for Correction. ................................................................. 253
Table 10.2. Correcting Minor Errors on Evaluations. ................................................................. 254
Table 10.3. Minor Corrections – Offices Authorized to Make Corrections and Disposition. .... 256
Table 10.4. Board Directed Corrections - Correcting and Disposition of Documents. .............. 258
Table 10.5. Correcting DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Forms. ........................... 259
Table 10.6. Instructions For DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of
Evaluation Reports (see paragraph 10.4.4. before completing). .............................. 260
Figure 10.1. Sample, DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation
Reports. .................................................................................................................... 262
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 9
Chapter 1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.1. Purpose. The Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems have varied purposes. The first is to
effectively communicate performance standards and expectations and provide meaningful
feedback on how those standards and expectations are being upheld. The second is to establish a
reliable, long-term, cumulative record of performance and promotion potential based on that
performance. The third is to provide sound information to assist in making talent management
decisions.
1.1.1. To accomplish these purposes, the evaluation system focuses on performance. How
well a member does their job and the qualities the individual brings to their organization are
of paramount importance to the Air Force (AF). It is also important for development of skills
and leadership abilities and in determining who will be selected for advancement through
assignments, promotions, and other personnel actions. The evaluation system emphasizes the
importance of performance in several ways, to include the use of Airman Leadership Qualities
(ALQ), using periodic performance feedback as the basis for formal evaluations, and through
performance-based promotion recommendations.
1.1.2. Unless stated otherwise, the general guidelines outlined in this chapter apply to all
officer and enlisted evaluations, training reports (TRs), promotion recommendation forms
(PRFs), letters of evaluation (LOEs), enlisted retention recommendation forms (ERRFs), and
retention recommendation forms (RRFs).
1.2. Forms - Purpose and Utilization.
1.2.1. DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, is a multipurpose evaluation form.
1.2.2. DAF Form 78, Department of the Air Force General Officer Promotion
Recommendation (GO PRF). Use to document performance and promotion recommendations
for general officers.
1.2.3. DAF Form 475, Education/Training Report. Use to document performance during
education or formal training.
1.2.4. AF Form 715, Officer Performance Brief (O-1 thru O-6) and AF Form 716, Enlisted
Performance Brief. Use to document performance as well as provide information for making
promotion recommendations and other management decisions. (T-1) Note: These forms are
the offline version of the officer and enlisted ALQ evaluations; officer and enlisted ALQ
evaluations are to be completed in myEvaluation (myEval) to generate an officer performance
brief (OPB) or enlisted performance brief (EPB), and AF Forms 715 and 716 are to be used in
rare instances and by exception only. See paragraph 1.13.4.
1.2.5. DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation. Use to assess an officer’s performance-
based potential and to recommend promotion to central selection boards.
1.2.6. AF Form 724, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Worksheet (2Lt thru Col), AF Form
724-A, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum, AF Form 931, Airman Comprehensive
Assessment Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), and AF Form 932, Airman Comprehensive Assessment
Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt). Use to document formal feedback.
10 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.2.7. DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports. Use to
substitute, correct or remove an evaluation when an applicant does not have access to the
Virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF).
1.3. General Guidelines.
1.3.1. Access. Evaluations are “Controlled Unclassified Information” forms and must be
marked, protected, and accessed accordingly. The office with custodial responsibility is
responsible for determining if a requestor’s official duties require access. See Chapter 2 for
access to the performance feedback assessment worksheets.
1.3.2. Classified Information and Security Classification. Do not enter classified information
in any section of the evaluation; this includes attachments to evaluations, referral documents,
and endorsements to referral documents. If an entry would result in the release of classified
information, use the word "Data Masked" in place of that entry. In cases where the evaluator
is assigned to a classified organization or location, enter "Data Masked" for organization
nomenclature and nothing more.
1.3.3. Format.
1.3.3.1. All evaluations will be completed in myEval. The AF Form 715 and AF Form
716 will be used by exception only. Send exception to policy requests through the wing
commander or the comparative level to AFPC/DP3SP for final approval to HAF/A1PP.
AFPC/DP3SP will coordinate with Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Evaluations
Section (ARPC/DPTSE) ARPC/DPTSE for input prior to forwarding for final approval to
HAF/A1PP. (T-1) See paragraph 1.13.4.
1.3.3.2. Include at least one performance statement in each section of the evaluation being
accomplished. (T-1) “THIS SECTION NOT USED,” may be used as a performance
statement. White space is authorized. A performance statement is a standalone sentence
that must include two elements: 1) the behavior or action taken by an Airman; and 2) the
impact, results, or outcome of that behavior or action.
1.3.4. Special Formatting. Do not underline, capitalize, or use bold print, unusual fonts or
characters, multiple exclamation marks, or headings to emphasize comments, except as
required to identify proper names or publication titles.
1.3.5. Handwritten Evaluations. Handwrite evaluations when no other means are available
and authorized by AFPC Promotions, Evaluations and Recognitions Policy Branch
(AFPC/DP3SP) or ARPC/DPTSE. The President and Vice President of the United States may
handwrite evaluations.
1.3.6. Nicknames and Acronyms.
1.3.6.1. Nicknames that are a form of the ratee’s name, to include middle names, are
permitted (e.g., Bill/Will for William, Jim for James, Chris for Christopher/Christine). Call
signs and code names are not authorized.
1.3.6.2. Limit the use of acronyms and abbreviations. When used, only acronyms and
abbreviations on the AF Acronym and Abbreviation List located at
https://www.afpc.af.mil/Career-Management/Acronyms/ are authorized, unless noted
by an approved category listed on the website. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 11
1.3.7. Waivers and Deviations. Send requests for deviations or waivers through the wing
commander or the comparative level to their MAJCOM. The requests will then be sent to
AFPC/DP3SP for RegAF and to ARPC/DPTSE for ARC who, in turn, will forward the request
to the appropriate office of primary responsibility listed in Table 1.1. Approved Tier 2, 3 and
non-tiered waivers are forwarded to HQ Air Force, Directorate of Force Management Policy
(AF/A1P), AFPC/DP3SP and/or ARPC/DPTSE in accordance with DAFMAN 90-161.
1.3.7.1. Waiver Process. Waivers are processed in accordance with DAFMAN 90-161
except as noted below.
1.3.7.1.1. Tier 0 waiver: The appropriate MAJCOM/A1 submits the package to
AFPC/DP3SP. AFPC/DP3SP submits the package to AF/A1P for coordination
through SAF/MR and/or Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF). Following SAF/MR
and/or SecAF coordination, AF/A1P submits the package to the appropriate external
agency/non-Air Force authority for approval. Package results will be provided to
AFPC/DP3SP and then forwarded to the appropriate MAJCOM/A1.
1.3.7.1.2. Tier 1 waiver: The appropriate MAJCOM/A1 submits the package to
AFPC/DP3SP or ARPC/DPTSE for the ARC as appropriate. AFPC/DP3SP
processes/submits the package to AF/A1P and AF/A1 to route for SAF/MR
coordination. Completed package coordination will be provided to the appropriate
MAJCOM/A1.
1.3.7.1.3. Tier 2/3 waivers: Upon approval the waiver(s) must be sent to
AFPC/DP3SP. (T-1) AFPC/DP3SP will maintain for historical and appeal purposes.
(T-1)
1.3.7.2. Waivers and the Managers Internal Control Toolset. The requesting
commander/director will ensure appropriate waiver information is entered in the
Management Internal Control Toolset within 7 calendar days of waiver approval
notification.
1.4. Preparing and Processing Evaluations.
1.4.1. Career Data Briefs. Evaluators are permitted to review a member’s career data brief
when writing an evaluation. For officers, the brief will be used to aid in making
recommendations for command, assignments, and developmental education. For enlisted, the
brief may be used as an aid in determining senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO)
stratification/endorsement level eligibility or junior enlisted forced distribution promotion
recommendation. Note: The ANG is not required to stratify enlisted members; enlisted
stratifications are at the discretion of each The Adjutant General (TAG)/Command equivalent
for National Guard Bureau (NGB) staff (see paragraph 4.11.2.2.).
1.4.2. Suspenses.
1.4.2.1. The commander’s support staff (CSS) and servicing military personnel flight
(MPF) work together to manage the evaluation system and monitor suspenses. Established
suspenses should allow for the evaluation to be filed in the member’s official record no
later than 60 calendar days after the close-out date. Evaluations will not be signed prior to
the close-out date. (T-1) Note: This does not preclude a draft copy being routed earlier.
12 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.4.2.2. Officer and Enlisted Evaluations.
1.4.2.2.1. Due to the MPF no later than 30 calendar days after close-out. (T-1)
1.4.2.2.2. Due to Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) (for referrals) or office of
record no later than 45 calendar days after close-out. (T-1)
1.4.2.2.3. Filed in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and
Personnel Records Display Application (PRDA) no later than 60 calendar days after
the close-out. (T-1)
1.4.2.3. Evaluations directed by Headquarters United States Air Force (DBH), or the
National Guard Bureau (NGB) are due to the respective office by the suspense date
established in the directing letter or message. (T-1)
1.4.2.4. Complete referral evaluations in accordance with paragraph 1.10 and file into
ARMS/PRDA no later than 60 calendar days for RegAF and Active Guard Reserve (AGR)
personnel and 90 calendar days for non-extended active duty (EAD) personnel, after the
close-out date of the evaluation.
1.4.3. When an Evaluation Becomes a Matter of Record.
1.4.3.1. An evaluation is considered complete when all applicable signature elements are
signed or completed. Completed evaluations become a matter of record once they are
uploaded into ARMS/PRDA. Evaluations are considered “working copies” until they are
made a matter of record.
1.4.3.2. Correction requests made after an evaluation becomes a matter of record must be
submitted in accordance with Chapter 10. (T-1)
1.4.4. Attachments to Evaluations. Attachments are part of the evaluation. Authorized
attachments are referral memorandums (training reports), rebuttals to referrals (which could
include DAF Form 77s that are not part of the official record) and endorsement memorandums.
1.4.5. Copying and Printing Evaluations.
1.4.5.1. Printing. Do not alter the form, (e.g., reduce or enlarge), other than for authorized
administrative corrections, (e.g., white out on a date change for “wet” signed evaluations).
(T-1) Both sides of the form will be printed whether used or not. (T-1)
1.4.5.1.1. Do not reproduce copies for purposes other than those noted below without
the approval of AFPC/DP3SP or ARPC/DPTSE:
1.4.5.1.1.1. For official actions such as courts-martial, awards and decoration
recommendations, promotion or demotion processing, discharge actions, appeal
processing, and appropriate assignment actions by the Air Force Personnel Center
(AFPC), Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Air Force Reserve Command
(AFRC), Individual Reservist Readiness and Integration Organization (RIO), Air
Force Colonel Management Office (AF/A1LO), Air Force General Officer
Management Office (AF/A1LG), Air Force CMSgt Management Office
(AF/A1LE), or Air Force Reserve Senior Leader Management Office (AF/REG).
Authorized personnel will provide copies. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 13
1.4.5.1.1.2. On written authority of AF/A1LG for general officers; AF/A1LO for
colonels on EAD; AFPC/DP3SP for lieutenant colonels and below on EAD; or the
ARPC/DPTSE for Air National Guard (ANG) colonels and below, Air Force
Reserve (AFR) officers not on EAD, and Active Guard Reserve (AGR) or voluntary
limited period of active duty officers. (T-1)
1.4.5.1.1.3. As authorized by AFI 33-332, Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties
Program, when requested by the ratee or their designated legal representative.
1.4.5.1.1.4. As required, provide copies for file in ARMS/PRDA, the officer
selection record (OSR) or SNCO selection record, the officer command selection
record, or adjutant general or national guard or human resource record file.
1.4.5.1.1.5. To replace missing or lost documents in the Master Personnel Records
Group.
1.4.5.2. Corrected Copies. A corrected copy on “wet signature” evaluations may be either
a copy or an original document which contains changes from the original document.
Corrections authorized by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
(AFBCMR) or ERAB on “wet signature” evaluations may require a corrected copy
annotation. In these cases, the following statement will be entered on the reverse bottom
margin: “Corrected Copy, AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPT, XX XXX XX [date correction
made], and certifying official’s typed signature block and signature.” (T-1)
1.4.5.3. Legibility. The CSS and MPF will return copies that are difficult to read or do not
comply with paragraph 1.4.5. (T-1)
1.4.6. Showing and/or Providing Copies to the Ratee. Unless the evaluation is a referral,
evaluators are not required to show or provide a copy of the evaluation to the ratee until the
“Ratee’s Acknowledgement” is ready for completion.
1.4.7. Deactivated Organizations. If a unit deactivates on or after the accounting date for any
evaluation static close-out date (SCOD), the deactivated unit will accomplish the evaluations,
to include all forced distribution and senior rater endorsement processes. If the unit deactivates
before the accounting date, the gaining unit (the unit as of the accounting date) will accomplish
all evaluation-related matters. All affected units will coordinate with Air Force Personnel
Center Evaluations and Recognition Operations Section (AFPC/DPMSPE) on all actions
associated with deactivating units. (T-1)
1.4.8. Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC). The DAFSC is based on the unit manpower
document authorization.
1.4.8.1. (Officers only) Use the DAFSC assigned against and approved by AFPC as of
the established SCOD (see Table 3.3), as reflected within the Military Personnel Data
System (MilPDS); however, if the officer has a permanent change of station (PCS) or
permanent change of assignment (PCA), or departs from a 365-day extended deployment
on or after the accounting date, use the DAFSC as of the established accounting date (see
Table 3.4.).
1.4.8.2. If an officer’s DAFSC is incorrect, initiate corrective action immediately, annotate
the correct DAFSC on the evaluation, and attach a copy of the documentation reflecting
the correction. MPF/CSS personnel must confirm the requested change was approved and
14 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
that the effective date of the change was on or before the close-out date of the evaluation
before forwarding the evaluation for inclusion into the official record. (T-1) If the
requested change has not been approved by the date the evaluation is ready to send to
AFPC/ARPC, the DAFSC on the evaluation will be changed to match the DAFSC
approved by the respective HQ AFPC officer assignment manager in MilPDS. (T-1)
1.4.8.3. (Enlisted only) Use the DAFSC as of the established SCOD. If the Airman has
a PCS or PCA or departs from a 365-day extended deployment on or after the accounting
date, use the DAFSC as of the established accounting date. CSS/MPF personnel must
ensure the correct information is reflected and/or updated in MilPDS.
1.4.8.4. For a 365-day extended deployment billet, use the DAFSC assigned to the position
and/or billet that the ratee is officially filling in the deployed location.
1.4.9. Grade Data.
1.4.9.1. The grade will be the actual grade the ratee will hold as of the established SCOD,
unless the ratee has been selected to the next higher grade, then use the selected grade (e.g.,
Lt Col (S) or TSgt-select). (T-1) The use of the select status for FGO evaluations
corresponds to the public release date of promotion to the next higher grade or once an
officer’s promotion nomination has been transmitted to the White House. The use of the
select status for first lieutenants selected to captain corresponds to the date of AFPC or
ARPC public release of the promotion list or once SecDef approves the promotion lists.
The use of “select” is not utilized for lieutenant evaluations.
1.4.9.2. Frocking is the practice of authorizing members who are selected for promotion
to wear the higher grade before the actual promotion date.
1.4.9.2.1. If a RegAF officer has been frocked, use the member’s selected grade (e.g.,
Col-select).
1.4.9.2.2. If a RegAF CMSgt has been frocked, use the select grade (i.e., CMSgt select)
as of the close-out date of the evaluation.
1.4.10. Fitness and Body Composition Assessments.
1.4.10.1. It is the commander’s discretion to annotate a non-current or failed fitness
assessment and/or body composition assessment within the reporting period on an
evaluation. Additionally, it is the commander’s discretion to document the evaluation as a
referral for a non-current or failed fitness assessment and/or body composition assessment
as of the close-out date.
1.4.10.2. Comments regarding unit fitness achievements are authorized for Airmen who
have a key role in the success of unit physical training programs. Comments may include
performance by physical training leaders, unit fitness program managers, first sergeants,
superintendents, section commanders, flight chiefs, commanders, and other members
deemed integral to a particular organization's successful fitness program.
1.4.10.3. Do not include fitness or body composition scores or fitness categories on an
evaluation unless the individual did not meet fitness and/or body composition standards
(see paragraph 1.4.10.1.). This does not prevent an evaluator from documenting referral
comments in other areas outside of the fitness and/or body composition area when an
Airman displays a negative/inappropriate attitude regarding the member’s fitness or has
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 15
not demonstrated fitness improvement. In those cases, the referral comments will address
the behavior. (T-1)
1.4.10.4. Do not comment on an exemption or the reason for exemption. (T-1)
1.4.10.5. Extensions to SCODs are not authorized.
1.4.11. Non-Rated Periods. In particular circumstances, non-rated periods may be authorized.
The documentation and/or approval authority required will vary depending on the nature of the
circumstances. Likewise, the duration of authorized non-rated periods may also vary
depending on the circumstances and other factors. Therefore, non-rated periods must be
considered individually as each Airman’s circumstance and response are unique. Being on
temporary duty (TDY) or deployed is not an example of a non-rated period. The following
areas may warrant a non-rated period:
1.4.11.1. Medical (physical, physiological, and/or psychological conditions;
hospitalization, and/or convalescence in excess of 80 calendar days, including, but not
limited to, Airmen in “Patient Status”): The Airman’s provider will initiate the
recommendation for a non-rated period to the Airman’s unit commander using AF Form
469, Duty Limiting Condition Report.
1.4.11.1.1. Unit Commander (or equivalent) Duties and Considerations. The
presumption will be in favor of the Airman requesting the non-rated period. Counsel
Airmen directly to ensure they are fully informed regarding the reasonably foreseeable
career impacts (and re-accomplish counseling prior to 60-day extensions, if applicable).
1.4.11.1.2. Approval Authority. The unit commander or equivalent is the approval
authority. If the approval authority recommends disapproval, they must provide
justification and forward the request to the member’s wing commander or equivalent
(delegable no lower than the deputy wing commander or equivalent) for final approval
or disapproval. (T-1) This may be accomplished on the AF Form 469 or a separate
memorandum.
1.4.11.2. Sexual Assault. The Airman will submit the request using memorandum format
(see example in Attachment 3) to their unit commander/equivalent for approval. The unit
commander or director will determine the length of the non-rated period. It is prohibited
to include comments on any correspondence relating to or regarding the member’s filing
of a report of sexual assault, receiving support services, and/or participating in the
investigative process and/or judicial proceedings. See paragraph 1.4.11.1.2 for the
approval authority.
1.4.11.3. Military or Civilian Confinement. Non-rated periods of supervision, regardless
of the number of days served, may be considered for Airmen in confinement during the
reporting period. The ratee's unit commander or equivalent will subtract periods of
confinement using the total days documented on DAF Form 2098, Duty Status Change,
from the total number days of supervision, with the exception of Directed by Commander
(DBC) reports. DBC reports accomplished to capture the egregious event(s) that resulted
in confinement will not subtract days of confinement from the total number of days
supervision.
16 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.4.11.4. Lengthy Initial Skills and Advanced Training Courses (enlisted only). Non-rated
periods are considered only for initial skills or advanced training courses more than 20
continuous weeks. The following training courses do not qualify for use of non-rated:
initial skills and advanced training courses that are under 20 continuous weeks; all other 3-
, 5-, or 7-level training courses under 20 continuous weeks; or other specific skills-training
courses (e.g., field detachment training, flight requalification courses, pre-deployment
training) for which the ratee travels TDY.
1.4.11.4.1. Approval Authority. AFPC/DP3SP serves as the approval authority for
RegAF members and ARPC/DPTSE serves as the approval authority for ARC
members for courses requesting consideration for non-rated periods of supervision. All
requests must be signed/submitted by the applicable training course’s administrative
control (ADCON) wing commander/senior rater. For Air Education and Training
Command courses of instruction, requests will be routed through Second Air Force,
Manpower, Personnel, and Services Directorate (2 AF/A1), who will review,
consolidate, provide a recommendation, and then forward to AFPC/DP3SP for final
approval.
1.4.11.4.2. A minimum of one performance statement is required in the rater’s and
Higher-Level Reviewer’s (HLR) comments sections of the enlisted ALQ evaluations.
“THIS SECTION NOT USED,” may be used as a mandatory performance statement.
Note: Training squadrons are prohibited from replicating comments for use across
multiple enlisted evaluations. Comments must be unique to each trainee’s
accomplishments and level of performance.
1.4.11.5. Personal Hardships. Commanders may designate periods as non-rated if they
determine an Airman is undergoing or has undergone personal hardships during the
reporting period.
1.4.11.6. Notification. Once the non-rated period is approved, notify the Airman’s rater
and annotate the evaluation accordingly. If additional non-rated periods are deemed
necessary, notification will follow in the same manner.
1.4.11.7. Reporting. The rater will not consider nor comment on the Airman’s
performance (to include any misconduct) during a non-rated period, unless requested by
the ratee. If the non-rated period covers the entire reporting period, enter the statement:
“Airman is not rated for this period: (date) through (date). No comments authorized in
accordance with AFI 36-2406” into all major performance areas and HLR comment section
on the officer and enlisted ALQ evaluations. Note: TSgt and below members who are
time-in-grade (TIG)/time-in-service (TIS) eligible will receive a forced distribution
promotion recommendation.
1.4.12. Signatures, Signature Elements and Dates.
1.4.12.1. General Signature and Date Guidelines.
1.4.12.1.1. Do not sign or date before the close-out or “Thru” date. Sign on or after.
(T-1)
1.4.12.1.2. Do not sign blank forms/briefs that do not contain ratings or comments.
(T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 17
1.4.12.1.3. Do not use “auto-signature” pens or delegated Common Access
Card/digital signatures. (T-1)
1.4.12.1.4. Do not delay signing an evaluation due to pending personnel changes,
promotions, or approval of a more prestigious duty title. (T-1)
1.4.12.1.5. Do not “back date” the signature. Exception: If, after referring an
evaluation to the ratee, the evaluation is reprinted for the purpose of including all
evaluator comments or for making minor administrative corrections that do not require
an additional referral to the ratee, all signature dates, up to and including the referring
official(s), should reflect the date it was originally signed. This is necessary to show
the dates each referral action actually occurred to ensure the evaluation was properly
processed. All evaluators, subsequent to the (last) referring official will use either
original signature dates or current signature dates. (T-1)
1.4.12.2. Digital Signatures and Dates.
1.4.12.2.1. Raters and HLRs will use digital signatures to the maximum extent
possible. (T-1) However, if unable to utilize digital signature, the rating chain may use
a combination of a digital, a “wet” signature, or a typed signature. For the typed
signature, the rating chain may use the approved typed signature in the “Signature”
block located below the “Duty Title” and “Date” blocks. The approved typed signature
must include: two backslashes at the front and two backslashes at the end, the word
“signed,” the signatory’s initials, DoDID number, and date of the typed signature.
(T-1) The typed signature format is: \\signed, xxx, DoDID #, DD Mmm YY\\. Note:
When “wet” signed, print AF Forms 715 and 716 head to foot and handwrite or stamp
the dates. Note: Typed signatures are not authorized on the DAF Form 709.
1.4.12.2.1.1. If a signature cannot be obtained, AFPC/DPMSPE, following
guidance from AFPC/DP3SP, will assist RegAF members and ARPC/DPTSE will
assist ARC members in completing the evaluation before the next level evaluator
signs and forwards the evaluation to AFPC or ARPC. (T-2) If using the typed
signature with the DoDID number, signatories have the option to include or exclude
the last four digits of their Social Security number in the “SSN” block.
1.4.12.2.1.2. In all instances, the rater is responsible to provide the ratee an
opportunity to view the final version of the evaluation even if the ratee is unable to
sign the evaluation. (T-2)
1.4.12.2.1.3. In the event the mitigations above are unsuccessful, AFPC/DP3SP
will assist members in completing the evaluation; ARPC/DPTSE will assist ARC
members in completing the evaluation. (T-2).
1.4.12.2.2. Evaluation forms are enabled with digital signature and auto date
capability. Forms will auto-date only when a digital signature is applied.
1.4.12.2.2.1. Subsequent evaluators are unable to sign before the previous
evaluator due to the security features associated with the digital signature
capability.
18 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.4.12.2.2.2. Each evaluator’s digital signature will lock their comments and
ratings; additionally, it will unlock the digital signature feature for the next
evaluator.
1.4.12.2.2.3. The Air Force advisor/functional examiner and forced distributor or
unit commander/military or civilian director/other authorized reviewer digital
signature capabilities are not locked and are independent of other evaluator
signatures.
1.4.12.3. For Brigadier General (Brig Gen) and Major General (Maj Gen):
1.4.12.3.1. For Brig Gen Selects and Maj Gen Selects. Upon Senate confirmation,
selects may sign all evaluations as “Brig Gen (Sel)” or “Maj Gen (Sel),” only when
serving in a senior rater/ HLR position or assigned to an authorized Brig Gen/Maj Gen
position.
1.4.12.3.2. Frocked. For all evaluations, sign as “Brig Gen” or “Maj Gen”.
1.4.12.3.3. Upon Senate confirmation, for a Brig Gen-select who is already the
designated senior rater for the lieutenants through majors in an organization, the
management level must realign their senior rater identifications (SRIDs) and re-
designate the selectee as the senior rater for the colonels and lieutenant colonels of the
organization.
1.4.12.3.4. There can only be one senior rater on a report; see paragraph 1.7.1.5 and
paragraph 1.7.1.6 for exceptions.
1.4.12.3.4.1. Only one general officer or equivalent will sign an evaluation as an
evaluator/HLR. (T-1)
1.4.12.3.4.2. Senior Executive Service (SES) and General Officer Equivalents.
SES employees are typically general officer equivalents and, for some, senior rater
positions. On evaluations, if an SES employee is a senior rater, then a general
officer cannot sign the report. However, if an SES employee is not a senior rater
and falls under a general officer who is a senior rater, then both the SES employee
and general officer signatures may sign the report. There can be two SES employee
signatures on an evaluation report if only one of them is designated by the
management level as a senior rater and a general officer who is not a senior rater is
not signing the report. An SES employee is only required to use the term “Senior
Executive Service” and the level is optional in the signature element.
1.5. Evaluator Requirements.
1.5.1. Number of Evaluators.
1.5.1.1. An officer performance brief (OPB) and enlisted performance brief (EPB) will
have two evaluators unless the rater qualifies as a single evaluator. (T-1)
1.5.1.2. A DAF Form 78 and DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation, will have two
evaluators unless one evaluator qualifies as a single evaluator. (T-1)
1.5.1.3. PRFs will have only one evaluator.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 19
1.5.1.4. Training reports (TRs) will have only one evaluator unless there is a disagreement
(paragraph 1.10); or the evaluation is referred, and the commander is not the evaluator
named in the referral evaluation as referral reviewer (paragraph 1.11); or the reviewer is
senior to the commander and refers the evaluation.
1.5.2. Grade Requirement for Raters and Evaluators.
1.5.2.1. Raters.
1.5.2.1.1. For officers. The rater will be an officer of the U.S. or foreign military, or a
civilian, of equal or higher rank or grade than the ratee (to include selects). (T-1)
Example: If a ratee is a major rated by a major, and the ratee is selected for lieutenant
colonel but the rater is not, then the rater must be changed to another lieutenant colonel
or above.
1.5.2.1.2. For enlisted. The rater will be an officer, another enlisted member of equal
or higher rank or grade than the ratee (to include selects), or a civilian at least GS-
5/NH-II/equivalent or higher and in a position higher in the rating chain than the ratee.
A senior airman (SrA) must complete Airman Leadership School prior to assuming or
being assigned rater responsibilities. (T-1) Example: If a ratee is a master sergeant
rated by a master sergeant, and the ratee is selected for senior master sergeant but the
rater is not, then the rater must be changed to another senior master sergeant or above.
1.5.2.1.3. Additional Requirements for Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs)
The rater will not normally be another IMA. When circumstances require an IMA
directly supervise another IMA, the rater will be appointed by the respective unit
commander. IMAs or Traditional Reservists may supervise/rate RegAF personnel only
if on consecutive active-duty military personnel appropriation orders for a minimum of
120 calendar days. Reserve members on active-duty orders for a minimum of 120
calendar days or members on statutory tours may supervise/rate RegAF members under
their command or operational direction. (T-1) See DAFI 51-509, Appointment to and
Assumption of Command.
1.5.3. Senior Rater.
1.5.3.1. Senior raters are assigned to and identified by the senior rater position designated
by the management level for the ratee’s assigned organizational personnel accounting
symbol (PAS) code. (T-2) One senior rater may be assigned to two separate senior rater
positions at the same time. However, a head of management level may not serve as head
of two separate management levels. There may be a separate senior rater for
colonels/lieutenant colonels vs. majors and below vs. enlisted members for the same PAS
code if designated by the management level.
1.5.3.2. The head of management level, normally the MAJCOM/CC, designates all senior
rater positions. Appointment of command (G-series orders) does not automatically
authorize senior rater status.
1.5.3.3. AFRC may deviate and assign senior rater levels as appropriate for AFR unit
assigned majors and below.
20 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.5.4. Higher Level Reviewer. The HLR is the final evaluator on the ALQ evaluation. The
HLR is a senior leader who has direct knowledge of and visibility on the performance of the
ratee within their peer group during the evaluation period. The intent is to improve Airmen’s
experience in receiving meaningful and actionable feedback on performance evaluations
reviewed by the designated senior leader. For HLR requirements, see paragraph 3.14 for
officers and paragraph 4.12.3 for enlisted.
1.6. Roles and Responsibilities.
1.6.1. Commander.
1.6.1.1. The commander of an organization must review the records of all personnel within
60 days of assumption of command, regardless of grade, assigned/attached under their
command, to ensure the knowledge of and familiarization of the Airman’s history, to
include any sex-related offenses, nonjudicial punishment, or other punitive administrative
action. (T-2) Sex-related offenses may include violations or attempted violations of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Articles 93a, 120, 120b, 120c, 130, certain
offenses under 134, or equivalent state offenses.
1.6.1.2. Commanders will ensure supervisors are properly trained and educated on how to
write a performance evaluation. (T-3)
1.6.2. General Evaluator/Higher Level Reviewer (HLR) Responsibilities. All evaluators and
HLRs are responsible for performing an administrative review of all evaluations and, if
necessary, return them for correction/completion before forwarding to the next level to ensure:
1.6.2.1. All applicable blocks are completed (marked, dated, and signed). (T-1)
1.6.2.2. Evaluations contain accurate information (particularly in the ratee identification
and job description sections). (T-1)
1.6.2.3. Evaluations do not contain inappropriate comments or recommendations. (T-1)
1.6.2.4. Evaluations are properly referred, when necessary. (T-1)
1.6.2.5. When required on the evaluation form, evaluators (except civilian and foreign-
service evaluators) must provide the last four numbers of SSN. (T-1). Use the SSN to
verify the identity of the evaluator for research and accountability.
1.6.3. Rater.
1.6.3.1. There are no minimum days of supervision to prepare an evaluation. (T-1) See
Table 3.2., Table 4.2, and Table 4.3.
1.6.3.2. Ensures the ratee is aware of who is in their rating chain. (T-1)
1.6.3.3. Provides a performance feedback assessment in accordance with Chapter 2. If
geographically separated, assessments can be performed electronically or telephonically.
1.6.3.4. Considers the contents of any Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and/or
personnel information file (PIF), if applicable, before preparing the performance
evaluation. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 21
1.6.3.5. Assesses and documents the ratee’s performance, what the ratee did, how well
they did it, and the ratee’s potential based on that performance, throughout the rating
period. The rater differentiates ratees through an evaluation of performance.
1.6.3.6. Receives meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible
(e.g., letters of evaluation (LOEs) from those who previously supervised the ratee during
the reporting period, the first sergeant, etc.), especially when the rater cannot observe the
ratee personally. The ratee is encouraged to provide the rater with inputs on specific
accomplishments; however, the ratee will not be directed to write or draft any portion of
their own performance report. Air Reserve Component (ARC) members should provide
information to the supervisor to assist in the preparation of the evaluation, including
notable military accomplishments for end-of-tour evaluations.
1.6.3.7. Considers the significance and frequency of incidents (including isolated
instances of poor or outstanding performance) when assessing total performance.
1.6.3.8. Differentiates between ratees with similar performance records, especially when
making promotion, stratification and retention recommendations when not prohibited by
this AFI or other special program specific guidance.
1.6.3.9. Records the ratee’s performance for the rating period on the applicable form.
1.6.3.10. A rater’s failure to perform one or more of the above responsibilities alone will
not form the basis for a successful appeal.
1.6.3.11. Raters will measure an Airman’s performance using a whole person concept
relative to the ratee’s specific grade, Air Force specialty code (AFSC), level of
responsibility, and assigned duties throughout the entire rating period using the four major
performance areas.
1.6.3.11.1. Executing the Mission. Raters should consider how well the ratee
effectively uses knowledge, initiative, and adaptability to produce timely, high
quality/quantity results to positively impact the mission.
1.6.3.11.2. Leading People. Raters should consider how well the ratee fosters cohesive
teams, effectively communicates, and uses emotional intelligence to take care of people
and accomplish the mission.
1.6.3.11.3. Managing Resources. Raters should consider how well the ratee manages
assigned resources effectively and takes responsibility for actions/behaviors to
maximize organizational performance.
1.6.3.11.4. Improving the Unit. Raters should consider how well the ratee
demonstrates critical thinking and fosters innovation to find creative solutions and
improve mission execution.
1.6.4. Higher Level Reviewer.
1.6.4.1. There is no minimum number of days supervision required.
1.6.4.2. Reviews the content of any UIF and/or PIF, if applicable, and returns the
evaluation to the rater for reconsideration, if appropriate, to ensure an accurate, unbiased,
and uninflated evaluation.
22 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.6.4.3. Obtains additional information, if necessary, from competent sources such as the
ratee’s second- and third-line supervisor.
1.6.4.4. Non-concurs with previous evaluators and makes comments, when applicable.
1.6.4.5. (Senior Rater only) Approves the unit mission descriptions for the PRF. (T-2)
1.6.4.6. Completes performance evaluations as required. See applicable chapters and/or
references/documents cited in paragraph 1.2. (T-2)
1.6.5. First Sergeant.
1.6.5.1. Will not assume rater responsibilities. (T-2)
1.6.5.2. Will be aware of the contents of the UIF and/or PIF if applicable, on all enlisted
evaluations, regardless of grade, and returns the evaluation to the rater for reconsideration,
if appropriate, to ensure an accurate, unbiased, and uninflated evaluation. (T-2)
1.6.5.3. Will review all enlisted evaluations before the commander’s review and advise
the commander of any quality force indicators. (T-2)
1.6.5.4. SNCOs will only be designated for organizations for which no 8F000/first
sergeant authorization exists. (T-2) Additional duty first sergeants will not complete
evaluation reviews in-lieu of an organization’s 8F000/first sergeant. Exception: Interim
first sergeants, additional duty first sergeants, or designated SNCOs may complete
evaluation reviews when the organization’s 8F000/first sergeant is unavailable due to
extended absence (e.g., deployment, lengthy training, or lengthy convalescent leave).
(T-2)
1.6.5.5. (ANG only) For ANG units without a full-time first sergeant, the full-time
SNCO/senior enlisted leader (SEL) in the member’s immediate rating chain my complete
the quality force review.
1.6.6. Forced Distributor.
1.6.6.1. Reviews all enlisted evaluations. (T-2)
1.6.6.2. Reviews the content of any UIF and/or PIF, if applicable, and returns the
evaluation to the rater for reconsideration, if appropriate, to ensure an accurate, unbiased,
and an uninflated evaluation. (T-2)
1.6.6.3. Flight commanders are not authorized to sign in this area.
1.6.6.4. Commandants for the Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA).
The SNCOA Commandant has been designated as the Final Evaluator for SMSgts and
below who are within their direct rating chain and/or scope of responsibility and are non-
promotion eligible, or who will not be endorsed/stratified by the senior rater or receive
force distribution as applicable.
1.6.6.5. Manages the performance evaluation program for the organization.
1.6.6.6. Ensures all evaluations accurately describe performance and make realistic
recommendations for advancement.
1.6.6.7. Prepares and maintains the unit mission description for the PRF.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 23
1.6.6.8. Determines the rating chain for assigned personnel based on Air Force and
management level policy.
1.6.6.8.1. The ratee’s parent management level must approve rating chains that involve
evaluators from other management levels.
1.6.6.8.2. For rating chain deviations see paragraph 1.7 and paragraph 1.13.
1.6.6.9. Ensures that no one in the rating chain is related to the member. (T-1)
1.6.6.10. Ensures the first sergeant (or additional duty first sergeant/designated SNCO)
conducts a quality force review on all enlisted evaluations before conducting the
commander’s review. (T-1)
1.6.7. Functional Examiner, Acquisition Examiner and Air Force Advisor.
1.6.7.1. Functional/Acquisition Examiner or Air Force Advisor Block.
1.6.7.1.1. Functional/acquisition examiners or Air Force advisors may provide
comments on the ALQ evaluation.
1.6.7.1.2. Comments are not mandatory; however, if used, the intent of these
comments are to provide clarification and ensure the evaluation is written in accordance
with AF policy and standards in a joint environment or to clarify functional or
acquisition-related considerations; not to list additional accomplishments or voice
disagreement with an evaluator’s assessment. Comments are limited to the space
available in myEval or on the AF Forms 715 and 716.
1.6.7.1.3. Functional/acquisition examiners or Air Force advisors will not change any
statement or rating on the evaluation. (T-1)
1.6.7.1.4. If the functional/acquisition examiner and the Air Force advisor are the same
person, both positions will be indicated; both the functional examiner and Air Force
advisor blocks will be marked on the evaluation. For evaluations that do not include
the examiner/advisor block (i.e., Training Reports), the examiner/advisor will indicate
both positions on the DAF Form 77. (T-1)
1.6.7.2. Air Force Advisor Program.
1.6.7.2.1. When the final evaluator on an evaluation or TR is not an Air Force military
member or civilian employee, an Air Force advisor will be designated to advise raters
on matters pertaining to Air Force evaluations. (T-2)
1.6.7.2.1.1. The senior Air Force military member on duty with the activity/agency
assumes this position. The management level may designate any Air Force member
or Air Force official meeting the grade requirement with the activity/agency to
serve as advisor.
1.6.7.2.1.1.1. For officers, the advisor will be a colonel or above. (T-2)
1.6.7.2.1.1.2. For SNCOs, the advisor will be a major or above. (T-2)
1.6.7.2.1.1.3. For noncommissioned officers (NCOs), the advisor will be a
master sergeant or above. (T-2)
24 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.6.7.2.1.1.4. For IMAs and Participating Individual Ready Reserve (PIRR)
members, the advisor is the person appointed by the management level for the
active force (for IMAs this will be unit of assignment; for PIRR members this
will be unit of attachment).
1.6.7.2.1.2. When an agency (e.g., DoD departments, non-Department of the Air
Force schools/units) has only one Air Force member assigned, the management
level for that activity appoints an advisor.
1.6.7.2.1.3. If the commander or designated Air Force officer/senior official who
completes the "commander's review" is senior/equal to the last evaluator (or is also
the unit’s designated advisor) and meets the Air Force advisor grade requirement,
the advisor statement does not need to be completed.
1.6.7.2.2. An Air Force advisor will have, or be able to obtain, knowledge of the ratee,
be higher in grade than the ratee and, when feasible, be equal to or higher in grade than
the HLR. Additionally, an O-6 cannot sign on another O-6. (T-1)
1.6.7.3. Functional Examiner. Designated to ensure functional oversight is provided for
individuals in specific career fields. The examiner accomplishes the examination after the
entire rating chain has completed the performance evaluation. If an Air Force advisor
review is also required, the examiner forwards the evaluation to the advisor. Otherwise,
the examiner forwards the evaluation to the rater to finalize the evaluation. Note: The
examiner will not change any statement or rating on an evaluation, nor will any comments
be used for accolades or recommendations. If comments are provided, the examiner is
limited to the space available in myEval. (T-2)
1.6.7.4. Acquisition Examiner.
1.6.7.4.1. In accordance with Title 10 United States Code Section 1722(g),
Performance Appraisals, provide an opportunity for review and inclusion of comments
on any performance evaluation of a person serving in an acquisition position by a
person serving in an acquisition position in the same acquisition career field. In most
instances, this opportunity is inherent in the completion of the performance evaluation
by acquisition officers in the rating chain. However, in the event neither the rater nor
the HLR are on acquisition-coded positions in the same acquisition position category,
the ratee may request that the performance evaluation be examined by a qualified
acquisition officer from outside the rating chain (i.e., an acquisition examiner).
1.6.7.4.2. Review by an Acquisition Examiner.
1.6.7.4.2.1. Review by an acquisition examiner is completed only when the ratee
requests a review and is filling an acquisition-coded position; and neither the rater
nor the HLR are on a coded position in the same acquisition position category.
1.6.7.4.2.2. (ANG only) Review by a functional/acquisitions examiner is
mandatory when there are no acquisition-coded positions, in the same acquisition
position category, in the rating chain.
1.6.7.4.3. Acquisition positions are identified on the unit manpower document and are
also identified on the evaluation notice generated when an evaluation is required.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 25
1.6.7.4.4. The acquisition examiner must be a person in an acquisition-coded position
within the same acquisition position category as the ratee. If the management level
does not have anyone who meets the criteria herein, the management level can forward
the evaluation to the Air Staff functional to identify an acquisition examiner. The
minimum grade of the examiner will be:
1.6.7.4.4.1. O-6 or civilian equivalent on a critical acquisition position (for
officers).
1.6.7.4.4.2. O-4 or civilian equivalent (for enlisted).
1.6.7.4.5. The acquisition examiner accomplishes the acquisition examination after the
entire rating chain has completed the performance evaluation. (T-3)
1.6.7.4.6. Comments are not mandatory, but if desired for clarification about
acquisition-related considerations, the examiner prepares them on the evaluation in
myEval. The examiner will not change any statement or rating on the evaluation, nor
will their comments be used simply to include additional comments, accolades,
recommendations, etc. If provided, comments are limited to the space available in
myEval.
1.6.8. Ratee.
1.6.8.1. The ratee is responsible for knowing the rating chain and ensuring they receive a
performance feedback assessment in accordance with Chapter 2.
1.6.8.2. For officer and enlisted evaluation responsibilities see Chapters 3 and 4.
1.6.8.3. For PRF responsibilities see Chapter 8.
1.6.8.4. For appeals see Chapter 10.
1.6.8.5. Ratee Review. Ratees will review their evaluation prior to signing. Ratees are
encouraged to check for typos, spelling, and inaccurate data and to bring any discrepancies
to the rater’s attention. Note: A performance feedback assessment is not required upon
completion of the evaluation. The evaluation serves as official documentation of the
feedback provided to the ratee.
1.6.9. Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and Commander’s Support Staff (CSS).
1.6.9.1. The MPF and CSS will work together in managing the Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems for organizations under their purview, to include geographically
separated units. Managing includes reviewing all evaluations for administrative accuracy
and policy compliance and updating the MilPDS. (T-2)
1.6.9.2. Provide technical assistance to the commander and evaluators.
1.6.9.3. Evaluations will be routed within myEval for digitally signed evaluations; wet
signature evaluations will be scanned and loaded into myEval.
1.6.9.4. Coordinate referral reports with appropriate work centers in the MPF to ensure
MilPDS updates are accomplished. (T-2)
1.6.9.5. MPFs will return evaluations to be re-accomplished when they do not conform to
the requirements of this instruction. (T-2)
26 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.6.10. Major Commands (MAJCOMs). The management level and their servicing personnel
activity:
1.6.10.1. Designate senior rater positions and determine civilian equivalency for senior
rater designations. Note: If the deputy commander is assuming commander
responsibilities and the management level wants them to have senior rater responsibilities,
the management level must appoint the deputy commander senior rater responsibilities in
writing.
1.6.10.2. Manage the performance evaluation program for their activity and quality review
PRFs and return them for correction, when necessary.
1.6.10.3. Print copies of digitally signed evaluations from ARMS/PRDA.
1.6.10.4. Approve evaluators to be from a different management level than that of the ratee
in accordance with management level policy.
1.6.10.5. Appoint Air Force advisors in writing and ensure these individuals are current
on evaluation policies and procedures.
1.6.10.6. Appoint acquisition examiners and establish officer evaluation routing
procedures when the examination cannot be accomplished within the existing rating chain.
1.6.11. Headquarters Air Force (HAF).
1.6.11.1. AF/A1 develops policy regarding the Air Force Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Systems.
1.6.11.2. AF/A1P develops plans and programs to implement policy on the Air Force
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems in collaboration with the Air Force Reserve
Directorate of Personnel (AF/REP) and NGB Manpower, Personnel, and Services
Directorate (NGB/A1) and establishes an annual evaluation systems program review to
determine if improvements or changes are needed.
1.6.11.3. AF/A1 approves USAF enlisted forced distribution panel (EFDP) formal board
charges annually prior to the convening of the first EFDP panel of the fiscal year.
1.6.12. HQ Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC).
1.6.12.1. AFPC/DP3SP implements and oversees execution of the Air Force Officer and
Enlisted ALQ Evaluation Systems program.
1.6.12.2. AFPC may review a random sampling of evaluations for compliance with policy
directives and this instruction within myEval.
1.6.13. Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).
1.6.13.1. Receives all referral evaluations for ARC members. (T-1)
1.6.13.2. Forwards all ARC referral evaluations to ARMS/PRDA. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 27
1.7. Rating Chain Deviations and Evaluator Changes. This paragraph does not apply to rater
changes due to PCS, PCA, separation, or retirement of the rater.
1.7.1. Rating Chain Deviations.
1.7.1.1. The commander determines the rating chain for assigned personnel based on Air
Force and management level policy. When necessary, commanders may deviate from the
normal (supervisory) rating chain to meet grade requirements. Commanders may
accommodate unique organizational structures and situations when personnel are assigned
to other activities outside the ratee’s assigned PAS code. The commander of the assigned
billet and the commander of the outside activity must formally agree to rating chain
deviations that include evaluators from outside the owning organization. (T-2)
1.7.1.1.1. For officer ratees, the parent management level must approve rating chains
that involve evaluators from other management levels; however, both management
levels (the parent and the temporary management level) must formally agree to the
rating chain deviation. (T-2)
1.7.1.1.2. A rating chain deviation must be in effect for at least 12 months or longer,
for the temporary rating chain or management level to be able to sign reports. (T-2) If
there is a rating chain deviation for less than 12 months, then the parent management
level must sign all reports. (T-1) Rating chain deviations must be initiated no later than
60 days prior to the close-out date of the evaluation. (T-2)
1.7.1.1.3. Upon rating chain deviation approval, the temporary management level will
be responsible for writing the member’s officer evaluation, PRF, LOE, decoration, etc.
until the member is placed back under their parent management level. (T-1) Example:
A major is on loan from a wing to the Numbered Air Force (NAF) commander to fill
an executive officer position for 12 months. Through agreement with the parent
management level and temporary management level, the parent management level can
approve a rating chain deviation. Once approved, the NAF commander will sign the
officer’s evaluation, PRF, LOE, decoration, etc.
1.7.1.1.4. It is prohibited to make rating chain deviations (such as skipping an
evaluator) solely for reasons of convenience. (T-1) Example: Do not skip a member
in the rating chain who is temporarily unavailable (on leave, TDY, etc.). Do not skip
a member in the rating chain for the sole purpose of affording another official in the
supervisory chain (e.g., the rater’s rater or the senior rater) the opportunity to endorse
or comment in an evaluation.
1.7.1.1.5. Associate Unit. A unit which integrates members or units of one component
of the Air Force with members or units of another component of the Air Force to
accomplish the United States Air Force (USAF) mission (e.g., AFR/ANG with the
RegAF). In these cases, evaluation rating chains may involve different USAF
components and shall normally be written by the member’s day-to-day supervisor in
accordance with affected management level direction. However, evaluations must be
returned to the member's administrative control commander/reviewer/HLR/senior rater
to finalize the evaluation/endorsement. This allows for maximum operational
integration and reporting accuracy while still meeting administrative (PAS code driven)
requirements.
28 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.7.1.1.6. If a member is performing duty in an organization other than their assigned
PAS code, enter the assigned information, followed by “with duty at . . .” to indicate
the organization where the ratee performed duty. This includes personnel on 365-day
extended deployment billets. Example: 341st Security Forces Squadron (AFGSC),
Malmstrom AFB MT, with duty at 447 ESFS (USAFCENT), Baghdad International
Airport, Baghdad, Iraq. Note: Do not use this to enter a second organization if the
ratee is filling a dual-hatted role. (T-1) Instead, mention the dual-hatted role in the job
description or elsewhere in the evaluation.
1.7.1.2. Flight Commander/Flight Chief Rating Chains. For flight commander and flight
chief rating chains, when an officer leads a flight, the position is flight commander and is
rated by the squadron commander. When an enlisted person or civilian leads a flight, the
position is a flight chief. Applicable to both the operational and the functional
communities.
1.7.1.3. Health Professionals.
1.7.1.3.1. The Defense Health Agency-aligned network director will be the rater for
colonel military treatment facility (MTF) directors/market directors. (T-1) The HLR
will be the respectively aligned NAF commander (or equivalent) or Field Command
(FLDCOM) commander (for USSF bases/organizations). See paragraph 1.7.1.5.
1.7.1.3.2. The management level will be the supported MAJCOM commander. (T-1)
1.7.1.3.3. This policy applies to current and future medical units that are also defined
as MTFs and configured as wings, groups, squadrons, or flights.
1.7.1.4. Senior Defense Official/Defense Attaché (SDO/DATT) Program.
1.7.1.4.1. SDO/DATT personnel will be rated by Defense Intelligence Agency.
1.7.1.4.2. For individuals assigned or attached to a combatant command (CCMD),
normal processing procedures apply. PRFs in these cases, will be accomplished by the
CCMD.
1.7.1.5. Currently paragraph 1.4.12.3.4.1 prohibits multiple general officers from serving
as evaluators on performance evaluations. However, for members filling the MTF Director
role, or for SDO/DATT personnel, multiple general officers are authorized. When
applicable, enter “TWO GENERAL OFFICERS AUTHORIZED IAW AFI 36-2406.”
1.7.1.5.1. 365-day Deployment Enlisted (MSgt and SMSgt only). Multiple general
officer endorsements are authorized when the rater is a general officer but not a senior
rater, and the ratee has been selected for senior rater stratification/endorsement.
1.7.1.5.2. For ANG only, multiple general officer endorsements are authorized when
the rater is a general officer, and the ratee has been selected for senior rater stratification
and/or endorsement.
1.7.1.6. General officers signing referral reports. If the senior rater is a general officer,
and is the evaluator who refers the evaluation, the referral reviewer will be the senior rater’s
rater regardless of rank or grade. Enter the required statement “TWO GENERAL
OFFICERS AUTHORIZED IAW AFI 36-2406”. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 29
1.7.2. Removal of Evaluator from Rating Chain. Evaluators are not removed from the rating
chain based solely on a rating disagreement; nor are they removed from their evaluator
responsibilities automatically. However, evaluators who are subject to a complaint of
harassment or assault are prohibited from evaluating the complainant and will be removed
from the complainant’s rating chain. (T-1) Cases involving threats of reprisal or retaliation
are serious allegations and have the potential to impede trust and readiness. Therefore,
removing an evaluator from a rating chain for either of these reasons will be at the
commander’s discretion.
1.7.2.1. If it is determined that removal from evaluator responsibilities is necessary, the
removing official must provide written notification of the action to the evaluator being
removed, with information copies to the removed evaluator’s immediate subordinate(s)
and any other evaluators in the rating chain, through and including the senior rater. (T-1)
The evaluator being removed must acknowledge receipt within 30 calendar days from the
date, or the date of discovery, of the incident that led to the removal from evaluator
responsibilities. (T-1)
1.7.2.2. If the rater has died, is missing-in-action, captured or detained in captive status,
incapacitated, or when directed by the HLR/senior rater (officers) or commander (enlisted)
because the rater is formally relieved from duties as an evaluator or relieved from duty for
cause:
1.7.2.2.1. The commander will assign a new rater to assume the responsibilities. (T-1)
1.7.2.2.2. When this occurs, a statement explaining why the rater did not prepare the
evaluation must be included in the mandatory comments section of the evaluation.
(T-1)
1.7.2.2.3. Evaluations prepared by a rater under these circumstances which are not yet
a matter of record are considered working copies and may be re-accomplished.
1.8. Evaluator’s Mandatory Considerations.
1.8.1. Convictions. Any conviction for a violation of criminal law of the U.S. or of any other
country must be reported, in writing, by all officers and enlisted members. Members in an
active status will report a conviction to their rater within 15 days of the date of the conviction.
(T-0) Members not in an active status will report the conviction to their wing
commander/equivalent at the first drill period or within 30 calendar days of the date of
conviction, whichever is earlier. (T-0) Individual Ready Reserve members will report the
conviction to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) within 30 calendar days of the date of
the conviction. (T-0)
1.8.1.1. Comments are required on members who have been convicted of a civilian offense
that: 1) is a sexual offense that is the same as, or closely related to, sex-related offenses
punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or attempts to commit any
of those offenses, 2) carries a possible sentence of confinement for more than one year or
death, or 3) results in a sentence that includes unsuspended confinement. (T-0) For further
guidance, supervisors and commanders will contact an attorney in the servicing office of
the staff judge advocate.
30 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.8.1.1.1. Waiver Requests.
1.8.1.1.1.1. In extraordinary cases, raters may request a waiver of the mandatory
requirement to document civilian convictions for good cause. The waiver request
will route from the rater, through the ratee’s commander, to the ratee’s senior rater.
The senior rater may either deny the request or endorse and forward to the
MAJCOM/CC. In the case of reports within Air Force District of Washington
(AFDW), United States Air Force Academy, or any direct reporting unit of AFDW
or field operating agency report to any activity on the Air Staff, requests will be
forwarded to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force (VCSAF). For the Air
National Guard, requests will be forwarded to the Director, Air National Guard
(DANG).
1.8.1.1.1.2. If the senior rater denies the waiver request, the decision is final and
may not be appealed or considered further. This does not prevent an individual
from challenging any completed report in any other appropriate forums, e.g., ERAB
or the AFBCMR.
1.8.1.1.1.3. When the senior rater endorses the waiver request, they will then
forward it to the MAJCOM/CC, VCSAF, or DANG for decision. The final
approval authority will either approve or deny the request.
1.8.1.1.1.3.1. The MAJCOM/CC may delegate to the major command deputy
commander (MAJCOM/CD), or, in the case of the Air Force, Vice Chief of
Staff (AF/CV), to the Air Force, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff (AF/CVA). No
further delegation beyond an Adjutant General, or equivalent, is authorized for
the ANG. The decision of the approval authority is the final decision for such
waiver requests and may not be appealed or considered further. This does not
prevent an individual from challenging any completed report in any other
appropriate forums, e.g., ERAB or the AFBCMR.
1.8.1.1.1.3.2. In order to approve any waiver requests, the approval authority
must issue a written finding that the mandatory comments for the specific
criminal conviction are not in the best interests of the Air Force and that the
inclusion of any such comments would unduly harm the ratee. Upon final
decision, forward the waiver documentation to AFPC/DPMSPE and the AFPC
Military Records Section (AFPC/DPSORM) via email. Written waiver
approvals will be filed in the member’s Master Personnel Records Group
(Section H) for the sole purpose of documenting the final approval.
1.8.1.2. Comments are required if a member has been convicted of any offense by a court-
martial.
1.8.1.3. A rater is not required to comment on any conviction in a current report if the
misconduct or event that ultimately resulted in a conviction was addressed on a previous
evaluation. For example, if a member is arrested and charged with an offense by off-base
officials who decline to waive jurisdiction, and the member ultimately receives a letter of
reprimand that is commented on in an evaluation, but later, the off-base prosecution results
in a conviction, then the rater is not required to comment on the conviction because the
underlying misconduct that led to the conviction was addressed in a previous evaluation.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 31
1.8.1.4. For purposes of this policy, the term “conviction” includes a plea or finding of
guilty, a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), and all other actions tantamount to a finding
of guilty, including adjudication withheld, deferred prosecution, entry into adult or juvenile
pretrial intervention programs, and any similar disposition of charges.
1.8.1.5. For purpose of this policy, a criminal law of the U.S. includes any federal, state,
district, commonwealth, territory/equivalent, county, parish, municipality, city, township,
local subdivision, or foreign criminal law or ordinance.
1.8.2. Sex-related Offenses. Document substantiated offenses in the permanent record. (T-0)
This includes any substantiated allegation of a sex-related offense that results in conviction by
court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or other punitive administrative action (e.g., letter of
reprimand). Documenting sex-related offenses in an evaluation does not limit or prohibit the
Airman from challenging the placement or appealing for removal.
1.8.3. Equal Opportunity and Treatment. Unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment
violate the very premise of what it means to be an Airman. Evaluators must ensure compliance
with DoD and Department of the Air Force directives prohibiting such behavior and document
deviations on evaluations as prescribed in DAFI 36-2710, Equal Opportunity Program. (T-0)
1.8.4. Prohibited Activities. Airmen are prohibited from actively advocating supremacist,
extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance,
encourage, or advocate illegal discrimination or deprive others of their civil rights. Such
behavior is incompatible with military service. Evaluators must consider a ratee’s membership
in these types of groups and document prohibited activity by the ratee as prescribed in DAFI
51-508, Political Activities, Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly of Air Force Personnel.
1.8.5. Occupational Safety and Health. Consider how commanders, managers, and
supervisors discharge their responsibilities under the Air Force Occupational and
Environmental Safety, Fire Protection, and Health Program.
1.8.6. Security of Classified Information. Consider how well ratees who handle or have access
to classified information discharge security responsibilities. When appropriate, comment on
any action, behavior, or condition that is reportable under security regulations.
1.8.7. Adverse Information.
1.8.7.1. For Enlisted. If a member has been convicted by a court-martial, received an
Article 15, or if the senior rater decides to file adverse information in the member’s senior
non-commissioned officer selection record, comments relating to the ratee’s adverse
conduct are mandatory on the next enlisted evaluation, if not already documented; the
evaluation becomes a referral. (T-1)
1.8.7.2. For Officers.
1.8.7.2.1. If a member has adverse information filed in their officer selection record,
comments relating to the ratee’s adverse conduct are mandatory on the next officer
evaluation or TR, if not already documented; the evaluation becomes a referral. (T-1)
Comments relating to the officer’s adverse conduct are only mandatory on the next
PRF if the adverse information has not already been filed in the officer selection record
and documented on an evaluation or TR.
32 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.8.7.2.2. Adverse information includes, but is not limited to, all letters of
admonishment or higher and letters of counseling (LOCs) related to a substantiated
finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry. LOCs
unrelated to a substantiated finding or conclusion from an officially documented
investigation or inquiry (referred to as “standalone” LOCs) are not considered adverse
information and are not required to be commented on in an evaluation or TR. See
DAFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, for further guidance. Exception:
When a commander (or equivalent) decides not to issue written command action to an
officially documented investigation or inquiry that concludes with a substantiated
finding, evaluators are not required to comment on the adverse information summary
issued and filed in an officer selection record in the evaluation.
1.8.8. Organizational Climate.
1.8.8.1. Organizational climate is defined as the way in which members in a unit perceive
and characterize their unit environment. All Airmen are responsible for creating an
organizational climate in which every member is treated with dignity and respect, and one
that does not tolerate unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual assault in any
form. NCOs and officers are not only responsible for creating this environment but are
also accountable for it. NCOs and officers will build a healthy organizational climate by:
communicating clear direction at all levels of supervision; adhering to and enforcing
standards; not tolerating and, when necessary, appropriately responding to any form of
sexual harassment, sexual assault, hazing, unlawful discrimination, or any other conduct
harmful to the good order and discipline of the unit; being accountable for their actions;
and cultivating an environment where teamwork, unity and cohesiveness are the standard
practice. (T-0)
1.8.8.2. Commanders at every level have an even greater responsibility to create a healthy
climate in their command. Additionally, they are responsible for ensuring adherence to
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program directives. Command climate,
just like organizational climate, is the perception of a unit’s environment by its members.
Commanders are ultimately responsible for the good order and discipline in their unit and
have unique responsibility and authority to ensure good order and discipline. Therefore,
evaluators must take this special responsibility and authority into consideration when
evaluating a commander’s effectiveness in ensuring a healthy command climate. (T-0) A
commander’s evaluation shall require a statement regarding whether the commander has
conducted the required command climate assessments and provided the results with
remedy plan to the rater. (T-0) A commander’s evaluation shall also indicate the extent
to which the commanding officer has or has not established a command climate in which:
1.8.8.2.1. Allegations of sexual assault are properly managed and fairly evaluated.
(T-0)
1.8.8.2.2. A victim of criminal activity, including sexual assault, can report criminal
activity without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other
members of the command. (T-0)
1.8.8.3. All evaluators will assess their ratee(s) on what the member did to ensure a healthy
organizational climate. (T-0)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 33
1.9. Mandatory Comments. Certain items are required to be considered and may be required to
be commented upon in an Airman’s evaluation. When an item is required to be commented upon,
the evaluator will enter a unique performance statement(s) to address the required item unless a
specific comment or entry is mandated by this instruction. Specific comments or entries are
identified by the instruction to “enter” or “include the statement” followed by the specific comment
placed within quotation marks and must be documented on the evaluation as stated.
1.9.1. Commander Evaluations. If a ratee is or was a commander at any point in the rating
period, the evaluation will require a mandatory statement stating that the supervisor received
the commander’s annual climate assessment results and conducted the appropriate review
and/or took the appropriate accountability measures with the subordinate commander after
reviewing the results. (T-1)
1.9.2. Command Oversight of Housing. If the ratee is an installation/wing commander,
installation/wing, command chief, mission support group (MSG) commander (MSG/CC) (or
equivalent), MSG senior enlisted leader (SEL) (or equivalent), civil engineer squadron (CES)
commander (CES/CC), CES SEL, or military installation housing manager (as applicable) at
any point in the rating period, the ratee will be evaluated and assessed on the extent to which
these individuals have or have not exercised effective oversight and leadership in the
following:
1.9.2.1. Improving conditions of military privatized housing. (T-0)
1.9.2.2. Addressing concerns of members of the Armed Forces and their families who
reside in military privatized housing on the installation. (T-0)
1.9.3. If a member has been assigned to serve as a voting assistance officer at any point in the
rating period, a comment relating to the performance of the member in these duties is required.
(T-0) See 10 U.S.C. § 1566, Voting Assistance: compliance assessments; assistance.
1.9.4. Referral Reviewer. For a referral LOE, officer or enlisted ALQ evaluation, or TR, the
evaluator named in the referral evaluation must comment as required by paragraph
1.11.5.3.2.2.
1.9.5. If the rater died, became incapacitated, or was relieved from duties as an evaluator, state
the reason in the feedback sections of the officer evaluation (see paragraph 1.7.2.2) or in the
remarks section of the enlisted evaluation. (T-1)
1.9.6. If performance feedback was not accomplished, state the reason why it was not
accomplished. Rationale must be placed in myEval when completing ALQ evaluations. (T-1)
The reason must be honest, plausible, and specific, such as “Midterm feedback assessment not
conducted due to only 58 calendar days supervision between initial feedback assessment and
the evaluation close-out date,” or “Rater was unable to conduct feedback assessment (state
specific reason).” Non-receipt of a feedback notice and “administrative oversight” are not
acceptable reasons.
34 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.10. Disagreements.
1.10.1. A disagreement is when a subsequent evaluator non-concurs with or makes any
statement that indicates obvious difference with a previous evaluator. Disagreements are a
difference in perspective and should not be viewed negatively. When disagreements occur,
they must be explained. When this occurs, the “non-concur” block is selected and comments
must be included to explain the disagreement. (T-1)
1.10.2. Comments to support disagreements are required. (T-1) Example: Disagree with
rater’s assessment of Executing the Mission—TSgt Smith was unable to provide correct
operating procedures during monthly evaluation; or Capt Rogers was unable to answer critical
questions concerning the operation of his flight leading to an Operational Readiness Inspection
rating of “Unsatisfactory” for his squadron.
1.10.3. Evaluators should discuss disagreements when preparing evaluations. Evaluators are
first given an opportunity to justify their comment; however, they will not change their
comments just to satisfy the disagreement. If, after discussion, the disagreement remains, the
evaluator who non-concurs should limit the comments to the space provided.
1.11. Referral Evaluations.
1.11.1. Purpose. Referral procedures are established to allow the ratee due process by giving
the ratee an opportunity to respond and/or rebut any negative comments before it becomes a
matter of record. Additionally, it allows evaluators to consider all the facts, including any they
may not have been aware of, prior to the evaluation becoming a matter of record.
1.11.2. General Information.
1.11.2.1. Vague Comments. Do not make vague comments about the member’s behavior
or performance. Example: "Due to a recent off-duty incident, Lt Jackson's potential is
limited" does not state what occurred. Vague comments do not fully explain the incident
or behavior, nor do they justify the referral. When doubt arises as to whether a comment
is a referral comment or not, refer the evaluation. This will afford the member an
opportunity to respond. It is better to afford the ratee the due process now while all
evaluators are available, than to try and refer it later if directed by the ERAB or AFBCMR.
1.11.2.2. Any evaluator whose ratings or comments causes an evaluation to become a
referral evaluation must give the ratee the opportunity to comment on the evaluation. (T-1)
1.11.2.3. A referral evaluation can be detrimental to an Airman’s career; therefore, face-
to-face interaction is required between the rater (or subsequent evaluator who provides
derogatory comments) and ratee. For geographically separated raters and ratees, this face-
to-face interaction may be accomplished electronically (e.g., via video conferencing).
1.11.2.4. An evaluation will be referred more than once when a subsequent evaluator gives
additional referral comments. (T-1) Note: Comments regarding the same incident or
behavior will not require the evaluation to be referred more than once.
1.11.2.5. If, after the evaluation has been referred to the ratee, updates are made to the
evaluation that add information or change the content (excluding administrative corrections
such as spelling or punctuation), the ratee must be given an opportunity to respond to the
updates. (T-1) Refer the evaluation again and allow 3 duty days for a response (30 calendar
days for non-extended active duty). (T-1) The date of the new referral evaluation must be
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 35
on or after the date the updated evaluation is signed. The ratee can submit a new rebuttal
or attach the previously submitted rebuttal.
1.11.2.6. Although an evaluation may be referred several times during processing, any one
evaluator will not normally refer the evaluation more than once. However, this does not
include evaluations referred again in accordance with paragraph 1.11.4.4.
1.11.2.7. Ensure the information (e.g., name, organizational information, etc.) of the next
evaluator is included on the evaluation or referral memorandum (training reports) when
referral procedures are not included on the evaluation itself.
1.11.2.8. The evaluator who refers the evaluation and any subsequent evaluators may
continue comments on a DAF Form 77 to explain non-concurrence or the behavior that led
to the referral. Comments are limited to the space on the front of the form (Section IV).
Each evaluator will use a separate form.
1.11.2.9. All original documents will remain attached to the original evaluation. (T-1)
1.11.2.10. In organizations where the rating chain crosses MAJCOM lines (for instance,
when there is a “dual-hatted” senior rater), the referral reviewer is the next official in the
chain of command from the MAJCOM that controls the ratee’s organization of assignment,
even if the senior rater’s rater belongs to the other MAJCOM.
1.11.2.11. Airmen whose most recent performance evaluation is or will be a referral are
ineligible for PCS subject to the parameters of DAFI 36-2110, Total Force Assignments.
1.11.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation.
1.11.3.1. Performance evaluations must be referred when comments in any officer or
enlisted ALQ evaluation, LOE, or TR (to include attachments), that are derogatory in
nature, imply or refer to behavior incompatible with or not meeting AF standards, and/or
refer to disciplinary actions. (T-1) When considering the Airman’s ability to meet
standards, consider unacceptable performance as actions that are incompatible with, and/or
Airmen who have routinely (i.e., a repeated inability to meet standards that would render
the aggregated performance assessment over the entire reporting period as below AF
standards and expectations) and/or significantly (i.e., a single instance where failure to
meet standards is either egregious in nature or so far short of a standard that it impacts
overall aggregated performance assessment) failed to adhere to established AF standards
and expectations. (T-1)
1.11.3.2. Directed by Commander Evaluations. DBC evaluations provide flexibility to
commanders to document substandard performance between SCODs as an embedded
report (between two officer or enlisted SCOD ALQ evaluations) and will only contain
comments and/or ratings regarding the reason(s) for the evaluation (i.e., only the
substandard performance). (T-1) All other comments, specifically those that are positive,
and promotion recommendations are not authorized and will be documented on the next
SCOD evaluation. (T-1) Comments regarding the substandard performance will be placed
in the appropriate MPAs or in the HLR section (if HLR is documenting). If all MPAs are
not used, the comment, “THIS SECTION NOT USED,” will be placed in the remaining
MPAs.
36 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.11.4. Who Refers a Performance Evaluation?
1.11.4.1. Any evaluator whose comment(s) causes the evaluation to be a referral will refer
the evaluation to the ratee. (T-1)
1.11.4.2. If a previous evaluator did not refer an evaluation and a subsequent evaluator
determines the evaluation should be referred, return the evaluation to the previous evaluator
and discuss the comment. The previous evaluator may change the comment, or the
subsequent evaluator may refer the evaluation. (T-1)
1.11.4.3. If there is a disagreement as to whether to refer an evaluation, the subsequent
evaluator may refer the evaluation.
1.11.4.4. When the HLR refers the evaluation, the HLR’s rater is the referral reviewer.
(T-1)
1.11.5. Responsibilities.
1.11.5.1. The Referring Evaluator Responsibilities.
1.11.5.1.1. Prepares the referral evaluation in accordance with Table 4.9 (enlisted),
Table 3.1 (officers), paragraph 1.11.6.4 and Figure 1.1 (training reports) or Table
5.1 (letter of evaluation), whichever is applicable. For DBC evaluations, the referring
evaluator must place a performance statement in at least one of the MPAs or in the
HLR section (if HLR is documenting) commenting on the behavior in addition to
completing the referral section. Note: The date the rater signs the evaluation, and the
date of the referral section (second page of the officer and enlisted ALQ evaluation or
DAF Form 77) or referral memorandum (for training reports) must be the same date,
or after.
1.11.5.1.2. On or after the close-out date of the evaluation, deliver the referral
evaluation and referral memorandum (for training reports), if used, to the ratee, discuss
the content of the referral evaluation with the ratee, provide counseling (if needed), and
obtain the ratee’s signature and the date acknowledging receipt. (T-1) After the ratee
signs the referral section or memorandum, provide a copy to the ratee and forward the
original to the referral reviewer. Do not include subsequent evaluator comments on the
referral evaluation until after the rebuttal is received or rebuttal period has passed.
(T-1)
1.11.5.1.3. If the ratee is geographically separated, send the referral evaluation
electronically. For those who have passed their date of separation, send a copy of the
referral evaluation to the referral reviewer and mail the original referral evaluation to
the ratee by “certified mail - return receipt requested.” (T-3)
1.11.5.1.4. Upon receipt of the completed evaluation (after the referring reviewer has
signed), provide feedback to the ratee and obtain the ratee’s signature. Next, forward
the evaluation to the ratee’s servicing MPF.
1.11.5.2. Ratee Responsibilities.
1.11.5.2.1. The ratee acknowledges receipt of the referral evaluation by signing and
dating the referral section or referral memorandum (training reports). (T-1) The
signature only acknowledges and verifies receipt of the referral evaluation on the date
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 37
indicated; it does not signify concurrence with the evaluation or indicate whether or not
the ratee will provide rebuttal remarks.
1.11.5.2.2. If the ratee is geographically separated, they will sign the referral section
or referral memorandum (training reports) of the evaluation to acknowledge receipt and
then forward the original to the evaluator named in the referral section/memorandum.
(T-1)
1.11.5.2.3. The ratee will provide rebuttal comments to the referral reviewer within 3
duty days (30 calendar days for non-extended active duty) from the date of receipt (if
mailed from the date of delivery), regardless of if the ratee is still on active duty. (T-1)
The ratee will upload or deliver the referral documents with all attachments. The ratee
may use certified or registered mail if geographically separated. The ratee may request
more time from the referral reviewer not to exceed 45 calendar days from
acknowledgement. Additionally, the ratee:
1.11.5.2.3.1. May ask the Area Defense Counsel or local personnel advisor to
provide guidance/assistance in preparing rebuttal comments.
1.11.5.2.3.2. Must limit comments, including any pertinent attachments, to a total
of 10 single-sided pages or 5 double-sided pages. (T-1) These will not reflect on
the character, conduct, integrity, or motives of an evaluator unless fully
substantiated and documented. All pertinent attachments become part of the
evaluation filed in the personnel record; however, items that are already part of the
permanent record, such as copies of previous evaluations, will be removed from the
referral package prior to filing. (T-1)
1.11.5.2.3.3. May have another individual prepare comments on their behalf (such
as an attorney). However, when this is done, the ratee must include a statement
confirming the document is to be considered as the ratee’s response. (T-1) This
statement will appear somewhere on the rebuttal document or be attached as a
separate statement. (T-1) Note: If the ratee’s statement is provided as a separate
attachment, it will be considered part of the 10-page restriction. (Example: If the
attorney submits 5 pages, the ratee can submit 5; if the attorney submits 9 pages,
then the ratee can only submit 1 page and vice versa).
1.11.5.2.4. May choose not to comment on the referral evaluation. Once the time limit
has elapsed, the referral reviewer completes the evaluation and continues normal
processing (see paragraph 1.11.5.3.). Failure to provide comments does not prevent
the ratee from later appealing the evaluation in accordance with the procedures in
Chapter 10 once the evaluation becomes a matter of record.
1.11.5.3. The Referral Reviewer. (The Evaluator Named in the Referral Section of the
Evaluation or Referral Memorandum [Training Reports].)
1.11.5.3.1. Must allow the ratee 3 duty days (30 calendar days for non-extended active
duty) to submit a rebuttal. (T-1) If the ratee needs additional time, e.g., due to the non-
availability of an Area Defense Counsel or the referral reviewer has returned the
rebuttal because it is more than 10 pages, the referral reviewer may grant an extension.
However, the referral reviewer will not review the evaluation until the 3 duty days (30
38 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
calendar days for non-extended active members) have passed, even if the ratee has
indicated that they will not submit comments. (T-1)
1.11.5.3.2. After 3 duty days (30 calendar days for non-extended active duty) have
passed, the referral reviewer will:
1.11.5.3.2.1. Review and consider the ratee’s comments, if provided.
1.11.5.3.2.2. Place the applicable mandatory statement in the evaluator’s comment
block of the appropriate evaluation.
1.11.5.3.2.2.1. If the ratee provided comments, enter the statement: "I have
carefully considered (ratee's name) comments to the referral evaluation of
(date)." Ensure this date is the date of the referral section/memorandum, not
the evaluation close-out date or the date of the ratee’s rebuttal. Subsequent
evaluators do not enter this statement.
1.11.5.3.2.2.2. If the ratee does not forward comments within 3 duty days (30
calendar days for non-extended active duty) (plus mailing time and any
approved extensions), enter the statement: "Comments from the ratee were
requested but were not received within the required period." (T-1) Then
forward the evaluation for normal processing.
1.11.5.3.3. Forward the evaluation with all attachments to the next evaluator. If the
referral reviewer is the final evaluator, forward the evaluation to the rater so the rater
can provide feedback and obtain the ratee’s acknowledgement of the completed
evaluation.
1.11.5.4. Additional/Subsequent Evaluators.
1.11.5.4.1. Send the evaluation to the next evaluator in the rating chain for additional
endorsement when an endorser is senior to the commander or when a commander who
is senior to the endorser refers the evaluation. See paragraph 1.11.4.4.
1.11.5.4.2. Prepare an endorsement in the referral comment section provided on the
evaluation.
1.11.5.4.3. If the evaluator on the DAF Form 77 or in the referral comments section is
not an Air Force officer or Air Force NCO, obtain an Air Force Advisor review.
1.11.5.4.4. An HLR/final evaluator who decides to refer an evaluation due to a
performance assessment comment made by the rater refers it to the ratee before
completing their portion of the evaluation. The referral section in the evaluation or
referral memorandum (training reports) will instruct the ratee to direct and return any
rebuttal comments back to them. (T-1) Upon receipt of the ratee’s rebuttal, or when 3
duty days (30 calendar days for non-extended active duty) have elapsed, the evaluator
completes their portion of the evaluation.
1.11.5.4.5. If, after referral, a subsequent evaluator invalidates the referral comments
so the conditions defined in paragraph 1.11.3 no longer apply, the non-concur block
is marked, and comments are made in support of the disagreement in the comments.
The evaluation is no longer considered referral; however, retain all original referral
documents and/or correspondence with the evaluation.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 39
1.11.5.4.6. If, after referral, a subsequent evaluator upgrades ratings or comments but
the conditions defined in paragraph 1.11.3 still exist, the non-concur block is marked,
and comments are made in support of the disagreement in the ratings or comments.
The evaluation remains a referral. Retain original referral correspondence with the
evaluation.
1.11.5.4.7. When the last evaluator on the evaluation has caused the evaluation to be
referred, the next evaluator in the rating chain (as named in the referral section or
referral memorandum [training reports]) will, upon receipt of the ratee’s comments,
prepare an endorsement to the evaluation on a DAF Form 77 if no comment area exists
on the applicable evaluation. If the evaluator named in the referral
section/memorandum does not concur with the comments or ratings of the previous
evaluator, their endorsement will, in addition to the mandatory referral comments,
describe the disagreement (on the first line in the comments area on the applicable
evaluation or may continue comments on a DAF Form 77).
1.11.5.5. Deployed Evaluators. If the referring evaluator is deployed and is referring a
home station evaluation, the referring evaluator will sign the referral section and officer or
enlisted evaluation and forward the evaluation and referral documents to the next evaluator
in the rating chain at home station. The next evaluator in the chain (the referral reviewer)
will act on behalf of the referring evaluator who is deployed and issue the evaluation and
referral documents to the ratee. Upon receipt of the ratee’s comments, or at the expiration
of the ratee’s 3-duty-day-window (30 calendar days for non-extended active duty) to
respond, the referral reviewer processes the evaluation and all referral documents in
accordance with paragraph 1.11.5.3.
1.11.6. Referral Procedures.
1.11.6.1. Referral Officer and Enlisted Evaluations. The referring evaluator will use the
referral section of the evaluation and can fill in the specifics in the blank lines provided.
Refer to Table 3.1 for procedures on preparing the ALQ evaluation for officers (OPB) and
Table 4.9 on preparing the ALQ evaluation for enlisted members (EPB).
1.11.6.2. Referral Education/Training Reports. Prepare a referral memorandum in
accordance with Figure 1.1. A combination of digital signature (common access card
[CAC]), wet signature, or typed signature are authorized. The approved typed signature
must include: two backslashes at the front and two backslashes at the end, the word
“signed,” the signatory’s initials, DoDID number, and date of the typed signature (\\signed,
xxx, 0000000000, DD MMM YY\\).
1.11.6.3. Referral Letter of Evaluation. The referral process is accomplished on the form
itself.
1.11.6.3.1. Deployed Commander Letter of Evaluation. Complete a DAF Form 77 in
accordance with Table 5.1 and paragraph 5.2.1.2.1.
1.11.6.3.2. All Other Letters of Evaluation.
1.11.6.3.2.1. Designated Rater (Officer Only). If an LOE prepared by the officially
designated rater contains referral comments, the rater prepares an officer evaluation
in accordance with paragraph 1.11.6.1. The reason for the evaluation will be
40 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
DBH. At least 60-calendar days of supervision is required, unless the waiver
authority extends the requirement.
1.11.6.3.2.2. Other than Designated Rater. Complete Sections I, II, IV, V and VII
in accordance with Table 5.1. The referral process itself is not accomplished on
the DAF Form 77. Exception: Deployed Commander Letters of Evaluation. If
someone other than the officially designated rater prepares an LOE with referral
comments, forward the letter along with any rebuttal comments the ratee may want
to add to the officially designated rater. (T-1) The rater will review the documents
and decide whether permanent recording is warranted. If so, the letter of evaluation
becomes a referral document attached to the evaluation. If the rater decides not to
permanently record, they will return the LOE and any rebuttal comments to the
ratee.
1.11.6.4. Referral Training Report (TR) (DAF Form 475). Refer the TR to the ratee using
the same procedures outlined in paragraphs 1.11.6.1 and 1.11.6.2. Name the commander
of the Department of the Air Force school or unit of assignment as the next evaluator
(determined by which organization is preparing the TR). The evaluator reviews the ratee’s
comments, if provided; adds the applicable mandatory comments in accordance with
paragraphs 1.11.5.3.2.2.1 or 1.11.5.3.2.2.2; and endorses the TR on a DAF Form 77 using
the first evaluator’s block.
1.12. General Prohibited Evaluator Considerations and Comments. Certain items are
prohibited for consideration and will not be commented upon on any officer evaluation system or
enlisted evaluation system form/brief. Except as authorized in this instruction, do not consider,
refer to, or include comments regarding:
1.12.1. Sensitive Information.
1.12.1.1. Classified Information. Do not enter classified information in any section of the
form.
1.12.1.2. Confidential Statements. Confidential statements, testimony, or data obtained
by, or presented to, boards under DAFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports.
1.12.1.3. Appeal Agencies Outside Rating Chain. Actions taken by an individual outside
the normal chain of command that represent guaranteed rights of appeal. Example:
Inspector general, ERAB, AFBCMR, equal opportunity and treatment/military equal
opportunity complaints, congressional inquiries.
1.12.1.4. Drug or Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Programs. Focus on the behavior,
conduct, or performance resulting from alcohol or drug use versus the actual consumption
of alcohol or drugs or participation in a rehabilitation program. Only competent medical
authorities can diagnose alcoholism or drug addiction, and the diagnosis is prohibited on
evaluations.
1.12.1.5. Temporary or Permanent Disqualification under DoDM5210.42_DAFMAN 13-
501, Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program (PRP). The behavior of the ratee
that resulted in the action may be referenced; however, it may not be mentioned that the
ratee was disqualified.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 41
1.12.1.6. Medical Information. Only authorized medical officials are authorized to make
comments on medical conditions. Evaluators must focus evaluation comments on the
behavior and duty performance of the individual. Comments pertaining to the medical
condition, treatment, or diagnosis are prohibited.
1.12.2. Potential Discriminatory Factors and/or Information.
1.12.2.1. Race, Ethnic Origin, Gender, Age, Religion, Sexual Orientation or Political
Affiliation of the Ratee. Do not refer to these items in such a way that others could interpret
the comments as reflecting favorably or unfavorably on the person. This is not meant to
prohibit evaluators from commenting on involvement in cultural or church activities, but
cautions against the use of specific religious denominations, etc. Example: “Capt Doe is
the first female pilot ever selected for training in the F-16”, is an inappropriate reference
to gender. Pronouns reflecting gender (e.g., he, she, him, her, his, they, their, etc.) may be
used. “Wing Point of Contact for African American Heritage Committee” or “Arranged a
blood drive at the Baptist Memorial Hospital” are acceptable comments.
1.12.2.2. Family Activities or Marital Status. Do not consider or include information
(either positive or negative) regarding the member’s marital status or the employment,
education, or volunteer service activities (on or off the military installation) of the
member's family.
1.12.2.3. Officer/Enlisted Club Membership. Comments regarding a ratee’s club
membership are prohibited.
1.12.2.4. Court-Martial and Administrative Discharge Board Members and Personnel. Do
not consider or evaluate the performance of duty of any such member who served as a
member of a court-martial or administrative discharge proceeding. Likewise, do not give
a less than favorable rating or evaluation of any member because of the zeal with which
such member, as counsel, represented the Government or any person in court-martial or an
administrative discharge board proceeding. (Note: Courts-martial protections are vested
under Article 37, UCMJ). This is separate from accurately portraying counsel’s
competence in representing clients.
1.12.3. Duty History or Performance Outside the Reporting Period.
1.12.3.1. Do not comment on duty history or performance outside the current reporting
period, except as permitted by paragraphs 1.12.3.3. (T-1)
1.12.3.2. Previous Evaluations or Ratings. Comments from previous evaluations or
ratings are prohibited (e.g., do not include comments from an DAF Form 475 on an officer
ALQ evaluation; or comments from a deployed commander LOE on an officer ALQ
evaluation, except in conjunction with performance feedback sessions and as outlined in
Chapter 8 for promotion recommendation forms. (T-1) Note: Evaluators may review
previous evaluations to prevent repeating prior accomplishments and making inappropriate
recommendations.
1.12.3.3. Prior Events. Events that occurred in a previous reporting period that add
significantly to the evaluation, were not known to and considered by the previous
evaluators and were not already reflected in a previous evaluation in the permanent record
(this includes officer and enlisted evaluations, LOEs, and TRs) can be included in a
42 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
subsequent evaluation. (T-1) Example: An event (positive or negative) which came to
light after an evaluation became a matter of record, but which occurred during the period
of that evaluation, could be mentioned in the ratee’s next evaluation because the incident
was not previously reported. In rare cases, serious offenses (such as those punishable by
courts-martial) may not come to light or be substantiated for several years. In such cases,
inclusion of that information may be appropriate even though the incident and/or behavior
occurred prior to the last reporting period. Additionally, negative incidents from previous
reporting periods involving the character, conduct, or integrity of the ratee that continue to
influence the performance or utilization of the ratee may be commented upon in that
context only. Commanders and senior raters make the determination of what constitutes a
significant addition. If a commander has considered and decided not to comment on a
known adverse action, an incumbent commander may not overturn a previous
commander’s decision by requesting the adverse action be added after the evaluation has
been made a matter of record, nor may the incumbent commander include it in the next
evaluation. (T-1) However, if the behavior has continued into the next rating period, an
evaluator may comment on the specific behavior for that rating period.
1.12.4. Derogatory Information and Disciplinary Actions.
1.12.4.1. Conduct Based on Unreliable Information.
1.12.4.1.1. Raters must ensure that information used to document performance,
especially derogatory information relating to unsatisfactory behavior or misconduct, is
reliable and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (T-1)
1.12.4.1.2. The rater should consult with the servicing Staff Judge Advocate whenever
there are questions as to whether this standard has been met.
1.12.4.1.3. Raters should be particularly cautious about referring to charges preferred,
investigations, or boards of inquiry (such as accident investigation boards); or using
information obtained from those sources, or any similar actions related to a member,
that are not complete as of the close-out date of the evaluation.
1.12.4.1.4. When it is determined that such conduct is appropriate for comment, refer
to the underlying performance, behavior or misconduct itself and not merely to the fact
that the conduct may have resulted in a punitive or administrative action taken against
the member (such as a letter of reprimand, Article 15, court-martial conviction).
Example: An evaluator should say: “SSgt Johnson engaged in drunk and disorderly
conduct and drove while intoxicated,” rather than “SSgt Johnson got an Article 15 for
violations of Article 92 and 134.”
1.12.4.2. Acquittals or Similar Results.
1.12.4.2.1. Do not reference any criminal action against an individual or underlying
misconduct that resulted in acquittal or dismissal by the convening authority. For
example, an evaluator cannot say: “SSgt Johnson was acquitted of assault charges,” or
“TSgt Jones drove drunk but was found not guilty at trial.”
1.12.4.2.2. Do not reference any administrative action taken against an individual
where the administrative action is not upheld or set aside. For example, an evaluator
cannot say: “SrA Smith’s involuntary separation action was unsuccessful.”
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 43
1.12.4.2.3. There may be limited circumstances where it would be acceptable to
reference misconduct under this section. The rater should consult with the servicing
staff judge advocate whenever there are questions as to whether to reference underlying
misconduct.
1.12.4.3. Punishment. Punishment received as a result of administrative or judicial action
is prohibited. Restrict comments to the conduct and/or behavior that resulted in the
punishment, and the type of administrative or judicial action taken (e.g., Article 15, letter
of reprimand, letter of counseling, etc.).
1.12.4.3.1. Acceptable statements: “Drove while intoxicated, received an Article 15”
and “Failed to report to duty, received a Letter of Reprimand,” etc.
1.12.4.3.2. Prohibited statements: “Sentenced to 6 months confinement,” “Reduced to
the grade of”, “Forfeiture of pay”, “5 days extra duty”.
1.12.4.4. Disciplinary Actions.
1.12.4.4.1. Must be reasonably specific, clearly outlining the event and/or behavior.
Comments such as “conduct unbecoming” or “an error in judgment led to an off-duty
incident” are too vague.
1.12.4.4.2. When administering disciplinary actions, the issuer should advise ratees
specifically on why they are considered substandard in order to avoid speculation and
assist them in responding appropriately. (T-1)
1.12.4.4.3. An evaluation should not simply contain the comment that "MSgt Smith
received an Article 15 during this period." Instead, the underlying conduct should be
specifically cited with the resulting action included, such as: "During this reporting
period, Lieutenant Jones sexually harassed a female subordinate for which he received
an Article 15," or “MSgt Jones drove while under the influence, for which he received
an Article 15.”
1.12.4.4.4. In any case, the focus of the comment should be on the conduct or behavior.
Evaluators should consult the servicing Staff Judge Advocate or local personnel
advisors for questions regarding the appropriateness of including comments about
misconduct and/or the resulting actions on a performance evaluation.
1.12.5. A Recommendation for Decoration. Only include those decorations approved or
presented during the reporting period. The term “decorations,” as used here, applies to those
in which a medal is awarded and worn on the Air Force uniform, such as an Air Force
Achievement Medal. Other awards or nominations for honors and awards such as "Outstanding
Maintenance Officer" or “Twelve Outstanding Airmen of the Year” may be mentioned.
1.12.6. Meeting Goals for/Results of the Combined Federal Campaign. Comments pertaining
to met/exceeded goals or collected dollar amount (Example: 100% contact, $15K raised, 500
contacted) are prohibited.
1.12.7. Weighted Airman Promotion System Data. Score data on the Weighted Airman
Promotion System Data score notice or SNCO promotion score notice, board scores, test
scores, relative standings among peers etc., are prohibited.
44 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
1.12.8. Performance Feedback Assessment. Evaluators may not refer to performance
feedback sessions in any area of the performance evaluation, however, should consider
performance feedback during the performance period which was provided to the ratee.
1.12.9. Matrices, fact sheets, background sheets or other documents unless specifically
authorized in this instruction. Evaluators will use performance and duty related information
from official source documents in the assessment of performance and potential. Demographic
diversity information identifying inherent or socially defined personal characteristics such as
age, race/ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, family status, disability, and
geographic origin will not be considered.
1.12.10. Do not establish panels or boards to review and collectively score, rate, rank, or tally
records and/or generate a priority list for determining promotion recommendations, level of
endorsement or stratification, except as authorized in this instruction.
1.12.11. Awards are recognitions based on a given set of criteria and are standalone
achievements. Accordingly, stratification statements based on awards are not authorized.
1.13. Policy Deviations and Waiver Requests. See Table 1.1 for the offices of primary
responsibility mailing addresses. Send requests for deviations or waivers through the wing
commander or the comparative level to their MAJCOM. The requests will then be sent to
AFPC/DP3SP for RegAF and to ARPC/DPTSE for ARC who, in turn, will forward the request to
appropriate office of primary responsibility.
1.13.1. Requests will be in memorandum format or use of the DAF Form 679 with all the
appropriate endorsements and detail the reason for the request with full justification IAW
DAFMAN 90-161, paragraph 9.4. If the request is applicable to a specific organization or
individual, it must include the name of the unit or the name and grade of the individual.
1.13.2. All deviation requests pertaining to SRID issues require coordination through the
respective management level and must be signed by the head of the management level or may
be delegated to the MLR president. (T-1)
1.13.3. Signed requests will be mailed or emailed to the AFPC/DPMSPE or appropriate
ANG/AFR office stated in Table 1.1.
1.13.4. All waiver requests to use the AF Form 715 and AF Form 716 will require coordination
through the wing commander/equivalent to AFPC/DP3SP (ARC will route to ARPC/DPTSE,
who will in turn send to AFPC/DP3SP) with final approval from AF/A1PP. If authorized,
enter the following statement in the “Mandatory Comments” block: “Use of the AF Form
715/AF Form 716 is authorized IAW AFI 36-2406.”
1.14. Missing, Late and Removed Performance Evaluations. When an evaluation is missing
and all attempts to locate it are exhausted and unsuccessful, consider re-accomplishing the report.
However, before doing so, evaluators should consider such things as: how long it has been since
the report closed out; are all the evaluators readily available; is there a draft of the original still
available; does the ratee or any of the evaluators have a copy of the original report; can the
evaluators now give a fair and accurate report based on the timeframe? (See Table 1.2.). Note:
Do not re-accomplish evaluations more than 18 months past the close-out date.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 45
1.14.1. Missing Evaluations on RegAF Officers and Senior Noncommissioned Officers. The
CSS, MPF, AFPC, and/or Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) initiates action to try and
locate the missing report.
1.14.1.1. If the report is located or can be re-accomplished (must be the original evaluators
at the time of the close-out), place the original evaluation in the permanent record or send
the original to AF/A1LO for colonels and colonel selects, and forward a copy to
AFPC/DPSORM for file into ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.1.2. If the report is not located, or cannot be re-accomplished, the CSS, MPF, AFPC,
or ARPC will prepare a DAF Form 77 according to Table 5.1 and insert the original into
the OSR/SNCO selection record, or send the original to AF/A1LO for colonel and colonel
selects, AF/A1LE for CMSgts and CMSgt selects, and forward a copy to AFPC/DPSORM
for file in ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.2. Missing Evaluations on RegAF Enlisted TSgts and Below. The MPF initiates action
to locate the missing report.
1.14.2.1. If the report is located, forward the original evaluation to AFPC Evaluation
Support Section (AFPC/DPSTSP) for file in ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.2.2. If a report is not located or cannot be re-accomplished, the MPF prepares a DAF
Form 77 in accordance with Table 5.1 and forwards to AFPC/DPSORM for file in
ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.3. Missing Evaluations for AFR. The OSR custodian, the ARPC commander, or office
as prescribed by the commander concerned, initiates action to locate the missing report.
1.14.3.1. If the report is located, place the original evaluation in the OSR and forward a
copy to ARPC/DPTSE for filing in ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.3.2. If the report is not located or unable to be re-accomplished, the MPF will prepare
a DAF Form 77 in accordance with Table 5.1 and forward to ARPC/DPTSE for filing in
ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.4. Missing Evaluations for ANG only. The CSS, force support squadron (FSS), or human
resource (HR) specialist will initiate action to locate missing reports for Active Guard/Reserve
(AGR) or DSG personnel, and NGB Human Resources Directorate (NGB/HR) for statutory
tour personnel.
1.14.4.1. If the report is located, forward the original evaluation to ARPC/DPTSE for
filing in ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.4.2. If the report is not located or unable to be re-accomplished, the CSS, FSS, or HR
specialist will prepare a DAF Form 77 in accordance with Table 5.1 and forward to
ARPC/DPTSE for filing in ARMS/PRDA. (T-1) ARPC/DPTSE will update the personnel
system.
1.14.5. Missing Legacy Evaluations for AFR Officer Performance Reports/Enlisted
Performance Reports with Closeout Dates Prior to 1 April 2023). The MPF initiates action to
locate the missing report.
1.14.5.1. If the report is located, the MPF will take action to place the original evaluation
in the permanent record and forward a copy to ARPC/DPTSE or AFPC/DPSORM (IMAs
46 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
only) for filing in ARMS/PRDA. Note: 28 February 2023 colonel SCOD is not applicable
to legacy timeframe.
1.14.5.2. If the report is not located or unable to be re-accomplished, the MPF will prepare
a DAF Form 77 in accordance with Table 5.1 and forward to ARPC/DPTSE or
AFPC/DPSORM (IMAs only) for filing into ARMS/PRDA.
1.14.6. Evaluations Removed From Records Under Chapter 10 or under DAFI 36-2603, Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Prepare a DAF Form 77 in
accordance with Table 5.1.
1.15. Wartime or National Emergency Provisions.
1.15.1. During wartime or a national emergency, HAF, AFPC, or MAJCOMs, when
delegated, may make changes to evaluation policies and procedures to reduce the associated
workload while ensuring performance is documented. MAJCOMs may implement these
procedures totally or in part depending on the nature and scope of the situation. In
implementing wartime provisions, a MAJCOM may implement HAF/AFPC procedures totally
or in part. When implementing in part, MAJCOMs must provide specific instructions
regarding completing and routing evaluations. (T-1)
1.15.2. In implementing wartime provisions, AFPC/DP3SP, in coordination with AF/REP and
NGB Force Management Division (NGB/A1P), will provide specific instructions regarding
completion of evaluations, routing evaluations once completed, and any other appropriate
actions. AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/PB will announce officer promotion recommendation form
(PRF) procedures (see Chapter 8). AF/A1PP and AFPC/DP3SP will determine whether to
restrict provisions for the performance evaluations to certain theaters or organizations and
whether to implement them in part, totally, or incrementally. They may make performance
feedbacks optional. MAJCOMs must implement the provisions outlined below or as
AFPC/DP3SP directs.
1.15.3. When to Submit Performance Evaluations.
1.15.3.1. Evaluations that are due prior to a deployment.
1.15.3.2. A deployment does not change the requirement to prepare annual/biennial
evaluations.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 47
Figure 1.1. Example Referral Memorandum.
48 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Figure 1.2. Example Referral Memorandum (Continued).
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 49
Table 1.1. Mailing Addresses for Correspondence.
R
U
L
E
A
B
Address
OPR
1
AFPC/DP3SP
550 C Street West
Joint Base San Antonio-
Randolph TX 78150
(Note: All processing of evaluations is
completed by AFPC/DPSTSP via the case
management system).
Manages the Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems, including
evaluation appeals, for all RegAF
airman basic through lieutenant colonel
following direction provided by
AF/A1P.
2
AFPC/DPMSPE
550 C Street West
Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX 78150
Manages the student management level
review (MLR) and all promotion
recommendation form actions and
processes/executes the RegAF
Evaluation Appeals process with
direction from AFPC/DP3SP and
AF/A1P.
3
AFPC/DPSTSP
550 C Street West
Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX
Process training reports.
4
AF/A1LG
1040 Air Force Pentagon
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1040
Air Force General Matters Office.
Manages Officer Evaluation System for,
and maintains all evaluations on, general
officers and brig gen selects on extended
active duty. Note: All wet signature
evaluations on active duty GOs are sent
to this address. See Note 2.
5
AF/REG
1150 Air Force Pentagon
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1040
AFR General Officer Matters Office.
Manages Officer Evaluation System for
Reserve general officers (and brig gen
selects). See Note 2.
50 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
R
U
L
E
A
B
Address
OPR
6
AF/A1LO
1040 Air Force Pentagon
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1040
Air Force Colonel Management Office.
Manages Officer Evaluation System for
and maintains all evaluations on,
colonels (except brig gen selects) and
col selects on the Active Duty List
(ADL).
Note: All wet signature evaluations on
RegAF cols are sent to this address. See
Note 1.
7
AF/A1LE
1040 Air Force Pentagon
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1040
Air Force Chief Matters Office.
Maintains all evaluations on RegAF
CMSgts and CMSgt selects. Note: All
wet signature evaluations on RegAF
CMSgts are sent to this address. See
Note 1.
8
ARPC/DPTS
18420 E. Silver Creek Ave Bldg 390 MS 68
Buckley SFB CO 80011
Air Reserve Personnel Center
Sustainment Division. Manages the
Officer Evaluation System for ARC
officers not on the ADL and the Enlisted
Evaluation System for ARC enlisted
personnel following policy provided by
AF/A1P, AF/RE and NGB/A1PP.
Note: All wet signature evaluations on
ARC personnel are sent to this office,
except general officers.
9
AFPC/DPSORM
550 C Street West
Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX 78150
Maintains the ARMS/PRDA on all
RegAF personnel.
10
ARPC/DPTS
18420 E. Silver Creek Ave Bldg 390 MS 68
Buckley SFB CO 80011
(Reserve/Guard ARMS) Maintains the
ARMS on all ARC personnel.
See Note 2.
11
AF/RE
1150 Air Force Pentagon
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1150
Provides AFR Officer Evaluation
System and Enlisted Evaluation System
policy with collaboration with AF/A1P
and AFPC/DP3SP.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 51
R
U
L
E
A
B
Address
OPR
12
AFPC/DPMN
550 C Street West
Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX 78150-
4727
Medical Service Officer Management.
Provides advice on reporting policy for
officers within the health professions, in
conjunction with AF/SG1, Medical
Force Development Directorate, Office
of the Surgeon General, AF/SG.
13
AFRC/A1
330 Cherry Drive, Bldg 555 South
Robins AFB GA 31098
Responsible for effective management
and operation of all AFRC Manpower,
Personnel and Services programs, plans,
policies and procedures.
14
AFRC/A1K
330 Cherry Drive, Bldg 555 South
Robins AFB GA 31098
Promotions, Retention and Customer
Service Branch. Provides AF Officer
Evaluation System and Enlisted
Evaluation System policy and guidance
following policy provided by AF/A1PP
or AF/RE.
15
NGB-SL-B
111 South George Mason Drive, AHS2
Arlington VA 22204
National Guard Senior Leader
Management and General Officer
Management Office. Responsible for
promotions and evaluations for all
National Guard brig gen and above.
16
NGB/A1P
3500 Fetchet Ave.
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
Force Management Division.
NGB/A1PO - Responsible for Officer
Programs and Policy for colonels and
below.
NGB/A1PP - Responsible for enlisted
evaluations and enlisted promotions
with collaboration with AF/A1P and
AFPC/DPSID.
17
Professional Development Directorate
1420 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 5D140
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1420
The Judge Advocate General’s Corps
Professional Development Directorate.
Provides advice on reporting policy for
judge advocates.
Notes:
1. All digitally signed evaluations (colonels and below) must be submitted through myEval
or CMS. (T-1).
2. All digitally signed GO evaluations must be submitted through Right Now Technology.
52 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 1.2. Missing and Late Evaluations (See Notes 1, 2, and 3).
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
The report was located
or successfully re-
accomplished:
and the
system
contains the
overall rating
and close-out
date:
Then:
1
No
Yes
When authorized by AFPC/ARPC the
CSS/MPF/HR specialist or NGB/HR who
discovers the discrepancy prepares DAF Form
77. See Table 5.1.
2
No
When authorized by AFPC/ARPC the
CSS/MPF/HR specialist prepares DAF Form
77. See Table 5.1.
3
Yes
File form according to paragraph 1.14.1.1.
and update the system, if appropriate.
Notes:
1. The gaining CSS/MPF/HR specialist or NGB/HR tracks missing or late evaluations. Do
not re-accomplish evaluations more than 18 months past the close-out date. DAF Form 77s
are prepared by the CSS/MPF/HR specialist.
2. When all attempts to find the missing evaluation fail, the HR specialist sends an inquiry
to AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE (officers/SNCOs), requesting that AFPC/DPMSPE or
ARPC/DPTSE search the history files for the enlisted evaluation rating. Include in the
request:
a. All known information that may assist in identifying the missing evaluation.
b. An account of all actions taken to find the missing evaluation. For personnel with prior
service, do not send a request to AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE for missing evaluations
earlier than 120 calendar days after the date the ratee reentered to duty. The CSS/MPF/HR
specialist provides this information when requesting a search for missing evaluations on
personnel with prior service: name, grade, social security number, grade at separation, date
of separation, whether a DAF Form 1613, Statement of Service, might exist.
3. If AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE finds the rating in the history files, complete a DAF
Form 77 according to Table 5.1. When more than one evaluation is involved, the
MPF/CSS/HR specialist may prepare one DAF Form 77 according to Table 5.1, if no gaps
exist in the period of the missing evaluations. However, if the military personnel flight
(MPF)/commander’s support staff (CSS)/human resource (HR) specialist later receives one
or more of the missing evaluations, the MPF/CSS/HR specialist prepares one or more DAF
Forms 77, as required, so that periods of time in the performance record remain consecutive.
If the rating is not available, comply with Table 5.1.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 53
Chapter 2
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK PROCESS
2.1. Purpose. A performance feedback assessment is a formal, two-way communication between
a rater and ratee to discuss standards, responsibilities, expectations, and goals. Raters document
the feedback session to assess or discuss the objectives, standards, behavior, and performance with
the ratee. Providing this information helps an individual improve communication and
performance, while growing professionally. The following information applies to all military
personnel.
2.2. Responsibilities.
2.2.1. The ratee will:
2.2.1.1. Know when formal feedback sessions are due. (T-3)
2.2.1.2. When needed, request a “Ratee Requested” feedback session from the rater. If a
ratee requests a feedback session, the rater will provide one within 30 calendar days of the
request. (T-3)
2.2.1.3. Provide timely notification to the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater, when
required or requested feedback did not take place. (T-3)
2.2.1.4. Complete Section III on their own and review Section VII (AF Form 724), Section
IX (AF Form 931), or VIII (AF Form 932) in preparation for the feedback session. (T-3)
2.2.1.5. Sign the feedback indicating the date the supervisor conducted the feedback.
(T-3)
2.2.2. The rater will:
2.2.2.1. Know when formal feedbacks are due and provide them, at a minimum, as
required by this instruction. (T-3)
2.2.2.2. Use this instruction to assist in preparing for, scheduling, and conducting feedback
sessions. See Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
2.2.2.3. Understand, demonstrate, and communicate Air Force standards and expectations
such as those outlined in the Enlisted Force Structure, when providing feedback
assessments to personnel. (T-3)
2.2.2.4. Provide effective assessments by being realistic, honest, and timely. This will
help the ratee improve performance and grow professionally and personally. Effective
assessments may differ for each Airman but can include in-depth discussions with the ratee
and written comments on the assessment. (T-3)
2.2.2.5. Provide the original completed and signed assessment to the ratee. (T-3)
2.2.2.6. Retain a copy of the signed and dated assessment. The midterm formal feedback
is required to be routed with the evaluation but will not be part the official record. (T-3)
See paragraph 2.9.3 for individuals authorized to view the assessment. Exception:
Extremely rare circumstances may exist where a documented midterm assessment is not
available to be routed with the evaluation (e.g., the rater has been removed from
supervisory/rater duties).
54 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
2.2.2.7. Feedback sessions are a communication tool and are not to be used to discover or
document behavior which may result in administrative or judicial action. (T-3) Document
behavior that deviates from USAF standards through a letter of reprimand, letter of
counseling, letter of admonishment, or memorandum for record. (T-3)
2.2.2.8. Provide the ratee with information on Air Force benefits by referring them to the
MyAirForceBenefits website (https://www.myairforcebenefits.us.af.mil). (T-3)
2.2.2.9. Include expectations to ratees for contributing to a healthy organizational climate
for Airmen up to the grade of SrA. (T-1) Raters will also ensure that NCOs and officers
are accountable for creating a healthy organizational climate. (T-1) Raters will ensure that
every commander knows they are responsible for, and will be held accountable for,
ensuring their unit has a healthy command climate. (T-0)
2.2.3. The rater’s rater/reviewing officials of evaluations between the rater and the forced
distributor/HLR will:
2.2.3.1. Ensure raters properly conduct timely feedback sessions. (T-3)
2.2.3.2. Conduct feedback sessions when the rater is not available due to unusual
circumstances or when officially assuming the rater’s responsibilities. (T-3)
2.2.4. The unit commander/director/equivalent will:
2.2.4.1. Oversee the performance feedback program. (T-2)
2.2.4.2. Consider disciplining and removing supervisory responsibilities for raters who fail
to conduct proper and timely feedback sessions. (T-2)
2.2.5. The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) will:
2.2.5.1. Provide guidance on the performance feedback program and assist CSSs when
needed. (T-3)
2.2.5.2. Not be required to maintain a repository for performance feedback assessments
for personnel assigned.
2.2.6. Raters are responsible for maintaining copies of formal feedbacks on their assigned
ratees.
2.3. Who Requires a Performance Feedback Assessment. Performance feedback assessments
are mandatory for all RegAF and ARC Airmen, airman basic through colonel. Performance
feedback assessments are not prepared when a ratee is in a captive, patient, prisoner, or absent
without leave status. For officers receiving a DAF Form 475 and enlisted in approved initial or
advanced skills training courses, performance feedback assessments may be completed at the
discretion of the commander of the school. For performance evaluations completed on non-rated
initial skills training or advanced skills training course students, academic progress reports will
serve in lieu of the mandatory mid-term performance feedback session. (T-3)
2.4. Guidance for Conducting Performance Feedback Sessions. Conduct sessions face-to-
face (may include video conferencing). (T-3) Exception: When this is not feasible, sessions
may be conducted by telephone. In these cases, after the performance feedback session is
complete, the rater will forward the finalized form to the ratee within 10 calendar days. (T-3)
2.5. When to Conduct Documented Performance Feedback Sessions. See Table 2.1.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 55
2.6. The Performance Feedback Assessment Notice.
2.6.1. The rater should receive a computer-generated notice 30 calendar days after supervision
begins and again halfway between the time supervision began and the projected performance
report close-out date. The notice serves to remind the rater that a performance feedback session
is due. However, failing to receive a notice does not justify failing to or negate the rater’s
responsibility to conduct a required session.
2.6.2. For ANG officers, the MPF will send the performance feedback notice to the rater
concurrently with the officer evaluation notice or upon initial assignment of the ratee. Conduct
the performance feedback session no later than 60 calendar days after the officer evaluation
close-out date or initial assignment date.
2.6.3. Since the ratee shares the responsibility to ensure performance feedback sessions are
conducted, the notice is also sent to the ratee, 30 calendar days after sending the notice to the
rater (for officers) or concurrently with the notice sent to the rater (for enlisted).
2.6.4. ANG does not currently have a standardized, automated process to create airman
comprehensive assessment (ACA) notices for raters and ratees. ANG MPFs may not be able
to provide raters and ratees with a computer-generated ACA notice. If computer-generated
notices are not available, MPFs should use alternate forms of communication to notify raters
and ratees. Mass communication from MPF to wing personnel is acceptable. Signed notices
are not required for ANG personnel.
2.7. Performance Feedback Assessment Forms.
2.7.1. For second lieutenant through colonel, use AF Form 724. See Table 2.4 for
instructions.
2.7.2. For MSgt (including selects) through CMSgt, use AF Form 932. See Table 2.3 for
instructions.
2.7.3. For AB through TSgt, use AF Form 931. See Table 2.2 for instructions.
2.7.4. For SNCOs, raters have the option to use the AF Form 724-A as an informal guiding
document to supplement performance feedback. For officers in the grade of second lieutenant
through colonel, raters will use the AF Form 724-A in addition to the AF Form 724.
2.7.4.1. The AF Form 724-A is designed to guide raters and facilitate discussion when
providing constructive feedback to their ratees. The addendum should be used in
conjunction with the primary AF Form 724 and AF Form 932, not in lieu of it.
2.7.4.2. This addendum highlights four major performance areas, each with certain ALQs
for Airmen to focus on.
2.7.4.3. For officers only, when the AF Form 724-A replaces Section VI
“PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK” items 1 - 6 on the AF Form 724.
2.7.4.4. A rater should use their best judgement when determining the proficiency level of
their ratee, bearing in mind that each definition should be relative to the ratee’s specific
grade, AFSC, and assigned duties.
2.7.4.5. See Table 2.5 for additional instructions.
56 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
2.8. Preparing the Performance Feedback Assessment.
2.8.1. The performance feedback assessment should outline the issues discussed during the
feedback session; however, it is primarily a guide for conducting the assessment session, not a
transcript. Therefore, omission of an issue from the form does not, by itself, constitute proof
that the issue was not discussed.
2.8.2. The assessment may be handwritten or typed by the rater providing the assessment.
2.9. Disposition and Access.
2.9.1. Do not make the performance feedback assessment an official part of any personnel
record (including personal information files) or use it in any personnel action except for
paragraph 2.9.3. (T-1) Note: At a minimum, the rater will maintain a copy of the feedback
until the evaluation becomes a matter of record. (T-3)
2.9.2. The ratee may grant access to the completed forms at their discretion.
2.9.3. The forms will not be reviewed by anyone other than the rater, ratee and authorized
personnel as outlined in the following paragraphs, specifically for the purposes of completing
performance evaluations. (T-1) Neither form will be introduced in any other personnel action
unless the ratee first introduces them or alleges either a performance feedback session was not
conducted, or the sessions were inadequate. (T-1)
2.9.3.1. For enlisted, the HLR, rater’s rater (when the HLR is not also the rater’s rater),
CSS, first sergeant, squadron/group superintendents or equivalent, squadron/group/wing
commanders or equivalent, forced distributor, MPF personnel, command chief, final
evaluator, and functional examiner/Air Force advisor (when applicable) are authorized
access to the performance feedback assessment specifically for the purpose of completing
and processing performance evaluations.
2.9.3.2. For officers, the CSS, first sergeant, squadron/group/wing commanders or
equivalent, HLR, functional examiner/Air Force advisor (when applicable), and MPF
personnel are authorized access to the performance feedback assessment specifically for
the purpose of completing and processing performance evaluations.
2.9.4. Temporary Duty (TDY) supervisors may conduct assessments and complete a feedback
assessment. However, it will not be sent to the home station rater. (T-1) A memo will be sent
to the home station rater if there are any issues the temporary supervisor may wish to address.
(T-1) Exception: If the TDY rater has been officially designated as the ratee’s reporting
official, a feedback assessment is required.
2.10. Failure to Conduct or Document a Performance Feedback Assessment. While
documented feedback sessions are required by this instruction, they do not replace informal day-
to-day communication and feedback. A rater's failure to conduct a required or requested feedback
session or failure to document the session, will not, in and of itself, invalidate any subsequent
evaluation or PRF.
2.11. Tracking Performance Feedback Assessments. Unit commanders may establish
procedures beyond those provided in this instruction to validate feedback completion compliance
provided those procedures do not violate paragraph 2.9.3.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 57
Table 2.1. Performance Feedback Assessment Requirements.
R
U
L
E
A
B
If the ratee is
then the ratee requires the following
feedback
1
a CMSgt or a Col
Initial (See Notes 1 & 4)
2
a MSgt or SMSgt, Maj or Lt Col
Initial (See Notes 1 & 4)
Midterm (See Notes 2 & 4)
End-of-reporting period (See Note 3)
3
an AB, Amn or A1C (who has already
received an enlisted evaluation), a SrA
through TSgt, a Lt through Capt
(see Note 6)
Initial (See Notes 1 & 4)
Midterm (See Notes 2 & 4)
End-of-reporting period (See Note 3)
4
an AB, Amn or A1C (with less than 20
months total active federal military service
or less than 20 months Date Initial Entry
Uniformed Services for ARC )
Initial (See Note 1)
Midterm (See Note 5)
5
an AB through Col
Requested by Ratee (See Note 7)
6
an AB through Col
When determined necessary by the rater
Notes:
1. The rater must conduct the initial feedback session within the first 60 calendar days they
initially begin supervision. This will be the ratee’s only initial feedback until they have a change of
reporting official. For CMSgts and Cols, this is the only feedback required.
2. The rater must conduct the midterm feedback session midway between the date supervision
begins and the projected close-out date of the next evaluation.
3. The rater conducts an end-of reporting period feedback session when an evaluation has been
accomplished. This session must be conducted within 60 calendar days of the close-out of the
evaluation and serves two distinct purposes. The first purpose is to review and discuss with the
ratee the previous reporting period and resulting evaluation. The second purpose is to establish
expectations for the new reporting period. This feedback may be accomplished using an evaluation
that just closed or a new AF Form 724 or AF Form 931.
4. ARC personnel are not required to complete an Airman Comprehensive Assessment for a
member who is pending separation or discharge under DAFI 36-3211, Military Separations.
5. After the initial feedback session is conducted, conduct a (midterm) feedback session every 180
calendar days until the rater writes an enlisted evaluation or a change of reporting official occurs.
6. If the ratee is due an annual evaluation and the period of supervision is less than 150 days, the
rater conducts the feedback session approximately 60 calendar days before the projected evaluation
close-out date.
7. When a ratee requests a feedback session, the rater must conduct a session within 30 calendar
days of the ratee’s request if at least 60 calendar days have passed (at the rater’s discretion) since
the last feedback session.
58 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 2.2. Preparing AF Form 931, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (AB thru TSgt).
SECTION I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Name
In all upper case, enter last name, first name, middle initial,
and any suffix (i.e., JR., SR, III). If there is no middle initial,
the use of No Middle Name “NMI” is optional.
2
Grade (Rank)
Self-explanatory
3
Unit
Enter information as of the ACA completion date. The goal is
an accurate description of what unit the ratee belongs.
For IMAs, information will be that of the unit of assignment,
and for PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be that of unit
of attachment.
SECTION II. TYPE OF ASSESSMENT (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
4
Type of Assessment
Indicate whether the assessment is initial, midterm, follow-up,
ratee requested, or rater directed. Sections VI, VII and VIII
will not be completed during initial feedback sessions.
Once Section II is completed the rater forwards the ACA form
to the ratee for a self-assessment. The information captured
during the self-assessment will assist the rater when
accomplishing the remaining areas of the overall assessment.
SECTION III. SELF-ASSESSMENT (to be completed by ratee)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
5
Responsibility,
Accountability, Air Force
Culture, and Self
Ratee will place a “Y” in the block indicating they understand
the importance of the self-assessment area or a “N” to indicate
they need more information from the rater in order to make a
self-assessment in that area.
After the ratee completes the self-assessment, they will return
the ACA form to the rater.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 59
SECTION IV. AIRMAN’S CRITICAL ROLE IN SUPPORT OF THE MISSION
(to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
6
Airman’s Critical Role in
Support of the Mission
Completed by the rater to identify the ratee’s critical role in
achieving mission success.
SECTION V. INDIVIDUAL READINESS INDEX (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
7
Individual Readiness
Index
Rater consults the unit deployment manager to identify the
ratee’s current deployment status and air expeditionary force
(AEF) indicator.
Rater will place an “R” in the first box indicating the ratee’s
readiness status as currently not deployable or “G” if the
ratee’s current readiness status is deployable.
8
AEF Indicator
Rater will identify the AEF indicator in the second box.
SECTION VI. PERFORMANCE: LEADERSHIP/PRIMARY
DUTIES/FOLLOWERSHIP/TRAINING (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
9
Task
Knowledge/Proficiency
Consider the quality, quantity, results, and impact of the
Airman’s knowledge and ability to accomplish tasks. See
Note.
10
Initiative/Motivation
Describes the degree of willingness to execute duties, motivate
team members, and develop innovative new processes. See
Note.
11
Skill Level Upgrade
Training
Consider skill level awarding course, career development
course timeliness and/or completion, course exam results, and
completion of core task training. Mark “N/A” for Airmen who
possess required skill level/training. See Note.
12
Duty Position
Requirements,
qualifications, and
certifications
Consider duty position qualifications, career field certifications
(if applicable), and readiness requirements. Mark “N/A” for
Airmen who possess training commensurate with grade prior to
reporting period. See Note.
60 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
13
Training of others
Consider the Airman’s effort and impact made by training
others. Mark “N/A” for Airmen who have no valid
opportunity to train. See Note.
14
Comments
Provide specific comments tailored to those areas assessed in
Section VI.
SECTION VII. FOLLOWERSHIP/LEADERSHIP (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
15
Resource utilization (e.g.,
time management,
equipment, manpower and
budget)
Consider how effectively the Airman utilizes resources to
accomplish the mission. See Note.
16
Comply with/enforce
standards
Consider personal adherence and enforcement of fitness
standards, dress and personal appearance, customs and
courtesies, and professional conduct. See Note.
17
Communication skills
Describes how well the Airman receives and relays
information, thoughts, and ideas up and down the chain of
command (includes listening, reading, speaking, and writing
skills); fosters an environment for open dialogue. See Note.
18
Caring, respectful and
dignified environment
(teamwork)
Rate how well the Airman selflessly considers others, values
diversity, and sets the stage for an environment of dignity and
respect, to include promoting a healthy organizational climate.
See Note.
19
Comments
Provide specific comments tailored to those areas assessed in
Section VII.
SECTION VIII. WHOLE AIRMAN CONCEPT (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
20
Air Force Core Values
Consider how well the Airman adopts, internalizes, and
demonstrates our Air Force Core Values. See Note.
21
Personal and Professional
Development
Consider the amount of effort the Airman devoted to
improving themselves and their work center/unit through
education and involvement. See Note.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 61
22
Esprit de corps and
community relations
Consider how well Airman promotes camaraderie, embraces
esprit de corps, and acts as an Air Force ambassador. See
Note.
23
Comments
Provide specific comments tailored to those areas assessed in
Section VIII.
SECTION IX. KNOWING YOUR AIRMAN (to be completed during formal
feedback between rater and ratee)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
24
Questions 1-7
Completed during Airman Comprehensive Assessment session
discussion. Provides questions designed to facilitate open
communication between the ratee/rater and may trigger areas
and/or specific items which need to be probed in more depth.
These questions are not intended to be all encompassing. The
purpose is to help start the conversation on the particular item,
not make it an interrogation. Items 6 and 7 are designed to
receive feedback from the ratee and to set specific expectations
for the ratee’s growth.
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
25
Ratee/Rater Signature and
Date
In the instance where digital signatures are not used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink and handwrite or date stamp the
date. Do not sign blank forms or sign before the Airman
Comprehensive Assessment completion date (only on the date
of completion). The forms have digital capability; the use of
digital signatures is optional.
Note: Use the appropriate word picture/rating assigned to each area on the performance
assessment when filling out the Airman Comprehensive Assessment.
62 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 2.3. Preparing AF Form 932, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (MSgt – CMSgt).
SECTION I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Name
In all upper case, enter last name, first name, middle initial,
and any suffix (i.e., JR., SR, III). If there is no middle initial,
the use of “NMI” is optional.
2
Grade (Rank)
Self-explanatory
3
Unit
Enter information as of Airman Comprehensive Assessment
completion date. The goal is an accurate description of what
unit the ratee belongs.
For IMAs, information will be that of the unit of assignment,
and for PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be that of unit
of attachment.
Information will be in all upper/lower case.
SECTION II. TYPE OF ASSESSMENT (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
4
Type of Assessment
Indicate whether the assessment is initial, mid-term, ratee
requested, or rater directed (Sections VI and VII will not be
completed during initial feedback sessions).
Once Section II is completed the rater forwards the Airman
Comprehensive Assessments to the ratee for a self-
assessment. The information captured during the self-
assessment will assist the rater when accomplishing the
remaining areas of the overall assessment.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 63
SECTION III. SELF ASSESSMENT (to be completed by ratee)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
5
Responsibility,
Accountability, Air Force
Culture, and
Self
Ratee will place a “Y” in the block indicating they understand
the importance of the self-assessment area, or a “N” to
indicate they need more information from the rater in order to
make a self-assessment in that area.
After the ratee completes the self- assessment, they will return
the Airman Comprehensive Assessment to the rater.
SECTION IV. AIRMAN’S CRITICAL ROLE IN SUPPORT OF THE MISSION
(to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
6
Airman’s Critical Role in
Support of the Mission
Completed by the rater to identify the ratee’s critical role in
achieving mission success.
SECTION V. INDIVIDUAL READINESS INDEX (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
7
Individual Readiness
Index
Rater consults the unit deployment manager to identify ratee’s
current deployment status and AEF indicator.
Rater will place an “R” in the first box indicating the ratee’s
readiness status as currently non-deployable or “G” if the
ratee’s current readiness status is deployable.
8
AEF Indicator
Rater will identify the AEF indicator in the second box.
SECTION VI. PERFORMANCE: LEADERSHIP/PRIMARY DUTIES/
FOLLOWERSHIP/TRAINING (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
9
Mission Accomplishment
Consider the Airman’s ability to lead and produce timely,
high quality/quantity, mission-oriented results. See Note.
64 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10
Resource Utilization (e.g.,
time management,
equipment, manpower and
budget)
Consider how effectively the Airman leads their team to
utilize their resources to accomplish the mission. See Note.
11
Team Building
Consider the amount of innovation, initiative and motivation
displayed by the Airman and their subordinates
(collaboration). See Note.
12
Mentorship
Consider how well the Airman knows their subordinates,
accepts personal responsibility for them, and is accountable
for their professional development. See Note.
13
Communication Skills
Describes how well the Airman communicates (includes
listening, reading, speaking and writing skills) in various
mediums, translates superiors’ direction into specific tasks
and responsibilities, fosters an environment for open dialogue
and enhances communication skills of subordinates. See
Note.
14
Comply with/Enforce
Standards
Consider personal adherence and how the Airman fosters an
environment where everyone enforces fitness standards, dress
and personal appearance, customs and courtesies, and
professional conduct. See Note.
15
Duty Environments
Rate how well the Airman establishes and maintains caring,
respectful, and dignified environments while valuing
diversity, to include promoting a healthy organizational
climate. See Note.
16
Training
Describes how well the Airman and the Airman’s team
comply with upgrade, duty position, and certification
requirements. See Note.
17
Comments
Provide specific comments tailored to those areas assessed in
Section VI.
SECTION VII. WHOLE AIRMAN CONCEPT (to be completed by rater)
I
T E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
18
Air Force Core Values
Consider how well the Airman adopts, internalizes,
demonstrates and insists on adherence of our Air Force Core
Values of Integrity First, Service Before Self and Excellence
in All We Do. See Note.
19
Personal and
Professional
Development
Consider the effort the Airman devoted to improving their
subordinates, their work center/unit and themselves.
See Note.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 65
20
Esprit de corps and
community relations
Consider how well the Airman promotes camaraderie,
enhances esprit de corps, and develops Air Force
ambassadors. See Note.
21
Comments
Provide specific comments tailored to those areas assessed in
Section VII.
SECTION VIII. KNOWING YOUR AIRMAN (to be completed during formal
feedback)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
22
Questions 1-7
Completed during the Airman Comprehensive Assessment
session discussion. Provides questions designed to facilitate
open communication between the ratee and rater and may
trigger areas and/or specific items which need to be probed in
more depth. These questions are not intended to be all
encompassing. The purpose is to help start the conversation
on the particular item, not make it an interrogation. Items 6
and 7 are designed to receive feedback from the ratee and to
set specific expectations for the ratee’s growth.
23
Ratee/Rater Signature and
Date
In the instance where digital signatures are not used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink and handwrite or date stamp
the date. Do not sign blank forms or sign before the Airman
Comprehensive Assessments completion date (only on the
date of completion). The forms have digital capability; the
use of digital signatures is optional.
Note: Use the appropriate word picture/rating assigned to each area on the performance
assessment when filling out the Airman Comprehensive Assessment.
66 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 2.4. Preparing AF Form 724, Airman Comprehensive Assessment (Lt thru Col).
SECTION I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Name
In all upper case, enter last name, first name, middle initial, and any
suffix (i.e., JR., SR, III). If there is no middle initial, the use of
“NMI” is optional.
2
Rank
Self-explanatory
3
Unit
Enter information as of Airman Comprehensive Assessment
completion date. The goal is an accurate description of what unit the
ratee belongs. For IMAs, information will be that of the unit of
assignment, and for PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be that
of unit of attachment.
SECTION II. TYPE OF ASSESSMENT (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
4
Type of Assessment
Indicate whether the assessment is initial, mid-term, follow-up, ratee
requested, or rater directed (Section VI and will not be completed
during initial feedback sessions).
Once Section II is complete the rater forwards the Airman
Comprehensive Assessment to the ratee for a self-assessment. The
information captured during the self-assessment will assist the rater
when accomplishing the remaining areas of the overall assessment.
SECTION III. SELF ASSESSMENT (to be completed by ratee)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
5
Responsibility,
Accountability, Air Force
Culture, and Self
Ratee will place a “Y” in the block indicating they understand the
importance of the self-assessment area, or a “N” to indicate they
need more information from the rater in order to make a self-
assessment in that area.
After the ratee completes the self- assessment, they will return the
Airman Comprehensive Assessment to the rater.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 67
SECTION IV. AIRMAN’S CRITICAL ROLE IN SUPPORT OF THE MISSION
(to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
6
Airman’s Critical Role in
Support of the Mission
Completed by the rater to identify the ratee’s critical role in
achieving mission success.
SECTION V. INDIVIDUAL READINESS INDEX (to be completed by rater)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
7
Individual Readiness Index
Rater consults the unit deployment manager to identify ratee’s
current deployment status and AEF indicator.
Rater will place an “R” in the first box indicating the ratee’s
readiness status as currently non-deployable or “G” if the ratee’s
current readiness status is deployable.
8
AEF Indicator
Rater will identify the AEF indicator in the second box.
SECTION VI. PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK (to be completed by rater):
Self-explanatory
SECTION VII. KNOWING YOUR AIRMAN (to be completed during formal feedback
between rater and ratee)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
9
Questions 1 – 7
Completed during an Airman Comprehensive Assessment
session discussion. Provides questions designed to facilitate
open communication between the ratee and rater and may trigger
areas and/or specific items which need to be probed in more
depth. These questions are not intended to be all encompassing.
The purpose is to help start the conversation on the particular
item, not make it an interrogation. Items 6 and 7 are designed to
receive feedback from the ratee and to set specific expectations
for the ratee’s growth.
10
Ratee/Rater Signature and Date
In the instance where digital signatures are not used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink and handwrite or date stamp the
date. Do not sign blank forms or sign before the Airman
Comprehensive Assessment completion date (only on the date of
completion). The forms have digital capability; the use of digital
signatures is optional.
Note: Use the appropriate word picture/rating assigned to each area on the performance assessment
when filling out the Airman Comprehensive Assessment.
68 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 2.5. Preparing AF Form 724-A, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum.
SECTION I: EXECUTING THE MISSION
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Job Proficiency
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman demonstrates knowledge
and professional skill in assigned duties, achieving positive results and
impact in support of the mission.
2
Initiative
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman assesses and takes
independent or directed action to complete a task or mission that influences
the mission or organization.
3
Adaptability
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman adjusts to changing
conditions, to include plans, information, processes, requirements, and
obstacles in accomplishing the mission.
SECTION II: LEADING PEOPLE
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Inclusion &
Teamwork
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman collaborates effectively
with others to achieve an inclusive climate in pursuit of a common goal or to
complete a task or mission.
2
Emotional
Intelligence
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman exercises self-awareness,
manages their own emotions effectively, demonstrates an understanding of
others’ emotions, and appropriately manages relationships.
3
Communication
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman articulates information in a
clear and timely manner, both verbally and non-verbally, through active
listening and messaging tailored to the appropriate audience.
SECTION III: MANAGING RESOURCES
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Stewardship
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman demonstrates responsible
management of assigned resources, which may include time, equipment,
people, funds, and/or facilities.
2
Accountability
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman takes responsibility for the
actions and behaviors of self and/or team; demonstrates reliability and
transparency.
SECTION IV: IMPROVING THE UNIT
I
T
E
M
A
B
Heading
Instructions
1
Decision Making
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman makes well-informed,
effective, and timely decisions under one’s control that weigh constraints,
risks, and benefits.
2
Innovation
Using the rubric, determine how well the Airman thinks creatively about
different ways to solve problems, implements improvements, and
demonstrates calculated risk-taking.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 69
Chapter 3
OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS/OFFICER ALQ EVALUATIONS
3.1. General Guidelines. See Chapter 1 for general processing guidance applicable to all
evaluations.
3.2. Purpose. Evaluations are used to document performance and potential as well as provide
information for making a promotion recommendation, selection, or propriety action; selective
continuation; involuntary separation; selective early retirement; assignment; school nomination
and selection; and other management decisions. Therefore, evaluators at all levels must use
caution to prevent inflation; it is important to distinguish performance among peers and is a
disservice to all officers when evaluation ratings are inflated. Note: Commanders are held
responsible for the command climate (refer to paragraph 1.8.8.2) and overall readiness of their
unit and are ultimately accountable for its performance. As such, overall command climate,
readiness and performance shall be a major contributing factor when assessing a commander’s
performance. (T-0)
3.3. Who Requires an Officer ALQ Evaluation.
3.3.1. All RegAF and ARC colonels (except brigadier general selects) and below not being
evaluated using a DAF Form 475 (see paragraph 6.1), or as specified in paragraph 3.4 will
receive an evaluation as of the established SCOD for their current or select grade (see Table
3.3 and Table 3.4). (T-1) If the rater PCSs/PCAs before the SCOD, the rater will complete a
draft evaluation, and the rating chain from ratee’s unit as of the accounting date will complete
the evaluation.
3.3.2. Any officer being released from RegAF to the ARC (participating or non-participating)
if there have been 60 calendar days or more since the close out of the last officer evaluation.
Reason for the report is DBH, and the close-out date will be 30 days prior to the date of
separation.
3.3.3. Officers when initially placed in prisoner status (any sentence of confinement as the
result of a court-martial), appellate leave, or who are in absent without leave status.
3.3.4. Separation or Retirement. Annual evaluations are optional for officers with an approved
separation or retirement date that is on or prior to one year after the SCOD, provided the criteria
in paragraph 3.3.4.1 (retirement) or paragraph 3.3.4.2 (separation) are met. However, if an
officer is promotion eligible (in-the-promotion zone [IPZ]) and first time above-the-promotion
zone [APZ]), then an evaluation is required.
3.3.4.1. For officers with an approved retirement date, the following criteria must be met
for an evaluation to become optional:
3.3.4.1.1. The approved retirement date is on or within one year of the projected SCOD
evaluation. Example: If the approved retirement date is 31 May 25 or earlier, and if
the SCOD is 31 May 25, no evaluation is required. However, if the retirement date is
1 March 25 or later, and if the SCOD is 28 Feb 25, then an evaluation is required.
3.3.4.1.2. The retirement application was approved prior to the projected SCOD.
Example: If the SCOD is 31 May 25, and the retirement application was approved on
70 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
31 May 25 or earlier, no evaluation is required. However, if the retirement application
was not approved until 1 Jun 25 or later, then an evaluation is required.
3.3.4.1.3. The officer will not be considered for promotion, selective continuation, or
selective early retirement by a HAF central selection board or a Reserve of the Air
Force (ResAF) selection board before retirement.
3.3.4.2. For officers with an approved separation date, the following criteria must be met
for an evaluation to become optional:
3.3.4.2.1. The officer voluntarily resigns their commission, has fulfilled their military
service obligation, and is not requesting or accepting a ResAF commission (RegAF
officers) or retaining a ResAF commission (Reserve officers) or transferring to another
service. Reminder—A DAF Form 77 is mandatory for anyone being released from
RegAF to the ANG or AFR under the PALACE CHASE or PALACE FRONT
programs. (T-1) If necessary, one performance statement stating, “No report due to
transition from DATE thru DATE (inclusive period),” may be used.
3.3.4.2.2. The officer is RegAF and voluntarily resigns their commission, or is a
Reserve officer, and is granted release from RegAF in lieu of action under DAFI 36-
3211, or court-martial. (T-1) Note: The evaluation is mandatory following a court-
martial conviction. (T-1)
3.3.4.2.3. The officer is involuntarily discharged or released from active duty under
DAFI 36-3211 unless transferring to the ANG/AFR, or another service, e.g., force
management.
3.3.4.3. Supervisors will consult with separating or retiring officers regarding the option
to complete a final evaluation. (T-3) Members are encouraged to complete a final
evaluation for future purposes (e.g., employment, transfer into another AF component, or
US DoD service). Leadership shall consider the member’s preference when deciding
whether to accomplish their final evaluation. (T-3)
3.3.4.3.1. After consulting with the individual, and the rater opts not to complete a
final evaluation, the supervisor will annotate the evaluation with: “FINAL REPORT
NOT REQUIRED AND/OR IS NOT MANDATED TO BE RENDERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AFI 36-2406.” in the first rater’s assessment block
(“Executing the Mission”) and “THIS SECTION NOT USED,” in the remaining rater
and HLR assessment blocks; process the evaluation through the rater and HLR for
signature. (T-1)
3.3.4.3.2. An evaluation will not be accomplished after a member has officially
separated or retired.
3.3.4.4. Complete a final evaluation when decided by the rater, commander, or senior rater,
or mandated in accordance with paragraph 3.3. Supervisors and commanders are
responsible for completing mandatory evaluations before members final out-process or
officially separate or retire.
3.3.4.5. Officers whose Separation or Retirement is Withdrawn. An evaluation is due if
the officer’s separation or retirement is withdrawn or cancelled. If the original SCOD has
not passed, then it will remain the same. (T-1) If the original SCOD has passed, an
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 71
evaluation must be accomplished within 60 days of when the withdrawn or cancelled action
is complete. (T-1) The SCOD remains the same and the reason will remain
annual/biennial. (T-1)
3.4. Who is Not Authorized an Officer ALQ Evaluation.
3.4.1. Brigadier General selects. See Chapter 7.
3.4.2. AFR officers in a non-pay status (PAS Code: S7XXXXX).
3.4.3. Officers who are in full-time student (functional category: L) or patient status.
3.4.4. Officers in the Wounded Warrior or Career Intermission Programs.
3.4.5. Officers who die while on active duty. Exception: If the death occurred on or after the
close-out date of an evaluation that was already being processed, it becomes an optional
evaluation.
3.4.6. Officers attending formal education and training, provided one of the following criteria
is met:
3.4.6.1. An officer who receives a DAF Form 475 from a formal training or education
course that was 20 weeks or more, and the form “thru” date is within 120 days of the
SCOD. The officer will receive a report on the next year’s SCOD for the appropriate grade.
3.4.6.2. Officers attending formal training or education over 20 weeks at the SCOD for
the officer’s grade. The DAF Form 475 will be completed at course completion and an
evaluation will be required at the next SCOD.
3.4.7. Officers in prisoner or confinement status as a result of a court-martial conviction, who
have PCS’d and are gained to a long-term confinement facility managed by the Air Force
Security Forces Center. Note: Officers awaiting publication of a sentence adjudged at a court-
martial will remain the administrative responsibility of the losing unit commander/director
until such time as the sentence adjudged at a court-martial is published and the member is
officially transferred to an Air Force Security Forces Center managed correctional facility.
These officers will still require SCOD evaluations (as applicable), completed by the losing
commander/director.
3.4.8. Officers undergoing appellate review leave and awaiting an appeals court decision and
still permanently assigned to an Air Force Security Forces Center-managed confinement
facility.
3.5. When to Submit an Officer ALQ Evaluation – Officer Performance Brief (OPB). The
officer ALQ evaluation is completed in myEval to generate the OPB.
3.5.1. For lieutenant thru colonel evaluations, see Table 3.2.
3.5.2. For general officer evaluations, see Chapter 7.
3.6. Annual Reports. Officers’ reports will close out on the appropriate SCOD for the officers’
grades. (T-1) For an officer who enters active duty, the first evaluation will be required at the next
SCOD for their respective grade, given there are at least 180 days between the EAD and the SCOD.
(T-1) For officers who receive an DAF Form 475, see paragraph 3.4.6.
72 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
3.7. Change of Reporting Official Reports (including emergencies or no-notice
departures). Change of Reporting Official (CRO) reports are not authorized for colonels and
below.
3.8. Directed by HAF, NGB, or Commander (MAJCOM, wing, group, or squadron, as
appropriate).
3.8.1. Message-Directed. Use the date specified in the message directing the evaluation.
3.8.2. Promotion Release after SCOD. If an officer is selected for promotion prior to the
SCOD for their current grade but after the SCOD of their “selected” grade and completing an
evaluation on the next selected grade SCOD will create a reporting period of longer than one
year, a DBH evaluation must be completed with a close-out date effective the date which the
promotion selection results were released. This includes promotion releases with a retroactive
date of rank which may apply to promotion selection by a special selection board, special
selection review board, or date of rank adjustment from a Captain’s Fully Qualified List, etc.
Examples:
3.8.2.1. Capt Zemke was selected for promotion to major on a promotion select list
released on 15 July 2024 with a retroactive date of rank of 15 March 2024. Capt Zemke
had an evaluation on the captain SCOD date of 31 August 2023, and the next projected
evaluation is 31 May 2025. Since this creates a rating period of longer than one year, a
DBH evaluation is required with a close-out date of 15 July 2024, the promotion selection
release.
3.8.2.2. Lt Col Hub was selected for promotion to colonel on a promotion select list
released on 15 August 2024 with a retroactive date of rank of 1 May 2024. Lt Col Hub
had an evaluation on the Lt Col SCOD of 31 May 2024, and the next projected evaluation
is 28 February 2025. Since this creates a rating period of less than a year, a DBH evaluation
is not required, and Colonel Hub will receive an evaluation on the next colonel SCOD of
28 February 2025.
3.8.3. Missing-in-Action/Captured/Detained. Use the date the ratee was placed in missing-in-
action, captured, or detained in captive status.
3.8.4. Control Roster Placement. Use one day before being placed on the control roster if the
evaluation is directed as a result of placement on the control roster.
3.8.5. Otherwise Directed. Use the date as otherwise directed by the commander. See Table
3.2.
3.8.6. Directed by Commander (DBC). A DBC will be a referral evaluation, and the close-
out date will be established by the unit commander that directed the evaluation. (T-1) See
paragraph 1.11 for referral procedures. DBC evaluations provide flexibility to commanders
to document substandard performance between SCODs as an embedded report (between two
officer SCOD ALQ evaluations) and will only contain comments and/or ratings regarding the
reason(s) for the evaluation (i.e., only the substandard performance). (T-1) All other
comments, specifically those that are positive are not authorized and will be documented on
the next SCOD evaluation. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 73
3.9. 365-day Extended Deployment Officer ALQ Evaluations. Note: These instructions
apply only to members selected to fill an official extended deployment requirement. Do not use
these instructions for members filling other requirements, even though they may be extended to or
beyond 365 calendar days.
3.9.1. A change of reporting official to the deployment location will occur. (T-1) The
deployed rating chain will complete evaluations on their ratees at the SCOD if the ratee is
assigned to the deployed location as of the established accounting date. (T-1) See paragraph
3.9.4.3. Note: The senior rater matched to the ratee’s home station PAS code must perform
senior rater duties for PRFs. (T-1)
3.9.2. Home Station Rating Chain Responsibilities:
3.9.2.1. Prior to Departure:
3.9.2.1.1. The home station rater should provide input to the deployed rater on the
ratee’s performance at home station during the reporting period prior to the ratee’s
departure. The deployed rater may use the information when preparing the annual
evaluation, but it is not required.
3.9.2.1.2. If the deployed rater is known prior to departure, the CSS/HR specialist will
update the deployed rater. (T-1) When the rater is unknown, use the home station
commander as a temporary rater. This will facilitate a direct line of communication
between home station and deployed commanders to ensure the rating chain is
established. Example: If the data is not updated immediately, a feedback notification
will generate within 30 calendar days, and that should remind the commander that the
deployed data needs to be updated.
3.9.2.2. Upon Arrival in the Area of Responsibility. The home station CSS/HR specialist
will coordinate with the deployed Personnel Support for Contingency Operations
(PERSCO) team and update MilPDS to reflect the member’s deployed duty title and
DAFSC effective the date the member arrives in the area of responsibility. (T-1) They will
also update the deployed rater if the rater was unknown prior to departure. (T-1)
3.9.2.2.1. Duty Title Format. All extended deployment personnel duty titles will be
standardized to reflect the extended deployment “duty title/country” assigned. (T-1) If
space allows, include the unit assigned. Example: “Commander, 442 ECS/Iraq” or
“Comm Mentor, Geographically Separated Unit/Afghanistan.”
3.9.2.2.2. When determining the deployed rating chain, the rater should be the person
who directly supervises the member’s day-to-day activities. The unit that owns the unit
line number will determine the rating chain. (T-3) Raters may be in any United States
or foreign military service or a civilian in a supervisory position and must be in a grade
equal to or higher than the ratee. (T-1) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 9013, Secretary
of the Air Force, DAFI 51-509, and Joint Publication 1, Volume 2, The Joint Force,
the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) is responsible for the administrative control
(ADCON) and support of DAF forces assigned or attached to combatant commands.
(T-0) ADCON is the authority necessary to fulfill SecAF’s statutory responsibilities
for administration and support. In joint environments, an Air Force unit will be
designated to have ADCON responsibilities over Airmen. (T-1) ADCON
responsibility does not necessarily extend to writing the evaluations on those attached
74 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
to the Air Force unit for ADCON purposes; however, this is at the discretion of the
ADCON commander.
3.9.2.3. Senior Rater Responsibilities. Home station senior raters will prepare a PRF for
promotion-eligible officers (officers will be on the home station senior rater’s master
eligibility list [MEL] and [RegAF only] will meet respective MLR). (T-1)
3.9.3. PERSCO Team Responsibilities. The owning PERSCO team will be responsible for
tracking the evaluations on all deployed personnel filling extended deployment billets. (T-1)
3.9.4. Deployed Rating Chain Responsibilities.
3.9.4.1. MilPDS Updates. Ensure the home station has updated MilPDS to reflect
DAFSC, duty title, and deployed rater.
3.9.4.2. Performance Feedback. Perform initial and mid-term feedback in accordance with
Chapter 2.
3.9.4.3. Evaluations. The deployed rater (and subsequent evaluator[s]) will render an
evaluation on an officer, under the following circumstances:
3.9.4.3.1. On the ratee’s established SCOD if the member is assigned to the deployed
location as of the SCOD accounting date. See paragraph 1.4.8.1.
3.9.4.3.2. (AFR only) Raters will submit biennial evaluations at the appropriate
SCOD if two years have passed since the close-out date of the last evaluation (see
Table 3.2.).
3.9.4.3.3. ANG and AFR officers ordered to extended active duty under 10 U.S.C. §
12304 (other than during war or national emergency) or under 10 U.S.C. § 12302,
continue to receive officer evaluations according to Table 3.2. Officers ordered to
extended active duty under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(a) (war or national emergency) receive
evaluations under the RegAF list provisions in this instruction.
3.9.4.4. Officer ALQ Evaluation – Officer Performance Brief (OPB). The deployed rating
chain is responsible for completing the evaluation, to include the deployed HLR. For
instructions on the officer ALQ evaluation, see Table 3.1.
3.9.4.5. Deployed General Officer Raters. Evaluation will qualify for a single evaluator.
(T-1)
3.9.5. Evaluations rendered in the combat zone or at noncombat ports and MPFs. All
provisions of this instruction remain in effect, except:
3.9.6. Evaluator Requirements and Procedures for Officer Evaluations.
3.9.6.1. Minimum grade requirements for senior raters, reviewers, and HLRs remain
unchanged. See paragraph 1.5.
3.9.6.2. Rater. See paragraph 1.5. The rater cannot be substituted for any reason other
than those outlined in paragraph 1.7.
3.9.6.3. Higher Level Reviewer. The HLR for members on 365-day deployments will be
deployed HLRs who meet criteria in paragraph 3.14. (T-1) Air Expeditionary Wing
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 75
(AEW) commanders in 365-day extended deployment status are authorized as HLRs for
officers on 365-day extended deployments to the respective AEW. (T-1)
3.9.6.4. Single Evaluator. Air Expeditionary Wing commanders/equivalents in 365-day
extended deployment status are authorized as single evaluators if they are the primary rater
and HLR. If a rater meets the HLR requirements in paragraph 3.9.6.3, but is not an
AEW/CC, the rater’s rater must be the HLR. (T-1)
3.9.6.5. Comments are mandatory when there is significant disagreement with the
previous evaluator. Evaluators must make specific comments to justify referral ratings.
3.9.7. Referral Evaluation Procedures. Use referral procedures in paragraph 1.11. When the
ratee is deployed in support of a contingency operation, ratee comments on the referral
evaluation must reach the next evaluator no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the
referral letter. (T-1) Type, handwrite, or print referral correspondence in dark blue or black
ink.
3.9.8. Routing Evaluations.
3.9.8.1. Performance evaluations are due to the servicing MPF or personnel activity 30
calendar days after close-out, and to the office of record 60 calendar days after close-out.
3.9.8.2. Forward evaluations directed under Table 3.2 to arrive at HQ AFPC or HQ ARPC
(as appropriate) by the suspense date provided in the directing letter.
3.9.8.3. Forward evaluations in a sealed envelope clearly marked, OFFICER
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DATA--TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY,
only if no electronic means are available.
3.9.8.4. Alternate Routing Procedures. Some crisis conditions may result in temporary
changes to routing procedures. If this occurs, units will receive specific instructions.
3.9.9. Quality Control Review. Quality control of the appearance of performance evaluations
may relax, but the content and data contained must be accurate. (T-1) Evaluations prepared
under wartime provisions may be handwritten.
3.10. “FROM” Dates. The “FROM” date is normally the day after the last evaluation closes out,
but if different, use the information below to establish the “FROM” date. If the officer is:
3.10.1. On extended active duty (RegAF or under Title 10 U.S.C. orders), and it is the first
evaluation: use the extended active duty date; or the day following the close-out date of a TR
from a school that is 20 weeks or more.
3.10.2. An ANG officer not on extended active duty and it is an initial evaluation: use the
effective date of federal recognition in ANG or the day following the close-out of a TR from a
school of 20 weeks or more. Note: Use DAF Form 77 to cover any gap from the officer’s
entry into non-extended active duty status to the “FROM” date of the first evaluation received
in non-extended active duty status in accordance with paragraph 1.14 and DAFI 36-2608,
Military Personnel Records System.
3.10.3. An ANG officer not on extended active duty and was assigned to an ANG unit from
ARPC, use the date of the latest federal recognition. Complete an DAF Form 77 to cover a
gap caused by insufficient supervision in accordance with paragraph 1.14 and DAFI 36-2608.
76 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
3.10.4. For an ANG officer not on extended active duty and was assigned to an ANG unit
from another state: use the date of the latest federal recognition (the losing state will complete
an DAF Form 77 to cover a gap caused by insufficient supervision in accordance with
paragraph 1.14 and DAFI 36-2608).
3.10.5. An AFR officer not on extended active duty and it is an initial evaluation, or the officer
has been reassigned from the inactive ready reserve: use the date of assignment.
3.10.6. An AFR officer not on extended active duty but previously on extended active duty
and concurrently assigned to training category A, B, or E on release from active duty: use the
day following the close-out of the last evaluation received while on extended active duty.
(Applies only to the first non-extended active duty-status evaluation.)
3.10.7. An AFR officer not on extended active duty but previously on active duty as RegAF
and did not accept an AFR commission concurrently with release from active duty: use the
effective date of appointment in non-extended active duty status. (Applies only to the first
non-extended active duty-status evaluation.) Use DAF Form 77 to cover any gap from the
officer’s entry into non-extended active duty status to the “FROM” date of the first evaluation
received in non-extended active duty status in accordance with paragraph 1.14 and DAFI 36-
2608.
3.10.8. If an officer received a TR for a school that is 20 weeks or more, use the day following
the close-out day of the TR. This may result in an evaluation over 12 months.
3.11. “THRU” Dates.
3.11.1. (RegAF and ANG only) The “THRU” date will be the appropriate SCOD unless the
reason for the report falls under paragraph 3.8. (T-1)
3.11.2. (AFR only) The “THRU” date for an annual report will be the appropriate SCOD as
long as the member earns at least 16 points through inactive duty training periods, active duty,
or a combination (do not include Extension Course Institute or membership points). (T-1) If
the officer does not earn 16 points by the SCOD, submit an administrative LOE for a gap
report. Use the statement: “No report required in accordance with AFI 36-2406 for this
reporting period: DD Mon YYYY through DD Mon YYYY.”
3.12. Number of Days of Supervision.
3.12.1. Enter the number of days the rater supervised the ratee during the reporting period. To
compute, use the “supervision began date” through the “close-out date” to determine the
number of days of supervision.
3.12.2. Deduct the number of days during non-rated periods authorized in accordance with
paragraph 1.4.11. Do not deduct any periods of leave, TDY, absences or periods loaned out
to other organizations unless they occur during an unauthorized non-rated period.
3.12.3. If, while on extended active duty an officer evaluation is being written by the rater’s
rater per paragraph 1.7, then enter the number of days that the evaluator had personal or
written knowledge of the ratee's duty performance during the reporting period.
3.12.4. If a non-extended active duty ANG officer’s ALQ evaluation is being written by
another rater per paragraph 1.7, then enter the number of days the evaluator had personal or
written knowledge of the ratee’s duty performance during the reporting period. The number
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 77
of days of supervision for a ratee assigned to a rater for a calendar year is 365, not the sum of
unit training assembly and field training days.
3.12.5. If a non-extended active duty AFR officer, then enter the number of days of
supervision under the rater during the reporting period. Deduct from the period of supervision
tours of active duty under other than the designated rater for which there is a LOE. Example:
If preparing an officer ALQ evaluation to cover the period from 1 July to 31 December and
the rater was first so designated on 1 September and served in this capacity without a break to
31 December, and the ratee reported for training and duty for a total of 27 days between 1
September and 31 December, then the period of supervision is 122 days, not 27 days. The
rater is responsible for the accuracy of the number of days of supervision entry.
3.13. Performance Feedback Assessment.
3.13.1. Performance feedback assessments will be accomplished in accordance with Chapter
2.
3.13.2. The rater certifies the performance feedback assessment in myEval by acknowledging
whether feedback was conducted during the rating period. This includes the midterm feedback,
or any subsequent feedback sessions requested by the ratee. If the performance feedback
assessment was not accomplished, an explanation must be provided in myEval.
3.14. Higher Level Reviewer.
3.14.1. The HLR is the highest-level endorser in the ratee's rating chain.
3.14.1.1. For RegAF and AFR Colonels. The HLR will be the first general officer/senior
executive service employee/equivalent, including selects, in the rating chain designated as
a senior rater by the management level for RegAF, or for the AFR is in a designated senior
rater billet. (T-1) The HLR is authorized as a single evaluator. See paragraph 3.14.3.
3.14.1.2. For RegAF and AFR Lieutenant Colonels and Majors. The HLR will be the first
O-6/GS-15/equivalent, or higher, in the rating chain designated as a senior rater by the
management level. (T-1) The HLR is authorized as a single evaluator. See paragraph
3.14.3.
3.14.1.3. For RegAF and ARC Captains. The HLR is the first O-6/GS-15/equivalent in
the rating chain. (T-1) If a rater meets HLR requirements, but is not a senior rater, the next
individual up the rating chain (in a grade equal or higher to the rater and in a grade higher
than the ratee)will be the HLR; only senior raters are authorized as single evaluators. (T-1)
See paragraph 3.14.3.
3.14.1.4. For RegAF and ARC Lieutenants. For lieutenants assigned to wing/base-level
units, the HLR is the first commander on G-series orders/civilian unit director (detachment
commanders and section commanders must be in the grade of O-4/GS-12/equivalent or
higher). (T-1) For lieutenants assigned to a wing staff agency, the head of the specific
agency (e.g., Wg/JA, Wg/Chaplain, etc.) will serve as the HLR, only when in the grade of
O-5/GS-13/equivalent or higher, for those respective staff agencies; allowing the head of
the agency to serve as the HLR provides the same level HLR as comparable squadrons.
(T-1) For lieutenants assigned outside of a wing/base structure (e.g., MAJCOMs, NAFs,
Centers, FOAs, direct reporting units [DRUs]), the HLR is the first O-5/GS-13/NH-
III/equivalent or higher in the rating chain who is no higher in the organization than the
78 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
senior rater. (T-1) If a rater meets HLR requirements, but is not a senior rater, the next
individual up the rating chain (in a grade equal or higher to the rater and in a grade higher
than the ratee) will be the HLR; only senior raters are authorized as single evaluators. (T-1)
See paragraph 3.14.3.
3.14.1.5. For ANG Colonels. The HLR will be the first general officer in the rating chain.
(T-1)
3.14.1.6. For ANG Lieutenant Colonels and Majors. The HLR is the wing or group
commander. (T-1) For a member assigned to a unit where there is no parent wing or group
headquarters in-state, the state Adjutant General will establish an equivalent command-
level review authority.
3.14.2. The HLR will concur or non-concur by making the appropriate selection. See
paragraph 1.10 for disagreements.
3.14.3. Single Evaluator only. Only officers who are designated as a senior rater by the
management level may serve as both the rater and the HLR. If the primary rater meets HLR
requirements but is not a senior rater, the next rater up the rating chain must be the HLR. (T-1)
3.15. Stratifications. Stratifications serve to provide clear feedback to ratees on their overall
performance in relation to a relevant peer group with similar knowledge, skills, experience, and
scope of work and responsibility, and to document that performance assessment for future unit-
level and enterprise-level talent management decisions (e.g., special application boards, hiring
authorities, assignment and development teams, promotion boards).
3.15.1. Stratification Accountability. It is the responsibility of evaluators at all levels to
maintain integrity and keep intact the purpose, clarity, and validity of officer stratifications.
3.15.2. Statements outside the Scope of Responsibility. Stratification and broad statements
outside the scope of the evaluator’s responsibility or knowledge are prohibited. (T-1) A broad
statement is one which implies knowledge of Air Force members not in the everyday chain of
accountability, both mission and personal. Evaluators can only stratify personnel within the
confines of their direct rating chain and/or scope of rating responsibility (e.g., within the
evaluations which they are the HLR for; AEW/CCs without a SRID may still stratify within
their entire wing). As an example of inappropriate and prohibited scope, an evaluator may not
include in their stratification pools (denominators) personnel who provide mission support via
a cross-functional team, or are on temporary duty status supporting a mission, but are
permanently assigned to another unit (PAS code) since these personnel do not officially report
in the evaluator’s chain.
3.15.3. Stratification statements, when authorized, are not mandatory and are limited to the
scope of the rating period (start date to end date). Accordingly, evaluators may review past
evaluations; however, evaluators may not reference past evaluations in any way, and also may
not use past evaluations as context or determinant for any current rating period stratification(s)
or content in performance statements or HLR/reviewer comments. The omission of
stratifications does not constitute an error or injustice. Note: An evaluator may remove or
change a stratification at any point during the process of an evaluation.
3.15.4. Stratification statements are only authorized within the designated stratification
sections in myEval and the AF Form 715 (use of this form is only allowable when authorized
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 79
by waiver as provided at paragraph 1.13.4. (T-1) Evaluators are prohibited from placing any
form of stratification statement(s) in either an ALQ performance statement section or HLR
assessment comment section, to include stratifications from other evaluators (e.g., deployed
stratifications) and veiled stratifications (see paragraph 3.15.6.2). (T-1) All deployed/TDY
performance is authorized for the evaluator’s consideration in overall assessment and home
station stratification. Stratifications provided on a DAF Form 77 may be used by the rater for
consideration when completing the ALQ evaluation, but may not be quoted or otherwise
included.
3.15.5. Single Evaluator Stratifications. Raters serving as a single evaluator are prohibited
from entering a stratification in the rater’s stratification block and must select “This Section
Not Used.” Authorized stratifications may be entered in the HLR’s stratification block of the
officer evaluation and must comply with paragraph 3.15.7.4. (T-1)
3.15.6. Unauthorized Stratifications.
3.15.6.1. Company Grade Officers (CGOs) and/or Field Grade Officers (FGOs) are not
authorized peer groups for primary or secondary stratification purposes. (T-1)
3.15.6.2. Veiled stratifications are not authorized. (T-1) These are statements which imply
a stratification but do not conform to the guidance within paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 (e.g.
“#1 CAG Advisor…” This is an inappropriate evaluator comment because it is a veiled
stratification with no denominator).
3.15.6.3. Stratification statements based on awards are not authorized, as awards are
recognition based on a given set of criteria (e.g., “#1/50 as Sq CGO of the Quarter” is
prohibited). (T-1)
3.15.6.4. Stratification statements for second lieutenants (O-1s) are prohibited. (T-1)
While this quantitative comparison against a peer group is prohibited, evaluators should
provide these officers with clear feedback regarding their performance in relation to Air
Force standards and major performance areas (i.e., executing the mission, leading people,
managing resources, improving the unit).
3.15.6.5. It is strictly prohibited to place a stratification referencing a member’s placement
on a key personnel list and other Development Team vectors on an evaluation.
3.15.6.6. Promotion “Selects.” (RegAF and AFR only) A primary stratification is not
authorized for officers on a promotion select list. Officers on a promotion select list may
be considered in denominator pools for grade stratifications on the SCOD of the lower
(current) grade. See the exception at paragraph 3.15.7.3. (T-1) (ANG only) Officers on
a promotion select list will be stratified against other officers in their current grade (e.g., a
lieutenant colonel select will be stratified against all other majors). (T-1)
3.15.6.7. Stratification Quotes. The use of stratification statements from anyone other than
the evaluator is prohibited, unless they are between the rater and the HLR in the rating
scope of responsibility (e.g., a wing commander may not quote a NAF commander’s
stratification; however, a wing commander may quote a group commander’s stratification
if the group commander is not the rater). (T-1)
3.15.6.8. When stratifying officers on officer evaluations, evaluators will not consider
completion/non-completion of non-resident developmental education or officer
80 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
professional military education (OPME) if the officer is on the school select list or
select/candidate status (because the ratee will attend in-residence). Relative ranking among
officers rated by the rating chain should be based on overall performance. This paragraph
does not preclude evaluators from making appropriate assignment and developmental
education or OPME recommendations on officer evaluations (HLRs only) and retention
recommendation forms. See paragraph 3.16.3.
3.15.6.9. Except as authorized in paragraph 3.15.7, qualifiers/descriptors are not
authorized in any stratification statement (e.g., “#3/8 Lt Cols, #4/15 Sq/CCs in first year”;
“#2/4 new Majs, #1/1 LAF-C DOs”
3.15.7. Authorized Stratifications. When used, stratification statements must be written in
whole number quantitative terms (numerator over denominator) based on authorized peer
groups and must remain within the evaluator’s scope of authority. (T-1) Use of percentages
in the numerator are prohibited (e.g., cannot use “Top 5%/50”). Note: Stratification of officers
between components (RegAF, Reserve, Guard) is authorized within an evaluator’s scope of
authority as long as the stratification is within an authorized peer group. Authorized peer
groups are limited to the following categories (see Table 3.5.):
3.15.7.1. Primary Stratification. Evaluators may stratify officers by grade. Grade
stratifications will only include officers in the same grade (e.g., first lieutenants, captains,
majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels). (T-1) Do not stratify officers against civilian
grades or include civilian “equivalents” in the denominator pool. (T-1) Primary
stratifications must include all military officers in that grade under the evaluator’s scope of
rating responsibility and may not include officers who are assigned within another HLR's
scope of rating responsibility.
3.15.7.1.1. United States Air Force Officers. The primary stratification for an officer
assigned to a position in which only USAF officers are within an evaluator’s scope of
rating authority will simply have the grade as the descriptor (e.g., “#2/25 Lt Cols”).
(T-1)
3.15.7.1.2. DAF Officers. The primary stratification for an officer assigned to a unit
in which both, and only, USAF and United States Space Force (USSF) officers of the
same grade are within an evaluator’s scope of rating authority must have “DAF” with
the grade as the descriptor (e.g., “#1/7 DAF Lt Cols”). (T-1) “Joint” as a stratification
category is not authorized among only USAF and USSF officers. (T-1)
3.15.7.1.3. Joint Officers. The primary stratification for an officer permanently
assigned to a position on a joint manning document in which at least one other non-
DAF officer is within an evaluator’s scope of rating authority must have “Joint” with
the grade as the descriptor (e.g., “#1/5 Joint O-4s”). (T-1) Raters with USAF officers
and other US DoD service officers in the same grade, except those from USSF, are not
authorized to use any other stratification category than “Joint” as a primary
stratification (e.g., not authorized to state, “#1/4 USAF Lt Cols” to stratify just Air
Force), or to specify specific services (e.g., not authorized to state, “#1/6 USAF/DA Lt
Cols” to stratify just Air Force and Army, or “#2/5 USAF/USMC O-4s” to stratify just
Air Force and Marines) even if there is only one other US DoD service represented in
addition to the USAF officers. Note: Officers “loaned” to a joint organization are not
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 81
authorized a “Joint” stratification and must adhere to the assigned unit’s stratification
guidelines.
3.15.7.1.4. Service Component. The primary stratification for officers may have
service component (RegAF, Reserve, Guard) with the grade as a descriptor and must
be within the evaluator’s scope of authority (e.g., “#1/4 ANG Majs”).
3.15.7.1.5. Reserve Participation Category. The primary stratification for reserve
officers may have a Reserve Participation category (i.e., traditional reservist [TR],
IMA, Air Reserve Technician [ART], AGR, Voluntary Limited Period of Active Duty
[VLPAD], Leaders Encouraging Airman Development [LEAD], or EAD) with the
grade as a descriptor and must be within the evaluator’s scope of authority (e.g., “#1/6
IMA O-6s”; “#2/25 VLPAD Majs”). (T-1)
3.15.7.1.6. (RegAF only) Frocked Officers. Frocked or temporarily promoted
officers will be stratified amongst the officers in the grade they have been frocked or
temporarily promoted to (e.g., a major that has been temporarily promoted to lieutenant
colonel will only be stratified amongst other lieutenant colonels; a lieutenant colonel
frocked to colonel will only be stratified against other colonels). (T-1)
3.15.7.2. Secondary Stratification. In order to use a secondary stratification, the officer
must first earn a primary stratification in accordance with paragraph 3.15.7.1 on their
evaluation to ground the secondary stratification statement and communicate the clearest
depiction of where an officer stands for all future evaluation readers. Tertiary
stratifications and beyond are not authorized (maximum of two stratifications are
authorized [one primary stratification and one secondary stratification]). An evaluator may
use one of the following peer groups as a secondary stratification:
3.15.7.2.1. Developmental Category. This refers to the officer’s developmental
category for promotion. Raters may use a developmental category stratification as a
secondary stratification to any primary grade stratification and must be used among
officers in the same grade (e.g., “#3/17 Capts, 1/12 LAF-C Capts”; “#5/16 Majs; #2/8
NC Majs”; “ #2/25 Lt Cols, #1/10 LSF-O Lt Cols”).
3.15.7.2.2. United States Air Force Grade. Raters may use a USAF grade stratification
as a secondary stratification to a Joint or DAF primary stratification and must be used
among officers in the same grade (e.g., "#2/14 Joint Majs, #1/6 USAF Majs;” or “#3/16
DAF Lt Cols, #1/4 USAF Lt Cols”).
3.15.7.2.3. Subordinate Echelon Grade. This refers to an officer’s standing at
established echelons (unit levels) organizationally subordinate to the HLR, but
organizationally senior to the rater within the HLR’s scope of rating responsibility,
when the subordinate echelon is not a signatory on the evaluation. Use of this a
subordinate echelon stratification is limited to grade within the subordinate echelon.
As an example, a wing commander may elect to stratify an officer amongst their peers
in a group subordinate to the wing (e.g., “#16/50 Majs, #4/22 MDG Majs;” “#23/90
Majs, #6/25 WSA Majs”). (T-1)
3.15.7.2.4. Duty Position. This refers to the officer’s duty position type, level, and
scope of responsibility (e.g., commander, wing commander, section chiefs, flight
commanders, operations officers, branch chiefs, action officers, analysts, instructors,
82 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
combat systems officers, etc.). Officers may be stratified against civilian personnel and
international officers in equivalent duty positions (e.g., “#1/1 Capts, #1/40 Analysts”;
“#2/6 Majs, #3/41 Flt CCs”; “#2/5 Majs, #1/15 Instructor Pilots”). Duty position
stratifications by grade are not authorized (e.g., “#5/40 Majs, #1/20 Maj Flight
Commanders”), except for command position stratifications. Command position
stratifications by grade are authorized, if desired (e.g., “#4/35 Majs, #2/6 Maj Sq/CCs;”
“#3/60 Lt/Cols, #1/3 Lt Col Sq/CCs”). “Non-” duty position stratifications and overly
broad categorizations that obscure the differences in grade and duty positions inherent
within the stratification are not authorized (e.g., “#15/60 Lt Cols, #1/6 non-command
Lt Cols;” “#20/90 Majs, #1/136 officers”). (T-1)
3.15.7.2.5. Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard Components. Raters may use
AFR or ANG grade as a secondary stratification to an authorized primary grade
stratification within an evaluator’s scope of authority and must be used among officers
in the same grade (e.g., #23/118 Lt Cols; #1/8 ANG Lt Cols). Raters may also use AFR
or ANG as a descriptor to a secondary stratification within an evaluator’s scope of
authority as long as the stratification is within an authorized peer group and must be
used among officers in the same grade (e.g., “#3/7 Majs; #1/3 AFR Analysts”).
3.15.7.3. (RegAF and AFR only) Authorized Exception to Primary and Secondary
Stratifications for Promotion “Selects.” Officers on a promotion select list may be
stratified using the secondary duty position stratification only without first using a primary
stratification without grade or select grade reference (e.g., “#1/8 Branch Chiefs;” “#3/7
Sq/CCs). Promotion “selects” may be considered in denominator pools for grade
stratifications on the SCOD of the lower (current) grade as long as the officer has not
promoted to the higher grade as of the day of the SCOD.
3.15.7.4. Exceptions for Higher Level Reviewer Stratifications.
3.15.7.4.1. HLR Stratification Scoping. The primary and secondary stratification
denominators for the HLR may not exceed the number of evaluations signed by the
HLR on that specific SCOD. Neither primary nor secondary stratification
denominators shall include all officers within an HLR’s scope of responsibility unless
the HLR is a signatory on the evaluations of all officers within that scope. HLRs can
only stratify personnel within the confines of their scope of responsibility (e.g., SRID).
Exceptions: For HLRs also evaluating other US DoD service officers (e.g., USSF, or
any Joint officers), the HLR’s primary and secondary stratification denominators may
exceed the number of USAF officers at the SCOD but still may not exceed the number
of evaluations signed by the HLR for all their officers of the same grade during their
annual evaluation cycle (e.g., HLR signs 5 Air Force officer evaluations, 2 Army
officer evaluations, and 3 Navy officer evaluations; the denominator may not exceed
10). Additionally, an HLR’s secondary duty position stratification denominator may
exceed the number of Air Force officers at the SCOD when including civilian
equivalents and/or international officer equivalents.
3.15.7.4.2. When Ratee is Same Grade as Rater. When the ratee is the same grade as
the rater, the HLR has the option to stratify the ratee using the secondary duty position
stratification only, without first using a primary stratification. This option offers some
discretion to HLRs assessing performance of all officers in a grade at the same time,
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 83
particularly when a peer group includes officers with varying scopes of responsibility
(e.g., when a squadron commander and director of operations (DO) are the same grade,
the HLR has the option to stratify the ratee as “#1/6 DOs” without using a primary
stratification). (T-1)
3.16. Unauthorized Evaluator Considerations and Comments. Certain items are prohibited
for consideration in the performance evaluation process and will not be commented upon on any
Officer Evaluation System form (see Chapter 8 for the PRF). Refer to paragraph 3.15.6 for
unauthorized stratifications. See paragraph 1.12 for other prohibited considerations and
comments. Except as authorized in the following paragraphs, do not consider, refer to, or include
comments regarding:
3.16.1. Promotion statements or reference to grades and/or positions higher than the ratee
holds are prohibited.
3.16.1.1. Promotion statements that are pushes to the next higher grade are prohibited.
Exception: Statements of fact (e.g., "filled a Lt Col billet") are authorized if the ratee was
assigned to the unit manning document (UMD) position. Additionally, while promotion
statements are prohibited, an evaluator may make recommendations to select officers for a
particular assignment, developmental education, augmentation, continuation, or
conditional reserve status.
3.16.1.2. Any reference, direct or indirect, to an officer’s order of merit, line number,
position sequence, etc. on any boarded selection is unauthorized. Exception: Statements
acknowledging an officer’s selection for promotion during the reporting period are
acceptable.
3.16.1.3. The term “Senior” on officer evaluations is prohibited for colonel selects and
below. This term is commonly understood as a euphemism for colonels and above, or to
refer to members holding a higher grade than the ratee, and therefore constitutes an implied
promotions statement and is prohibited in officer evaluations. Exception: On PRFs for
lieutenant colonels being promoted to colonel, the term “Senior” may be used.
3.16.1.4. Referring to a major as the “Senior Chaplain” is authorized; however, referring
to a major as “Performing senior leadership duties” is prohibited.
3.16.2. Comments on officer evaluations regarding completion of, or enrollment in,
Developmental Education (DE)/OPME (in residence or non-residence) and Advanced
Academic Degree (AAD) education are prohibited.
3.16.2.1. Performance and special recognition comments on officers attending in-
residence education and/or training will be documented appropriately on the DAF Form
475 (see Chapter 6). Exception: When preparing officer evaluations and PRFs,
evaluators may comment on Air War College non-residential program Outstanding
Graduates; unlike resident students, non-resident students do not receive a training report
to document this achievement.
3.16.2.2. For officer evaluations only: Only HLRs may comment on an officer’s
competitive assignment selection to programs that fall outside of the Developmental
Education Designation Board, to include but not limited to Olmstead, Fulbright, Rhodes,
84 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, and the School of Advanced Warfighting
Studies.
3.16.2.3. Evaluators will not comment on an officer’s status on the school’s list, selection
for DE/OPME, and/or specific schools (e.g., Air Command and Staff College, Air War
College, Joint). Only HLRs are authorized to make remarks recommending an officer to
“PDE”, “IDE”, or “SDE” only. Note: An assignment recommendation for Air Force
Institute of Technology Master’s or Doctoral degree program is authorized.
3.16.3. Assignment and DE/OPME Recommendations. Only HLRs are authorized to make
assignment and DE/OPME recommendations. Assignment and developmental DE/OPME
recommendations on officer evaluations that are inconsistent with an officer’s current grade
are prohibited. The intent and philosophy of the Officer Evaluation System is to recommend
an officer for assignments or positions and resident level of developmental education/OPME
that reflect the ratee’s potential.
3.16.3.1. There is a fine line between an assignment recommendation and an overt,
implied, or veiled promotion statement. When making an assignment recommendation on
an officer evaluation, there will be no reference to a higher grade, and it must be consistent
with the officer’s appropriate progression of their professional development.
3.16.3.2. HLRs are authorized to make one or more assignment recommendations in an
officer’s evaluation provided the recommendations are both appropriate and realistically
achievable for the officer’s current grade or current grade plus one. The assignment
recommendation may involve the current grade plus one if the officer has completed or is
currently completing the last reasonable career development for the current grade.
Example: “Highly recommend for Air Force Institute of Technology—then Joint Duty.”
Note: Air Force Institute of Technology can be used for an assignment push, however, it
cannot be used as a developmental education/OPME push.
3.16.3.3. The intent is to focus on what job or DE/OPME assignment the officer should be
doing immediately after their current assignment. Anything beyond the next assignment
would be mapping out a career or making an implied promotion statement. Both instances
are contrary to the spirit and intent of the Officer Evaluation System.
3.16.3.4. In addition to assignment recommendations, HLRs may also make
recommendations for the appropriate level of in-residence developmental
education/OPME on officer evaluations and LOEs. DE/OPME pushes are not authorized
on training reports.
3.16.3.4.1. HLRs determine the appropriate level recommendation by considering the
highest level of in-residence DE/OPME the officer has already completed along with
the eligibility criteria for each level of in-residence DE/OPME. (e.g., Squadron Officer
School is the appropriate level of primary developmental education (PDE) for Air
Force officers).
3.16.3.4.2. For lieutenant through captain, a PDE recommendation is appropriate until
the officer has completed PDE in-residence.
3.16.3.4.3. For a captain, once the officer completes PDE, an intermediate
developmental education (IDE) recommendation is appropriate.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 85
3.16.3.4.4. For a major, if as of the close-out date of the evaluation, the officer has not
already completed IDE in-residence and is still eligible for consideration, an IDE
recommendation is appropriate. However, once the major completes IDE in-residence
or when the officer is no longer eligible for consideration, then a senior developmental
education (SDE) recommendation is appropriate.
3.16.3.4.5. HLRs cannot recommend officers for specific schools, including “Joint
DE.” Only the terms “PDE,” “IDE,” and “SDE” are authorized. The appropriate venue
for a specific school recommendation is through the annual DE/OPME process.
3.16.3.5. Examples of Acceptable Assignment DE/OPME Recommendations.
3.16.3.5.1. “Make Capt Cousins a MPF Chief.” (Appropriate next level of
progression.)
3.16.3.5.2. On a Lt Col OPR, “Make him an Ops Group Commander.” (Appropriate
next level of progression.)
3.16.3.5.3. For Air Force officers: “Send Major Smith to Intermediate Developmental
Education.” (Appropriate DE/OPME progression.)
3.16.3.5.4. For Air Force Officers: “After Intermediate Developmental Education,
assign to Air Staff.” (Appropriate DE/OPME with follow-on assignment.)
3.16.3.5.5. For a major who has completed Air Command & Staff College in-
residence, or who is out of the eligibility window, recommendations for SDE would be
appropriate, “Send to Senior Developmental Education.”
3.16.3.5.6. For a captain who has completed PDE in-residence, or who is beyond the
window of eligibility, an appropriate recommendation would be “In-resident
Intermediate Developmental Education a Must.”
3.16.3.6. Examples of Prohibited Assignment and DE/OPME Recommendations.
3.16.3.6.1. “Make Lt Keeler an FSS Commander.” Inappropriate next level of
progression.
3.16.3.6.2. “Send Capt Brown to Intermediate Developmental Education after
selection to major.” (Reference to Intermediate Developmental Education is
appropriate, but the comment “after selection to major” is an implied promotion
statement.)
3.16.3.6.3. “Intermediate Developmental Education in 2023, Group Commander in
2028, and Wing Commander in 2031.” (Goes beyond the scope of the next
assignment).
3.16.3.6.4. “Capt Phelps is ready to be a flying Sq/CC” and “Make Maj Knisley a
group commander.” (In both cases, the recommendations are clearly beyond the
officer’s next assignment and are viewed as veiled promotion statements.)
3.16.4. Officer Bonuses. Comments on an officer's decision to accept or decline retention
bonus pay (e.g., aviation bonus, officer retention bonus) are prohibited.
3.16.5. Separation or Retirement Status. Comments referring to separation, retirement, or
transfer to reserve status are prohibited. However, comments may be warranted when an
86 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
officer displays a reluctance to accept responsibility, a negative attitude toward the job, and/or
exhibits a decrease in performance that can be reasonably attributed to a pending separation or
retirement. Comments are limited to the behavior and not the fact the member is separating,
retiring, or transferring to a reserve status. Note: Although comments are mandatory, an
evaluator may use the minimum performance statements required in accordance with Table
3.1 as applicable.
3.16.6. Civilian Employment. Comments about civil service jobs or other civilian occupations
are prohibited unless it directly relates to the military position and their military performance.
Recommendations for civilian employment are prohibited.
3.17. Extensions of Close-out Dates. Extensions of close-out dates are not authorized for
lieutenant colonels and below; For general officers, see paragraph 7.6.
3.18. Ratee’s Acknowledgement.
3.18.1. The rater is required to conduct face-to-face (end-of-reporting period) feedback in
conjunction with presenting the evaluation to the ratee. The officer evaluation serves as the
feedback form. A performance feedback assessment form is not required. Electronic routing
of the form does not excuse the rater from providing face-to-face feedback. Only in situations
where face-to-face feedback is not feasible will feedback be conducted either by telephone or
electronically. The rater should first attempt to call the ratee and conduct the feedback via
telephone. If that option is not available, the rater may provide clear, detailed feedback to the
ratee via email, using a read receipt to verify the feedback was received and read.
3.18.2. The ratee’s signature in the acknowledgment block does not constitute concurrence or
non-concurrence of the content and/or rating of the evaluation. The signature is to acknowledge
receipt of the evaluation and to certify the ratee reviewed the personal information on the form.
3.18.3. The ratee’s signature will be obtained after the HLR has signed. In cases where an Air
Force advisor or acquisition/functional examiner signature is required, ratee acknowledgment
will occur after the advisor or examiner review.
3.18.4. The ratee must acknowledge receipt of the evaluation prior to the evaluation becoming
a matter of record unless the ratee refuses or is unable to sign. The ratee will review and verify
all dates, markings, and comments on the form. Significant discrepancies and administrative
errors can be addressed at this time, and corrected if agreed by all parties before the evaluation
becomes a matter of record. This is not to be interpreted to mean the ratee can refuse to sign
if they disagree with the evaluation. This is an acknowledgement of the evaluation not
concurrence. If evaluators do not agree to change the evaluation and the ratee wishes to dispute
it, the ratee should pursue the established appeal/correction avenues available to them as
outlined in Chapter 10 once the evaluation is a matter of record.
3.18.5. The rater will suspense the ratee three duty days (30 calendar days for ARC) to sign
the evaluation. (T-1)
3.18.6. In cases where the ratee refuses to sign, any evaluator signing the evaluation is
authorized to select “Member declined to sign” from the drop-down menu in the ratee’s
acknowledgement and sign the evaluation in the ratee’s acknowledgement block.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 87
3.18.7. In cases where the ratee is unable to sign, any evaluator will select “Member unable to
sign” from the drop-down menu in the ratee’s acknowledgement block and sign the evaluation
in the ratee’s acknowledgement block.
3.18.8. For the purpose of signing evaluations, the term “Member unable to sign” indicates
that the member does not have access to a common access card-enabled computer (e.g.,
convalescent leave, TDY to a contractor facility without government computer access,
deployed to a location without computer access, no longer have digital signature capability, in
absent without leave or deserter status, etc.).
3.18.9. “Wet Signature Evaluations Only.” Evaluators can type, handwrite or use the drop-
down option to annotate the evaluation when the ratee is unable or declines to sign.
Table 3.1. Instructions for Preparing an Officer ALQ Evaluation (Output Product).
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
1
Grade
Enter appropriate grade. See
paragraph 1.4.9.
Use “(S)” when using the select
grade and “(T)” when using the
temporarily promoted grade.
2Lt, 1Lt, Capt, Maj, Lt Col,
Col, Lt Col (S), Col (T)
2
Name
Enter Last Name, First Name,
Middle Initial, and any suffix
(e.g., JR., SR., III). If there is no
middle initial, the use of “NMI”
is optional. Name will be in all
upper case.
DOE, JOHN E. JR.
3
DoDID
Enter full DoDID number
1234567890
4
Duty Title
Review and ensure the approved
duty title is entered as of the
SCOD, unless the member has a
PCS, PCA, or departs from a
365-day extended deployment
then enter the duty title as of the
accounting date. If the duty title
is abbreviated and entries are
not clear, spell them out. If
wrong, enter the correct duty
title and take appropriate actions
to update the personnel data
system.
Assistant Director of
Operations
88 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
Corrective actions should be
initiated upon receipt of the
evaluation notice. Ensure the
duty title is commensurate with
the ratee’s grade, AFSC, and
responsibility. 365-day
extended deployments will use
the deployed duty title.
5
DAFSC
Enter the DAFSC including
prefix and suffix, if applicable
as of the SCOD; however, if the
officer has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day
extended deployment on or after
the accounting date, use the
DAFSC as of the established
accounting date. Officers on a
365-day extended deployments
will use the TDY DAFSC. See
paragraph 1.4.8.
12F3F
6
Reason
Enter reason for report from
OPB notice and as determined
by Table 3.2.
Annual, Directed by HQ
USAF, Directed by CC
7
Period
FROM Date: Enter the day
following the last evaluation’s
close-out date. See paragraph
3.10.
THRU Date: Use the date on
the OPR notice or see
paragraph 3.11 to determine
the close-out date.
1 June 23 thru 31 May 24
8
Days Supervised
Enter number of days ratee was
supervised by the rater during
the reporting period. See
paragraph 3.12.
365
9
Days Non-Rated
Enter number of days Non-
Rated (if applicable) in
accordance with paragraph
1.4.11.
120
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 89
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
10
Ratee
Acknowledgement
The ratee must acknowledge
receipt prior to the evaluation
becoming a matter of record by
signing in this block. Signing
the evaluation does not imply
concurrence, but
acknowledgement and review of
personal information on the
evaluation. If the ratee non-
concurs with the evaluation,
they may submit an appeal in
accordance with Chapter 10.
The rater will suspense the ratee
three duty days (30 calendar
days for ARC) to sign the
evaluation.
Non-digital: Handwrite, date
stamp or type the date. Sign on
or after the close-out date.
“Member unable to sign”—use
when member is incapacitated
or unavailable to sign; rater or
HLR (digitally) signs.
“Member declined to sign”—
use when member refuses to
sign the evaluation; rater or
HLR (digitally) signs.
See paragraph 3.18.
Digital or wet signatures.
A combination of both is
authorized.
11
Organization and
Command
Enter information as of close-
out date unless the member has
a PCS, PCA, or departs from a
365-day extended deployment
then enter the information as of
the accounting date.
Nomenclature does not
necessarily duplicate what is on
the evaluation notice. The goal
is an accurate description of
123d Fighter Squadron
(ACC)
90 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
where and to whom the ratee
belongs. Command will be
listed inside parentheses. 365-
day extended deployments will
use the home station unit, “with
duty at…”
AFR only: For IMAs,
information will be that of the
unit of assignment, and for
PIRR and PIRR Cat E,
information will be that of unit
of attachment. See paragraph
1.4.7.
For Non-EAD members, use
this section to annotate “(Non-
EAD)” or “(ANG).”
123d Fighter Squadron
(ACC) (Non-EAD)
12
Location
Enter information as of the
close-out date unless the
member has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day
extended deployment then enter
the information as of the
accounting date.
JB Langley-Eustis, VA
13
Duty Description
Comments in narrative format
are mandatory and are limited to
the space provided.
Enter information about the
position the ratee held in the
unit and the nature or level of
job responsibilities. The rater
develops the information for this
section.
This description must reflect the
uniqueness of each ratee’s job.
Be specific—include level of
responsibility, number of people
supervised, dollar value of
resources accountable
Combat ready, worldwide
deployable Lead Weapons
System Officer ready to
execute every mission set
of the multi-role F-15E.
Leads commander’s
priority programs, to
include standardization and
evaluation, safety, security,
and unit morale. Assists in
execution of the daily
flying operations for 75
aircrew, 20 support
personnel, and 25 aircraft
worth $1.4B. Executes
large force integration of
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 91
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
for/projects managed, etc.
Make it clear; use plain English.
Avoid jargon and topical
references—they obscure rather
than clarify meaning. Only
acronyms on the approved
acronym list
(https://www.afpc.af.mil/Career-
Management/Acronyms/) are
authorized.
Previous jobs held during the
reporting period may be
mentioned only if it impacts the
evaluation.
365-day extended deployments
will use the TDY duty
description.
Commander’s duty description
will include the total force
(RegAF, ANG, AFR, and
USSF) assigned. A short
description of the unit’s
missions may be included in the
job description if it is necessary
to better explain the ratee’s
duties.
For colonels in Chief of Staff of
the Air Force (CSAF)
selected/designated wing
equivalent positions, include
“wing Equivalent” up front at
the first item in the duty
description.
joint and multinational
forces, ensures 24-hr
operations.
Commands an 80-person
combat-coded F-15E
squadron, manages and
executes a $107M flying
hour program with 3.1K
sorties & 5.1K hours and
responsible for $98K
annual budget. Implements
combatant command’s
operational plans and
requirements; responsible
for readiness and execution
of daily flying operations
for 60 aircrew, 20 support
personnel, and 25 aircrafts
worth $1.4B. Combat
fighter pilot qualified to
evaluate and lead all F-15E
mission sets.
92 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
RATER ASSESSMENT
14
Stratification
If stratifying ratee, enter
stratification here. See
paragraphs 3.15. If no
stratification is used, enter the
statement, “THIS SECTION
NOT USED”. If rater is also the
HLR, enter the statement,
“THIS SECTION NOT USED”.
Rater will enter a stratification
in the HLR stratification block,
if used.
#3/7 Lt Cols, #2/5 Sq/CCs
15
Executing the Mission –
Job proficiency,
Initiative, Adaptability
Comments are mandatory and
limited to the space provided;
must include at least one
performance statement. See
paragraph 1.6.3.11.1. May use
“THIS SECTION NOT USED”
as a mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
16
Leading People –
Inclusion/Teamwork,
Emotional Intelligence,
Communication
Comments are mandatory and
limited to the space provided; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.2. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance statement.
For AFR colonels in GO billets,
include a mandatory statement that
the officer “continues in” or
“leave” the general officer position.
(T-1) See paragraph 1.10 for
Disagreements. See paragraph
1.11 for Referrals.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
17
Managing Resources –
Stewardship,
Accountability
Comments are mandatory and
limited to the space provided; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.3. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance statement.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 93
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
18
Improving the Unit –
Decision Making,
Innovation
Comments are mandatory and
limited to the space provided;
must include at least one
performance statement. See
paragraph 1.6.3.11.4. May use
“THIS SECTION NOT USED”
as a mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
19
Mandatory Comments
If ratee is a commander, voting
assistance officer, and/or has
command oversight of
privatized military housing at
any point in the rating period,
enter the appropriate
statement(s). Rater must also
include a unique performance
statement(s). See paragraphs
1.9.1, 1.9.2, and 1.9.3.
If required, enter the applicable
statement(s) “Ratee met all
command climate
requirements.” Or “Ratee did
not meet all command climate
requirements.”
If required, enter the applicable
statement(s) “The Ratee
exercised effective oversight of
military privatized housing.” Or
“The Ratee was not effective in
oversight of military privatized
housing.”
If required, enter a unique
performance statement on the
ratee’s performance as the
voting assistance officer.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
20
Rater Name, Grade, and
Branch of Service
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
Sue J. Doe, Col, USAF
Sally S. Mesaros, SES (O-9
94 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
departs from a 365-day
extended deployment on or after
the accounting date, use the
rater as of the SCOD from the
unit as of the established
accounting date. See
paragraph 3.3.1.
For ANG, the use of component
identification (ID) (e.g.,
XXANG may be used.
equivalent), DAF
Austin T. Smith, GS-15,
DAF
Jeremy R. Dice, NH-IV (O-
6 equivalent), DAF
Jacob M. Freer, Col,
KSANG
21
Rater Duty Title
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day
extended deployment on or after
the accounting date, use the
rater as of the SCOD from the
unit as of the established
accounting date. See
paragraph 3.3.1.
Deputy Commander
22
Rater Organization and
Command
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day
extended deployment on or after
the accounting date, use the
rater as of the SCOD from the
unit as of the established
accounting date. See
paragraph 3.3.1.
366th Fighter Squadron
(ACC)
23
Rater Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the
rare instance where digital
signatures cannot be used, sign
in reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type
the date next to the signature
(DD MMM YY). See
paragraph 1.4.12.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 95
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed
it or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
HIGHER LEVEL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT
24
Stratification
If stratifying ratee, enter
stratification here. See
paragraphs 3.15. If no
stratification is used, enter the
statement, “THIS SECTION
NOT USED”
#5/36 Lt Cols, #4/21
Sq/CCs
25
HLR Assessment
The HLR will select the
appropriate box indicating
concurrence or non-concurrence
of the rater’s assessment. See
paragraph 1.10 for
disagreements.
X
26
Performance
Statement(s)
Comments are mandatory and
limited to the space provided;
must contain at least one
performance statement. See
paragraph 1.12 for
inappropriate comments. See
paragraph 1.11 for referrals.
May use “THIS SECTION NOT
USED” as a mandatory
performance statement.
HLRs may include assignment
and/or developmental education
recommendations. See
paragraph 3.16.3.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
27
Higher Level Reviewer
Name, Grade and
Branch of Service (For
ANG, the use of
Enter the HLR’s information.
The HLR is position-based.
HLRs assigned on or prior to the
close-out date, enter information
Sue J. Doe, Col, USAF
Sally S. Mesaros, SES (O-9
equivalent), DAF
96 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
component ID [e.g.,
XXANG] may be used.)
as of the close-out date; HLRs
assigned after the close-out date,
enter the information as of the
date signed.
Multiple general officers serving
as evaluators are prohibited.
(T-1) See paragraph 1.7.1.5
and paragraph 1.7.1.6 for
exceptions.
Austin T. Smith, GS-15,
DAF
Jeremy R. Dice, NH-IV (O-
6 equivalent), DAF
Jacob M. Freer, Col,
KSANG
28
Higher Level Reviewer
Duty Title
Commander
29
Higher Level Reviewer
Organization and
Command
123d Operations Group
(ACC)
30
Higher Level Reviewer
Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the
rare instance where digital
signatures cannot be used, sign
in reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type
the date next to the signature
(DD MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed
it or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
See paragraph 1.4.12.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 97
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
Functional Examiner/Air Force Advisor
31
Functional Examiner
and/or Air Force
Advisor
When applicable, place an “X”
in the appropriate box(es) See
paragraph 1.6.7.
Select “No comments” or
“Comments” as applicable.
X
32
Functional Examiner
and/or Air Force
Advisor Comments
The comments block(s) will
appear if “Functional Examiner”
and/or “Air Force Advisor
boxes are marked. If used,
comments are limited to the
space provided.
See paragraph 1.3.3.2.
33
Functional Examiner
and/or Air Force
Advisor Name, Grade,
Branch of Service
Enter the functional
examiner/advisor’s information
as of the close-out date.
Sue J. Doe, Col, USAF
Sally S. Mesaros, SES (O-9
equivalent), DAF
Austin T. Smith, GS-15,
DAF
Jeremy R. Dice, NH-IV (O-
6 equivalent), DAF
Jacob M. Freer, Col,
KSANG
34
Functional Examiner
and/or Air Force
Advisor Duty title
Enter the functional
examiner/advisor’s duty title.
Command Financial
Manager
35
Functional Examiner
and/or Air Force
Advisor Signature
The forms have digital signature
and auto-date capability. In the
rare instance where digital
signatures cannot be used, sign
in reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp or type the
date.
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain ratings, sign before
the close-out date (only on or
after), or date before the date the
98 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
rater signed it or earlier than the
date of the ratee’s endorsement
to a referral letter. Rater
assessment block will be locked,
and HLR signature capability
unlocked with the rater’s digital
signature.
See paragraph 1.4.12.
Referral Report
36
Referral Report
Comments
Complete this section for
referral evaluations only. See
paragraph 1.11.
37
Referring Evaluator
Name, Grade, and
Branch of Service
Enter the referring evaluator’s
information as of the SCOD.
However, if the officer has a
PCS or PCA on or after the
accountability date, use the rater
as of the established accounting
date.
Sue J. Doe, Col, USAF
Sally S. Mesaros, SES (O-9
equivalent), DAF
Austin T. Smith, GS-15,
DAF
Jeremy R. Dice, NH-IV (O-
6 equivalent), DAF
Jacob M. Freer, Col,
KSANG
38
Referring Evaluator
Duty Title
Enter the referring evaluator’s
information as of the SCOD.
However, if the officer has a
PCS or PCA on or after the
accountability date, use the rater
as of the established accounting
date.
Deputy Commander
39
Referring Evaluator
Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the
rare instance where digital
signatures cannot be used, sign
in reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 99
OFFICER PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
the date next to the signature
(DD MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
40
Date
Date will auto populate when
report is signed.
27 Mar 2023
41
Signature of Ratee
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the
rare instance where digital
signatures cannot be used, sign
in reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type
the date next to the signature
(DD MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
42
Date
Date will auto populate when
report is signed.
27 Mar 2023
Note: There are minor formatting differences between the PDF version (AF Form 715) of the
ALQ evaluation and the system generated version completed in myEval.
100 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 3.2. When to Prepare Officer Evaluations (Lieutenant thru Colonel).
R
U
L
E
A
B
If
(See Notes 1 and 2)
Then write evaluation and
enter reason as
(See Note 10)
1
subsequent evaluations will close out on the SCOD
(based on grade). (T-1). See Note 3 and Note 4.
Annual
2
the ratee’s performance or conduct is unsatisfactory or
marginal and a special evaluation is appropriate, and
the supervision period was 60 calendar days. See Note
5.
DBC
3
the ratee has been declared missing-in-action, captured,
or detained in captive status. See Note 6.
DBH
4
a special evaluation is directed by HAF (see Note 7
and Note 8), or NGB for ANG officers.
DBH
5
the ratee is placed into record status 6, deserter. See
Note 9.
DBC
6
any sentence of confinement as the result of a court-
martial.
DBC
Notes:
1. Colonels selected for promotion to brigadier general receive evaluations IAW Chapter 7.
2. (For RegAF and ANG only) If the officer evaluation is already a matter of record, and the
event or circumstances that brought about the evaluation changes or no longer exists, take no
action. The officer evaluation is a valid evaluation and remains in the ratee’s records.
3. See Table 3.3 for appropriate SCODs. (RegAF and AFR only) Evaluations for officers
selected for promotion will have a close-out date on the SCOD of the projected grade. (T-1)
(AFR only) An officer must have at least 16 points (do not include Extension Course Institute
or membership points) and 120 calendar days of duty performance outside of a training report
to receive an ALQ evaluation; if the officer does not meet this requirement by the SCOD,
submit an administrative LOE for a gap report.
4. For an officer who enters active duty, the first evaluation will be required at the next
SCOD for their respective grade, given there is at least 180 days between the EAD and the
SCOD. (T-1) For AFR officers, the first evaluation will be required at the next SCOD for the
ratee’s respective grade, given there is at least 180 days between the EAD and the SCOD and
a minimum of 16 points (do not include Extension Course Institute or membership points); if
the ratee had not earned the required number of points, the officer will receive a gap report
utilizing an administrative LOE. (T-1)
5. This includes placement on the control roster (Director, NGB; Office of Adjutant General;
MAJCOM; wing, group, squadron).
6. Do not prepare evaluations for periods of missing-in-action, captured, or detained in
captive status of less than 15 calendar days. If the ratee remains in one of these categories for
15 calendar days or more, prepare an evaluation under this rule without regard to the number
of days of supervision. Close the evaluation on the day the ratee was placed in missing-in-
action, captured, or detained in captive status. These evaluations are as directed by
AFPC/DP3SP or ARPC/DPTSE.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 101
7. (RegAF and ANG only) AFPC/DP3SP, AFPC/DPMSPE, and AF/A1LO retain the
authority to direct evaluations under this rule. Special evaluations covering outstanding duty
performance are not permitted under this rule.
8. (AFR only) AF/REP retains the authority to direct evaluations under this rule. If AF/RE
requires special evaluations on certain officers for selection board use, ARPC/DPTSE
furnishes ratee names to the MAJCOM along with appropriate suspense dates and directs
submission of evaluations under this rule. Special evaluations covering outstanding duty
performance are not permitted under this rule.
9. The close-out date of the evaluation is the effective date the ratee is placed in record status
6, deserter, and may only comment on the negative behavior.
10. (AFR only) For Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), Participating Individual
Ready Reserve (PIRR) and Participating Individual Ready Reserve Category E (PIRR
Category E), the unit of assignment is responsible for completing the officer evaluation.
Table 3.3. Static Close-out Date Chart for Officers.
Grade (includes selectees)
SCOD
2d Lt and 1st Lt
31 Oct
Capt
31 Aug
Maj and Lt Col
31 May
Col
28 Feb. See Note.
Note: In a leap year, the SCOD will remain 28 Feb, and 29 Feb will be the start of the next
reporting period.
Table 3.4. Accounting Dates for Static Close-out Date Evaluations.
Grade (includes selectees)
Static Close-out Date
Accounting Date
2d Lt and 1st Lt
31 Oct
3 Jul
Capt
31 Aug
3 May
Maj and Lt Col
31 May
3 Feb
Col
28 Feb
3 Nov
Note: Accounting dates are approximately 120 calendar days prior to each SCOD and
are established as the 3rd of the month for consistency.
102 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 3.5. Summary of Authorized Stratification Peer Groups.
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
If an evaluator
then the ratee’s primary
stratification is
(See Note 1)
and the secondary
stratification may
be either
1
has under
their scope of
responsibility
USAF officer(s)
only
grade without descriptor
(e.g., #1/40 Lt Cols) (See
Note 3)
- Duty position (e.g.,
#1/6 Flight
Commanders) (See
Note 4), or
- Developmental
category grade (e.g.,
#1/7 LAF-C Lt
Cols), or
- Subordinate
echelon grade (e.g.,
#6/25 WSA Capts)
(HLR only)
- (ARC only) AFR or
ANG grade (e.g.,
#1/8 ANG Lt Cols)
(See Note 5)
See paragraph
3.15.7.2.
2
DAF officer(s) (only
USAF and USSF)
“DAF” grade
(e.g., #1/24 DAF Lt Cols)
- USAF grade (e.g.,
#1/7 USAF Majs), or
- Duty position (e.g.,
#1/6 Flight
Commanders) (See
Note 4), or
- Developmental
category grade (e.g.,
#1/7 LAF-C Lt
Cols), or
- Subordinate
echelon grade (e.g.,
#6/25 WSA Capts)
(HLR only)
3
Joint officer(s)
(USAF and/or USSF
plus at least one
officer from another
military service)
“Joint” Grade
(e.g., #1/7 Jt O-4s)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 103
- (ARC only) AFR or
ANG grade (e.g.,
#1/8 ANG Lt Cols)
(See Note 5)
See paragraph
3.15.7.2.
4
AFR officers in a
participation
category of TR,
IMA, ART, AGR,
VLPAD, LEAD, or
EAD
Participation category
grade
(e.g., #1/8 IMA Majs)
See paragraph
3.15.7.1.5.
- Duty position (e.g.,
#1/6 Flight
Commanders), or
- Developmental
category grade (e.g.,
#1/7 LAF-C Lt
Cols), or
- Subordinate
echelon grade (e.g.,
#6/25 WSA Capts)
(HLR only)
- (ARC only) AFR or
ANG grade (e.g.,
#1/8 ANG Lt Cols)
(See Note 5)
See paragraph
3.15.7.2.
6
(RegAF and AFR only) has a ratee
who is a promotion “select”
not authorized
(See Note 3)
- Duty position (e.g.,
#1/6 Flight
Commanders)
(See Note 4)
See paragraphs
3.15.6.6 and
3.15.7.3.
7
is the same grade as the ratee, (See
Note 2)
(See Note 2) optional for
use by the HLR in
accordance with
paragraph 3.15.7.4.2.
- Duty position (e.g.,
#1/6 Flight
Commanders),
(See Note 4)
See paragraph
3.15.7.2.
104 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Notes:
1. A primary stratification must be used to use a secondary stratification. See paragraphs
3.15.7.3 and 3.15.7.4 for authorized exceptions. The primary and secondary stratification
denominators for the HLR may not exceed the number of evaluations signed by the HLR on
that specific SCOD, except for DAF and Joint stratifications as detailed at paragraph
3.15.7.4.1; neither the primary nor the secondary stratification denominators shall include all
officers within an HLR’s scope of responsibility (e.g., SRID) unless the HLR is a signatory on
the evaluations of all officers within that scope. See paragraph 3.15.7.4.1.
2. Optional use of a primary stratification when the rater and ratee are the same grade is only
authorized for the HLR. Duty position is the only authorized secondary stratification. See
paragraph 3.15.7.4.2.
3. Promotion “selects” may be considered in denominator pools for grade stratifications on
the SCOD of the lower (current) grade.
4. Duty position is the only category that stratification denominators may include civilians
who are in a grade equivalent to the officer.
5. Raters may also use AFR or ANG as a descriptor to a secondary stratification within an
evaluator’s scope of authority as long as the stratification is within an authorized peer group
and must be used among officers in the same grade (e.g., “#3/7 Majs; #1/3 AFR Analysts”).
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 105
Chapter 4
ENLISTED ALQ EVALUATIONS/ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEFS (EPBS)
4.1. General Guidelines.
4.1.1. See Chapter 1 for general processing guidance applicable to all evaluations.
4.1.2. Evaluations are used to determine selections for promotions, job and school
recommendations, career job reservations, reenlistments, retraining, and assignments.
Therefore, evaluators at all levels must use caution to prevent inflation. It is important to
distinguish performance among peers and is a disservice when ratings are inflated or
inaccurate.
4.1.3. Marking Promotion Recommendations, When Used, on Wet Signature Evaluations.
When electronic ratings are not used, do not enter hand-marked ratings until signing the
evaluation to prevent erroneous entry of ratings by other personnel. When hand-marking, use
only reproducible dark blue or black ink.
4.1.4. There will be only two evaluators on the enlisted ALQ evaluation unless the rater
qualifies as a single evaluator (see paragraph 4.12.4): the rater and the HLR. The HLR is
the final evaluator (see paragraph 4.12.5.).
4.2. Enlisted Evaluation Forms. All enlisted members will use myEval to process ALQ
evaluations. See Table 4.9. The AF Form 716 will be used by exception only (see paragraph
1.3.3.1.).
4.3. When to Accomplish an Enlisted Evaluation.
4.3.1. All enlisted personnel in the grade of SrA through CMSgt will receive an evaluation as
of the appropriate SCOD for their grade. ABs, Amn, and A1Cs will receive an evaluation
upon completing a minimum of 36 months time in service (TIS) as of the SrA SCOD, 31
March. If the rater PCSs/PCAs before the SCOD, the rater will complete a draft evaluation,
and the rating chain from the unit as of the accounting date will complete the evaluation.
4.3.2. See Table 4.13 for Premier Band Airmen enlisted evaluation guidance.
4.3.3. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force retains discretionary authority to render evaluations
on an optional basis on the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. The Chairman Joint Chiefs
of Staff retains discretionary authority to render evaluations on an optional basis on the
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Senior Enlisted Advisor.
4.3.4. Military/Civilian Confinement. HQ AFPC will complete a DAF Form 77 for Airmen
who choose to remain in the Air Force following overturn of a sentence adjudged at a court-
martial by a subsequent appeals court. The inclusive dates will be the day after the close-out
date of the ratee’s last evaluation through the day the ratee was returned to present for duty
status or the date the sentence is overturned, whichever is earlier. The unit to which the Airman
transfers following the return to present for duty will take over performance evaluation
responsibilities, beginning the day following DAF Form 77 completion through to the
applicable annual SCOD.
4.3.5. Separation/Retirement. Annual evaluations are optional for members with an approved
effective date of separation or retirement that is prior to the next SCOD, unless mandated in
106 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
accordance with paragraph 4.3. If an Airman is promotion eligible, then a report is required.
(T-1) Supervisors will consult with separating or retiring Airmen regarding the option to
complete a final evaluation. (T-3) Leadership shall consider the member’s preference when
deciding whether or not to accomplish their final evaluation. (T-3) After consulting with the
individual, the supervisor will annotate the ALQ evaluation accordingly and process the
evaluation to the lowest level HLR for signature. (T-1) Airmen are encouraged to complete a
final evaluation for future considerations (e.g., employment, transfer into another DAF
component, or US DoD service). An evaluation will not be accomplished after a member has
officially separated/retired. (T-1)
4.3.5.1. Complete a final evaluation when requested by the ratee, decided by the rater,
commander, or senior rater, or mandated in accordance with paragraph 4.3. Supervisors
and commanders are responsible for completing mandatory evaluations before members
final out-process or officially separate/retire. (T-1)
4.3.5.2. When a final report will not be rendered, for administrative and tracking purposes,
complete the appropriate evaluation form as follows:
4.3.5.2.1. Include “FINAL REPORT NOT REQUIRED AND/OR IS NOT
MANDATED TO BE RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFI 36-2406.” the
first rater’s assessment block, “Executing the Mission” on the ALQ evaluation. Include
“THIS SECTION NOT USED,” in the remaining rater’s and HLR’s assessment blocks
on the ALQ evaluation.
4.3.5.2.2. The member, rater, HLR will endorse the report no earlier than 30 calendars
days before the member’s final-out process, or before the member officially
separates/retires. (T-1)
4.4. Evaluations not Authorized. Performance evaluations will not be accomplished on the
following:
4.4.1. RegAF personnel in the grade of AB-A1C with less than 36 months total active federal
military service as of the SrA SCOD and ARC personnel in the grades of AB-A1C if they have
not already received an evaluation. Exception: A DBC may be completed on AB-A1C
personnel to document substandard performance only after a minimum of 20 months TIS. See
paragraph 4.7.3.1.4 and Table 4.2.
4.4.2. Members who die while on active duty. Exception: If the death occurred on or after
the close-out date of an evaluation that was already being processed, it becomes an optional
evaluation.
4.4.3. Commissioning Program. Airmen who are enrolled in a commissioning program as of
the SCOD. Note: If an Airman does not complete a program and is returned to enlisted
service, complete a DBH enlisted ALQ evaluation to document the performance that resulted
in removal from the program. The inclusive period will be from the last evaluation through
the effect date of removal from the commissioning program.
4.4.4. Airmen in prisoner or confinement status as a result of a court-martial conviction, who
have PCS’d and are gained to a long-term confinement facility managed by the Air Force
Security Forces Center. Note: Airmen awaiting publication of a sentence adjudged at a court-
martial will remain the administrative responsibility of the losing unit commander/director
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 107
until such time as the sentence adjudged at a court-martial is published and the member is
officially transferred to an Air Force Security Forces Center managed correctional facility.
These Airmen will still require SCOD evaluations (as applicable), completed by the losing
commander/director.
4.4.5. Airmen undergoing appellate review leave and awaiting an appeals court decision and
still permanently assigned to an Air Force Security Forces Center-managed confinement
facility.
4.5. When to Submit an Enlisted Evaluation.
4.5.1. See Table 4.2 for RegAF Airmen and ARC Airmen on AGR or Statutory (Stat) Tour.
4.5.2. See Table 4.3 for part-time ARC Airmen.
4.6. “FROM” Dates. Establish the “FROM” date if the member:
4.6.1. Has a previous evaluation on file, use the day after the close-out date of the previous
evaluation.
4.6.2. For RegAF Airmen who have not had a previous evaluation, the “FROM” date equals
the total active federal military service date.
4.6.3. For United States Air Force Academy Airmen removed from cadet status and returned
to enlisted grade the “FROM” date equals the extended active duty date.
4.6.4. For AFR members who have not had a previous evaluation, use the member’s date of
assignment to the ARC. For SrA and below use the date initial entry uniformed services.
4.6.5. For ANG SrA and below who have not had a previous evaluation, the “FROM” date
equals the date initial entry uniformed services. SSgt through CMSgt who are transferred from
any branch or component, the “FROM” date equals date arrive station.
4.7. “THRU” Dates.
4.7.1. First Annual/First Biennial Reports.
4.7.1.1. For RegAF the close-out date will be the first SCOD after the Airman attains the
grade of SrA or reaches 36 months time in service as of the SCOD (whichever occurs first).
4.7.1.2. For ARC the close-out date will be the first SCOD reached as a SrA.
4.7.2. Annual/Biennial Reports.
4.7.2.1. Reports for RegAF Members. Reports will close-out on the next appropriate
SCOD unless selected for promotion. Those on a select list will have their evaluation
close-out on the appropriate SCOD for their promotion selected grade. Example: The
SSgt SCOD is 31 Jan; therefore, SSgt evaluations will close-out on that date. However,
TSgt selects (SSgts/Sgts with a line number) will have their evaluations close-out on the
TSgt SCOD on 30 Nov.
4.7.2.2. Reports for ARC Members. Reports will close-out on the appropriate SCOD. If
a promotion, demotion or transfer out of inactive/active occurs and there is more than 24
months (12 months for AGR) from the last evaluation and the SCOD for the new grade, a
DBH report is required. The close out is the day prior to when the status occurred.
Example: An AGR MSgt is promoted to SMSgt effective 1 Sep 23. A DBH report will
108 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
be required to close out 31 Aug 23 because the member will have more than 12 months
from the last evaluation and the new static close-out date for the new grade.
4.7.3. For Directed by Headquarters, NGB, or Commander (MAJCOM, wing, group, or
squadron, as appropriate) reports, the “THRU” date will be established by the following:
4.7.3.1. Message Directed. Use the date specified in the message directing the evaluation.
4.7.3.1.1. Missing-in-Action/Captured/Detained. Use the date the ratee was placed in
missing-in-action, captured, or detained in captive status.
4.7.3.1.2. Stripes for Exceptional Performers or supplemental promotions. If an
Airman is Stripes for Exceptional Performers-promoted or selected for supplemental
promotion to the next higher grade, and if completing an evaluation on the next SCOD
in the new grade will create a reporting period of longer than one year, then a DBH
enlisted evaluation must be completed with a close-out date effective the date of Stripes
for Exceptional Performers promotion or the date which the results of the supplemental
were released. Examples:
4.7.3.1.2.1. SSgt McDaniel was selected for supplemental promotion or Stripes for
Exceptional Performers promoted to TSgt on 15 Apr 23 and SSgt McDaniel had an
enlisted evaluation on the SSgt SCOD date of 31 Jan 23, then no enlisted evaluation
is required as TSgt (or TSgt select) McDaniel will receive a performance evaluation
on 30 Nov 23 (TSgt SCOD).
4.7.3.1.2.2. SSgt Snowden was selected for supplemental promotion or Stripes for
Exceptional Performers promoted to TSgt on 10 Jan 23. TSgt (or TSgt select)
Snowden’s last evaluation was completed on the 31 Jan 22 (SSgt SCOD) and the
next projected enlisted evaluation is the 30 Nov 23 (TSgt SCOD). Since this creates
a rating period of longer than one year, a DBH enlisted evaluation is required with
a close-out date effective the date of the supplemental release/Stripes for
Exceptional Performers promotion date.
4.7.3.1.3. If an Airman is demoted after the SCOD of the grade held prior to demotion,
an enlisted evaluation will be completed as of the previous grade’s SCOD and,
subsequently, as of the SCOD of the new grade. Example: TSgt Smith is demoted to
SSgt effective 5 Dec 23. The now-SSgt Smith will receive an evaluation on the TSgt
SCOD of 30 Nov 23 and, subsequently, on the SSgt SCOD of 31 Jan 24.
4.7.3.1.4. Directed by Commander (DBC). A DBC will be a referral evaluation, and
the close-out date will be established by the unit commander that directed the
evaluation. (T-1) See paragraph 1.11 for referral procedures. DBC evaluations
provide flexibility to commanders to document substandard performance between
SCODs as an embedded report (between two enlisted SCOD ALQ evaluations) and
will only contain comments and/or ratings regarding the reason(s) for the evaluation
(i.e., only the substandard performance). (T-1) All other comments, specifically those
that are positive, and promotion recommendations are not authorized and will be
documented on the next SCOD evaluation. (T-1) Note: A1C or below with less than
36 months total active federal military service (or date initial entry uniformed services
for ARC) do not receive an enlisted evaluation unless the member has a minimum of
20 months TIS.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 109
4.7.4. 365-day Extended Deployment Enlisted Evaluations. Note: These instructions apply
only to those individuals who are selected to fill an official extended deployment requirement.
(T-1) These instructions will not be used for individuals filling other requirements, even
though they may be extended to, or beyond 365-days. (T-1)
4.7.4.1. Home Station Rating Chain Responsibilities Prior to Departure. If the deployed
rater is known prior to departure, the CSS/HR specialist will update the deployed rater.
(T-1) In most cases, however, the deployed rater will not be known until the member
arrives to the deployed location. In that case, use the home station commander as a
temporary rater. This will facilitate home station and deployed commander’s direct line of
communication to ensure the rating chain is established and updated in a timely manner.
Example: If the data is not updated immediately, a feedback notification report on
individual personnel will be produced within 30 days, and that alone should act as a
reminder to the commander that the deployed data needs to be updated.
4.7.4.2. Upon Arrival in the Area of Responsibility (AOR). The home station CSS/HR
specialist will coordinate with the deployed PERSCO team and update MilPDS to reflect
the member’s deployed duty title and DAFSC effective the date the member arrives in the
AOR. (T-1) They will also update the deployed rater if the rater was unknown prior to
departure. (T-1) All updates should be completed as soon as possible but no later than 30
days after the member arrives in the AOR.
4.7.4.2.1. Duty Title Format. All extended deployment personnel duty titles will be
standardized to reflect the extended deployment “duty title/country” assigned. (T-1) If
space allows, include the unit assigned. Example: “Senior Enlisted Leader, 442
ECS/Iraq” or “Comm Specialist, GSU/Afghanistan.”
4.7.4.2.2. When determining the deployed rater, the rater should typically be the
person who directly supervises the individual’s day-to-day activities. The unit that
owns the unit line number will determine the rater. (T-1) Raters may be in any United
States or foreign military service or a civilian in a supervisory position and must be in
a grade equal to or higher than the ratee. (T-1) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 9013,
DAFI 51-509 and Joint Publication 1, Volume 2, SecAF is responsible for the ADCON
and support of DAF forces assigned or attached to combatant commands. (T-0)
ADCON is the authority necessary to fulfill SecAF’s statutory responsibilities for
administration and support. In joint environments, an Air Force unit will be designated
to have ADCON responsibilities over Airmen. (T-1) ADCON responsibilities include
personnel management. With regard to evaluations, this involves managing the
evaluation program, ensuring evaluations are accomplished on individuals on extended
deployments as well as decorations and informal LOEs processed per local and air
component command or MAJCOM direction. ADCON responsibility does not
necessarily extend to writing the evaluations on those attached to the Air Force unit for
ADCON purposes; however, this is at the discretion of the ADCON commander.
4.7.4.3. Upon Return from the AOR:
4.7.4.3.1. The home station CSS/HR specialist will change the member’s rater,
DAFSC, and duty title in MilPDS to reflect home station (post-deployment)
information. (T-1)
110 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
4.7.4.3.2. The home station forced distributor will continue to complete the
commander’s review/reviewer’s (senior rater) portion of all evaluations, including
those completed by the deployed rating chain. (T-1)
4.7.4.4. Forced Distributor/Senior Rater Responsibilities. The forced distributor/senior
rater matched to the ratee’s home station PAS code must perform forced distributor/senior
rater duties (enlisted personnel will be on the home station forced distributor/senior rater’s
MEL). (T-1)
4.8. Number of Days of Supervision.
4.8.1. Enter the number of days the rater supervised the ratee during the reporting period. To
compute, use the “supervision began date” through the “close-out date” to determine the
number of days of supervision.
4.8.2. Do not deduct any periods of leave, TDY, absences or periods loaned out to other
organizations. Exception: Non-rated periods authorized in accordance with paragraph
1.4.11.
4.8.3. When the rater’s rater prepares an enlisted evaluation in accordance with paragraph
1.7, enter number of days for which the evaluator had personal or written knowledge of the
ratee's duty performance during the reporting period.
4.9. Completing Evaluations. The rater will evaluate how well the ratee performed during the
rating period by completing the rater assessment section of the ALQ evaluation. No evaluator may
coerce another into changing their comments or ratings unless they are missing mandatory
comments (paragraph 1.11), or the evaluation includes prohibited comments (paragraph 1.12).
(T-1)
4.10. Promotion Time-In-Grade (TIG)/Time-In-Service (TIS) eligibility (AB - TSgt only).
4.10.1. TIG/TIS is based on promotion requirements as of the SCOD regardless of if a member
is promotion ineligible for other reasons. TIG/TIS eligibility should be verified on the MEL,
and the rater or HLR should verify with the CSS/MPF prior to selecting/changing that a
member is promotion eligible in myEval..
4.10.2. Stratification statements are prohibited on the junior NCO ALQ evaluation.
4.11. Time-In-Grade (TIG)/Senior Rater Stratification/Endorsement Eligibility (MSgt –
SMSgt only).
4.11.1. Senior rater stratification/endorsement is not automatic or mandatory. The decision to
forward the evaluation for senior rater stratification/endorsement is determined by the
evaluator who is eligible to close-out the evaluation and each level thereafter, without
necessarily going to the senior rater.
4.11.1.1. The first evaluator of the organization in which the ratee is assigned, who meets
the grade requirements to close-out the report, determines if a report will be forwarded for
endorsement/stratification consideration. If the report is not forwarded to the senior rater
for endorsement/stratification, the first evaluator who meets the grade requirements will
close out (sign) the report as the HLR.
4.11.1.2. When a senior rater determines senior rater stratification is warranted, they will
close out the report as the HLR. If senior rater endorsement/stratification is not warranted,
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 111
the report will be returned to the first evaluator who meets the HLR grade requirements,
and they will close-out (sign) the report as the HLR. (T-1)
4.11.1.3. Stratification statements by anyone (lower or higher in the chain-of-command)
other than the senior rater are prohibited. This includes any other form of implied
stratification (e.g., #1 SNCO,” “my go to SNCO,” “#1 First Sergeant,” etc.). Stratification
statements based on career field or functional community are prohibited. (T-1)
4.11.2. SNCO Stratifications.
4.11.2.1. (RegAF and AFR only) Senior rater HLRs may stratify up to 25% of SNCOs.
(T-1) The top 20% of SMSgts and top 10% of MSgts will receive a numerator and
denominator stratification (#x of x). (T-1) An additional 5% of SMSgts and 15% of MSgts
will receive a stratification of “Top 25% of (respective grade).” (T-1) When calculating
the number of authorized stratifications, normal rounding rules apply (.49 rounds down to
the whole number and .50 rounds up to the whole number).
4.11.2.1.1. SMSgt Stratification Calculations. To calculate the total number of
authorized numerator and denominator stratifications for SMSgts, units will multiply
the total number of eligible SMSgts by 20% and apply normal rounding rules. To
calculate the total number of authorized “Top 25% of SMSgts” stratifications, units
will multiply the total number of eligible SMSgts by 5% and apply normal rounding
rules. This is the only authorized method to calculate the number of authorized
stratifications. (T-1) Example: In a total eligible population of 29 SMSgts, the first
20% of eligible SMSgts (.2 x 29 = 5.8) rounds up to 6 total numerator and denominator
stratifications among the 29 eligible SMSgts; an additional 5% of eligible SMSgts (.05
x 29 = 1.45) rounds down to 1 total “Top 25% of SMSgts” stratifications among the
remaining 23 eligible SMSgts who did not receive a numerator and denominator
stratification.
4.11.2.1.2. MSgt Stratification Calculations. To calculate the total number of
authorized numerator and denominator stratifications for MSgts, units will multiply the
total number of eligible MSgts by 10% and apply normal rounding rules. To calculate
the total number of authorized “Top 25% of MSgts” stratifications, units will multiply
the total number of eligible MSgts by 15% and apply normal rounding rules. This is
the only authorized method to calculate the number of authorized stratifications. (T-1)
Example: In a total eligible population of 11 MSgts, the first 10% of eligible MSgts
(.10 x 11 = 1.1) rounds down to 1 total numerator and denominator stratification among
the 11 eligible MSgts; an additional 15% of eligible MSgts (.15 x 11 = 1.65) rounds up
to 2 “Top 25% of MSgts” stratifications among the remaining 10 eligible MSgts who
did not receive a numerator and denominator stratification.
4.11.2.1.3. For units with less than the required TIG/TIS eligible members to start
normal rounding rules (.49 rounds down to the whole number; .50 rounds up to the
whole number), a stratification/endorsement statement either in a numerator and
denominator format or a “Top 25%” format is authorized; the use of both stratification
formats combined between the eligible members is not authorized. See Tables 4.10
and 4.11.
112 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
4.11.2.2. (ANG only) Enlisted stratifications are at the discretion of each TAG/Command
equivalent for NGB staff. Senior rater HLRs may stratify up to 25% of SNCOs. The top
20% of SMSgts and top 10% of MSgts will receive a numerator and denominator
stratification (#x of x). (T-1) An additional 5% of SMSgts and 15% of MSgts will receive
a stratification statement of “Top 25% of (respective grade).” (T-1) If used, see paragraphs
4.11.2.1.1 and 4.11.2.1.2 for instructions on how to calculate the number of authorized
stratifications. For units with less than the required TIG/TIS eligible members to start
normal rounding rules (.49 rounds down to the whole number; .50 rounds up to the whole
number). See Tables 4.10 and 4.11.
4.11.2.3. (RegAF only) In joint organizations, the stratification must reference the joint
population (e.g., “#1 of 8 Joint E-7s”; or, “Top 25% of Joint E-8s”). Joint stratification
statements will include all SNCOs in the same grade from all US DoD services, regardless
of component promotion eligibility, under the HLR’s scope of supervision. The HLR’s
denominator may exceed the number of USAF SNCOs at the SCOD but still may not
exceed the number of evaluations signed by the HLR for all their SNCOs of the same grade
during their annual evaluation cycle. The authorized number of “Joint” stratifications will
be calculated using the total joint population of SNCOs. Example: An HLR signs
evaluations for 3 USAF E-7s, 2 USN E-7s, 3 Army E-7s; therefore, the stratification
denominator may not exceed 8. See paragraphs 4.11.2.1.1 and 4.11.2.1.2. The HLR will
document the “Joint” stratification in the HLR assessment comment section only. If an
HLR has both, and only USAF and USSF SNCOs, the use of “Joint” as a stratification
category is not authorized.
4.11.2.4. (RegAF only) When an HLR has both, and only, eligible USAF and USSF
SNCOs of the same grade subordinate to them, the stratification statement must reference
the DAF population (e.g., “#2 of 9 DAF SMSgts”; “Top 25% of DAF MSgts”) in lieu of
“Joint” since “Joint” is not permissible among only USAF and USSF SNCOs; however,
“DAF” may not be used as a stratification category if there are any other US DoD service
SNCOs in the same grade and subordinate to the same rater. The HLR’s denominator may
exceed the number of USAF SNCOs at the SCOD but still may not exceed the number of
evaluations signed by the HLR for all their SNCOs of the same grade during their annual
evaluation cycle. The authorized number of “DAF” stratifications will be calculated using
the total DAF population of SNCOs. See paragraphs 4.11.2.1.1 and 4.11.2.1.2. The HLR
will document the “DAF” stratification in the HLR assessment comment section only.
4.11.2.5. (RegAF only) Airmen with an approved high year of tenure retirement date
prior to the first day of the month promotion increments begin will not be factored into
senior rater allocations.
4.11.2.6. The ratee must meet all of the following minimum requirements as of the close-
out date of the evaluation (except as authorized by paragraph 4.12.4 due to forced
endorsements):
4.11.2.6.1. Meet the TIG eligibility requirements outlined in Table 4.12.
4.11.2.6.2. Successfully completed an Associate’s or higher-level degree from a
nationally or regionally accredited academic institution in any discipline or specialty.
The degree must be awarded as of the close-out date of the evaluation. Completing the
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 113
last required course, College Level Examination Program, or Defense Activity for Non-
Traditional Education Services is not sufficient.
4.11.2.7. (RegAF and AFR only) Evaluators are prohibited from placing any form of
stratification in either an ALQ performance statement section or HLR assessment comment
section. Exception: For “Joint” or “DAF” stratifications, the HLR will document the
stratification in the HLR assessment comment section only.
4.11.3. A senior rater will endorse a non-TIG/TIS-eligible evaluation only when one of the
following apply:
4.11.3.1. When the senior rater is the rater, the senior rater will mark the “Forced
Endorsement” box on the ALQ evaluation. (T-2)
4.11.3.2. When the senior rater is the evaluator named in a referral memorandum. (T-2)
4.11.4. If the member is not TIG/TIS-eligible for a senior rater stratification/endorsement, the
HLR will be the evaluator in the position organizationally closest to the airman. For members
assigned to wing/base-level units, the HLR is the commander on G-series orders/civilian unit
director (detachment commanders and section commanders must be in the grade of O-4/GS-
12/equivalent or higher). For members assigned outside of a wing/base structure (e.g., staffs,
DRUs), the HLR is the first O-5/GS-13/NH-III/equivalent or higher in the rating chain who is
no higher in the organization than the senior rater.
4.11.5. Determine TIG/TIS eligibility for senior rater stratification/endorsement using the
formulas below. See the TIG Eligibility Chart, Table 4.12.
4.11.5.1. For MSgt ratees (RegAF only).
4.11.5.1.1. If the close-out date is on or before 30 Sep, determine the number of months
TIG from date of rank (DOR) to 1 Mar of the next year following the evaluation close-
out date. If less than 20 months, then TIG eligibility is “NO.” If greater than or equal
to 20 months, then TIG eligibility is “YES.” All Airmen meeting a promotion board
are required to have an enlisted evaluation on file closed out within 12 months of the
promotion eligibility cutoff date.
4.11.5.1.2. If the close-out date is after 30 Sep, determine the number of months TIG
from the date of rank to 1 Mar two years following the evaluation close-out date. If
less than 20 months, TIG eligibility is “NO.” If greater than or equal to 20 months,
TIG eligibility is “YES.” All Airmen meeting a promotion board are required to have
an enlisted evaluation on file closed out within 12 months of the promotion eligibility
cutoff date.
4.11.5.2. For SMSgt Ratees (RegAF only).
4.11.5.2.1. If the close-out date is on or before 31 Jul, determine the number of months
TIG from the date of rank to 1 Dec. If less than 21 months, then promotion TIG/TIS
eligibility is “NO.” If greater than or equal to 21 months, then promotion TIG/TIS
eligibility is “YES.”
4.11.5.2.2. If the close-out date is after 31 Jul, determine the number of months TIG
from the date of rank to 1 Dec of the year following the evaluation close-out date. If
less than 21 months, promotion TIG/TIS eligibility is “NO.” If greater than or equal to
114 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
21 months, promotion TIG/TIS eligibility is “YES.” All Airmen meeting a promotion
board are required to have an enlisted evaluation on file closed out within 12 months
of the promotion eligibility cutoff date. (T-1)
4.11.5.3. For SMSgt promotion selects (RegAF only). Promotion TIG/TIS eligibility is
based upon the SCOD of the enlisted evaluation. If the SCOD falls on the day of or day
after the promotion public release date (to include supplemental promotions), individuals
on the selectee list are not eligible for senior rater endorsement on that evaluation.
Conversely, if the SCOD enlisted evaluation closed out prior to the promotion public
release date, the member is eligible for senior rater endorsement because they were still a
MSgt as of the SCOD and not officially a SMSgt promotion selectee.
4.11.5.4. Senior raters must either use the following approved panel process (paragraph
4.11.5.4.1) to determine senior rater stratification/endorsement or develop and disseminate
their own guidance within their organization no later than the accounting date of each
evaluation cycle. (T-1)
4.11.5.4.1. Review the last five evaluations, all awards and decorations, the current
myFitness individual report, and career data brief. (T-1) Panel members will include
the senior raters’ command chief or senior enlisted advisor, as well as the first HLR,
commander or director who submitted the evaluation for senior rater
stratification/endorsement consideration. (T-1)
4.11.5.4.2. RegAF Airmen with an approved high year of tenure retirement date prior
to the first day of the month promotion increments begin are no longer considered
eligible for senior rater endorsement and will not be factored into senior rater
endorsement allocations. (T-1)
4.11.5.5. CMSgt and CMSgt-selects. The senior rater must endorse all CMSgt ALQ
evaluations. (T-2)
4.12. Higher Level Reviewers and Single Evaluators. The HLR is the final evaluator.
4.12.1. RegAF and AFR Higher Level Reviewers. For TSgt and below, the minimum grade
of an HLR must be an O-3/GS-12/NH-III/equivalent; for MSgt – SMSgt, the minimum grade
of an HLR must be an O-5/GS-13/NH-III/equivalent. (T-1) Exceptions: (1) for MSgt –
SMSgt, unit commanders below the grade of O-5 on G-Series orders (detachment commanders
and section commanders must be in the grade of O-4/GS-12/equivalent or higher) may sign as
the HLR; (2) the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (CMSAF) or Chief Master Sergeant
of the Space Force (CMSSF) may endorse enlisted evaluations as a senior rater and may also
serve as the HLR and as a single evaluator.
4.12.2. ANG Higher Level Reviewers. The HLR must be at a minimum the unit commander
(to include DSG Unit CCs) or the senior full-time officer serving in the grade of O-4/GS-
12/NH-03 or higher, but no higher in organization than the senior rater. (T-1) Exception: The
CMSAF or CMSSF may endorse enlisted evaluations as a senior rater and may also serve as
the final evaluator.
4.12.3. For HLRs assigned on or prior to the close-out date, enter information as of the close-
out date; if assigned after the close-out date, enter the information as of the date signed.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 115
4.12.4. Single Evaluator Only. A single evaluator must be an O-6/GS-15/NH-IV/equivalent
or higher and may not be delegated to a lower-level evaluator. (T-1) Exceptions: (1) If a ratee
is not promotion eligible, or if a senior rater endorsement and/or stratification is not warranted,
the SNCOA Commandant may act as the HLR on MSgt and SMSgt enlisted evaluations within
their direct rating chain and/or scope of responsibility. The SNCOA Commandant is also
authorized to sign the HLR section on the junior enlisted ALQ evaluation for non-promotion
eligible Airmen or if an enlisted forced distribution is not warranted. (2) The CMSAF or
CMSSF may serve as an HLR and single evaluator.
4.12.4.1. For SNCO evaluations, a single evaluator must also be designated as a senior
rater. (T-1) For junior enlisted evaluations, a single evaluator must also be a
commander/civilian unit director/equivalent. (T-1)
4.12.4.2. If the rater is a senior rater, the evaluation must close out at this level unless it is
a referral evaluation. (T-1) The evaluator must meet both grade and evaluator requirements
for each section of the applicable evaluation form and must be a commander/director/other
authorized reviewer. (T-1)
4.12.5. Determining the Higher Level Reviewer.
4.12.5.1. For CMSgts. The HLR will be the senior rater. (T-1) The senior rater must be
at least an O-6/GS-15/NH-IV or higher, serving as a wing commander or equivalent or
higher, and designated by the management level. (T-1)
4.12.5.2. For SMSgts and MSgts.
4.12.5.2.1. The HLR will be the senior rater only when senior rater stratification is
warranted. (T-1) The senior rater must be at least an O-6/GS-15/NH-IV or higher,
serving as a wing commander or equivalent or higher, and designated by the
management level. (T-1)
4.12.5.2.2. If a senior rater stratification is not warranted, the HLR will be the evaluator
in the position organizationally closest to the airman. For members assigned to
wing/base-level units, the HLR will be the unit commander on G-series orders/civilian
unit director (detachment commanders and section commanders must be in the grade
of O-4/GS-12/equivalent or higher). (T-1) For members assigned outside a wing/base
structure (e.g., MAJCOMs, NAFs, FOAs, DRUs, etc.), the HLR must meet the grade
requirements defined in paragraph 4.12. (T-1) See paragraph 4.12.5.5 for
exceptions.
4.12.5.3. For RegAF TSgts and Below. The HLR will be the forced distributor. (T-1) See
paragraph 4.18.1.2.
4.12.5.3.1. The forced distributor as of the SCOD will sign all junior enlisted ALQ
evaluations (TSgt and below) assigned to their Forced Distributor Identification for
TIG/TIS eligible Airmen (see paragraph 4.12.1 and 4.12.5.5 for exceptions regarding
SNCOA commandants). (T-1)
4.12.5.3.2. If the forced distributor appointed another officer/civilian to represent them
at the Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel, the signature authority is still the forced
distributor. (T-1) Exception: In joint agencies, the Air Force element (AFELM)/CC
116 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
on G-series orders is authorized to sign ALQ evaluations in lieu of the forced distributor
when the forced distributor signs the MEL.
4.12.5.4. For ARC TSgts and Below. For wing/group/squadron-level organizational
structures, the HLR will be the G-series orders commander or civilian director at the
squadron or group assigned per the unit personnel management roster. (T-1) If assigned
at the wing, the HLR is the deputy commander, delegable to the director of staff. (T-1) If
assigned outside of a wing/base structure (e.g., MAJCOMs, NAFs, FOAs, DRUs, etc.), the
HLR will be the military or civilian director. (T-1) MAJCOM, FLDCOM, and CCMD
commanders may delegate their HLR role to the deputy commander.
4.12.5.5. HLR Exceptions. The SNCOA Commandant is designated as the HLR when the
ALQ evaluation is not endorsed/stratified by the senior rater or the SNCO is non-promotion
eligible. (T-1) The SNCOA Commandant is also authorized to sign as the HLR for non-
promotion eligible TSgt and below Airmen or if an enlisted forced distribution is not
warranted. Furthermore, if a ratee is not promotion eligible, or if a senior rater endorsement
and/or stratification is not warranted, the SNCOA Commandant may act as the HLR on
MSgt and SMSgt evaluations within their direct rating chain and/or scope of responsibility.
4.12.5.6. Senior Rater Forced Endorsement. This block will be marked when the senior
rater must complete the HLR section, whether the ratee is TIG/TIS promotion-eligible or
has completed the minimum requirements for senior rater stratification/endorsement, due
to rating chain or final evaluator requirements.
4.12.6. Evaluators with Dual or Multiple Roles. When an evaluator serves in multiple roles
on an enlisted evaluation, consider each section of the evaluation independently. The evaluator
may include written comments in each separate section of the evaluation (Example: If the
rater is also the senior rater and a SNCO is receiving a stratification/endorsement, then the rater
and HLR sections will be completed and comments in both areas are authorized.). When an
evaluator chooses not to include performance comments in a section, they will enter “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” in the applicable section and sign. (T-1) Signature elements, to
include the signature, are required in all sections of the evaluation regardless of whether there
are performance comments included, or the evaluator has entered “THIS SECTION NOT
USED.” Note: For single evaluators, refer to paragraph 4.12.4.
4.13. Higher Level Reviewer Responsibilities.
4.13.1. The HLR reviews evaluations to ensure comments accurately describe performance.
HLRs must return evaluations with unsupported comments for additional information or
reconsideration. (T-1) However, HLRs may not coerce an evaluator to make changes.
4.13.2. The HLR will mark the “concur” or “non-concur” block. See paragraph 1.10 for
disagreements.
4.14. Performance Feedback Assessment.
4.14.1. Performance feedback assessments will be accomplished in accordance with Chapter
2.
4.14.2. The rater certifies that the required performance feedback assessment was conducted
during the reporting period in myEval.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 117
4.15. Authorized Evaluator Considerations and Comments.
4.15.1. (MSgt and SMSgts) Promotion Statements and Assignment Recommendations.
4.15.1.1. Promotion statements are only authorized if a senior rater HLR is stratifying a
SNCO as the “Top 25%” of promotion eligible SNCOs. The senior rater will use the
provided HLR assessment comment section to expand upon the member’s performance.
Example: The AF needs SMSgt Jacobs as a Chief today.
4.15.1.2. Promotion statements must refer to the ratee’s next higher grade.
4.15.1.3. Promotion statements on promotion selectee evaluations are prohibited. (T-1)
4.15.1.4. Assignment recommendations are authorized regardless of TIG/TIS eligibility.
Examples:
4.15.1.4.1. For a TIG/TIS promotion eligible MSgt, the final evaluator may state,
“promote to SMSgt, then select for Flight Chief” as it states the next eligible grade and
assignment.
4.15.1.4.2. For a MSgt not TIG/TIS promotion eligible, the final evaluator may not
state, "promote to SMSgt, future Command Chief," as the ratee is not TIG/TIS eligible
and the assignment recommendation is a CMSgt position. (T-1)
4.15.1.4.3. Final evaluators may also provide assignment recommendations in their
comments. Like promotion statements, assignment recommendations may only be
made by the final evaluator and may only refer to the positions in the ratee’s current
grade if not promotion eligible. (T-1) If the ratee is promotion eligible or a selectee,
assignment recommendations may be made for positions in the current and selected
grade.
4.15.2. (AB - TSgt) Promotion Statements in the HLR’s section that are statements of fact
(e.g., “selected for promotion Below-the-Promotion Zone” or “STEP promoted to TSgt”) are
authorized. Additionally, recommendations of “pushes" to commissioning sources are also
authorized (e.g., “Selected for Officer Training School”). Note: Promotion pushes to the next
higher grade are prohibited.
4.15.3. Performance statements regarding an Airman serving in a ceremonial/event-related
position that has a “title” higher than the grade the Airman currently holds is acceptable.
Examples: An Honor Guard SrA serving as Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge, Firing
Team or Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge, Colors during a ceremony. A SSgt serving as
the First Sergeant of the Mess at a formal Order of the Sword Ceremony.
4.16. Inappropriate Comments Referring to Separation/Retirement, Civilian Employment,
and Professional Military Education. Certain items are prohibited for consideration in the
performance evaluation process and will not be commented upon on any Enlisted Evaluation
System form. See paragraph 1.12 for other prohibited considerations and comments. Except as
authorized in the following paragraphs, do not consider, refer to, or include comments regarding:
4.16.1. Separation or retirement status. Comments referring to separation, retirement, or
transfer to reserve status are prohibited. (T-1) However, comments may be warranted when
an Airman displays a reluctance to accept responsibility, a negative attitude toward the job,
and/or exhibits a decrease in performance that can be reasonably attributed to a pending
118 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
separation or retirement. Comments are limited to the behavior and not the fact the Airman is
separating, retiring or transferring to a reserve status. Note: Although comments are
mandatory, the minimum performance statements required in accordance with Table 4.9 may
be used.
4.16.2. Civilian Employment. Comments about civil service jobs or other civilian occupations
are prohibited unless it directly relates to the military position and their military performance.
Recommendations for civilian employment are prohibited. (T-1)
4.16.3. Enlisted Professional Military Education Comments in Enlisted Evaluations. The only
permissible professional military education comments in enlisted evaluations will be those
referencing selections for an official professional military education award or completion of
Senior Enlisted Joint Professional Military Education I/II web-based courses. All other
comments, to include recommendation for any other professional military education and
selection for any other professional military education attendance are prohibited. Comments
referencing Air Force prerequisite professional military education (or US DoD service
equivalent) selection, attendance and/or completion are prohibited, to include implied
comments.
4.17. Ratee’s Acknowledgement.
4.17.1. The rater is required to conduct face-to-face (end-of-reporting period) feedback in
conjunction with presenting the evaluation to the ratee. (T-1) The enlisted evaluation serves
as the feedback form. A performance feedback assessment form is not required. Electronic
routing of the form does not excuse the rater from providing face-to-face feedback. Only in
situations where face-to-face feedback is not feasible will feedback be conducted either by
telephone or electronically. (T-2) The rater should first attempt to call the ratee and conduct
the feedback via telephone. If that option is not available, the rater may provide clear, detailed
feedback to the ratee via email, using a read receipt to verify the feedback was received and
read.
4.17.2. The ratee’s signature in the acknowledgment block does not constitute concurrence or
non-concurrence of the content and/or rating of the evaluation. The signature is to
acknowledge receipt of the evaluation and to certify the ratee reviewed the personal
information on the form.
4.17.3. The ratee will sign after all other evaluators have signed. In cases where an Air Force
advisor or acquisition/functional examiner is required to sign, the ratee’s acknowledgment will
occur after the advisor or examiner review.
4.17.4. The ratee must acknowledge receipt of the evaluation prior to the evaluation becoming
a matter of record unless the ratee refuses or is unable to sign. The ratee will review and verify
all dates, markings, and comments on the form. Significant discrepancies and administrative
errors can be addressed at this time, and corrected if agreed by all parties before the evaluation
becomes a matter of record. This is not to be interpreted to mean the ratee can refuse to sign
if they disagree with the evaluation. If evaluators do not agree to change the evaluation and
the ratee wishes to dispute it, the ratee should pursue the established appeal/correction avenues
available to them as outlined in Chapter 10 once the evaluation is a matter of record.
4.17.5. The rater will suspense the ratee three duty days (30 calendar days for ARC) to sign
the evaluation. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 119
4.17.6. In cases where the ratee refuses to sign, any evaluator will select “Member declined to
sign” from the drop-down menu in the ratee’s acknowledgement block and sign the evaluation
in the ratee’s acknowledgement block.
4.17.7. In cases where the ratee is unable to sign, any evaluator will select “Member unable to
sign” from the drop-down menu in the ratee’s acknowledgement block and sign the evaluation
in the ratee’s acknowledgement block.
4.17.8. For the purpose of signing evaluations, the term “Member unable to sign” indicates
that the member does not have access to a common access card-enabled computer (e.g.,
convalescent leave, TDY to a contractor facility without government computer access,
deployed to a location without computer access, no longer have digital signature capability, in
absent without leave or deserter status, etc.).
4.17.9. “Wet Signature Evaluations Only.” Evaluators can type, handwrite, or use the drop-
down option to annotate the evaluation when the ratee is unable or declines to sign.
4.18. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution (SrA – TSgt only).
4.18.1. Terms and Definitions.
4.18.1.1. Forced Distribution. The allocation of the top two promotion recommendations,
“Promote Now” and “Must Promote,” from a force distributor on the ALQ evaluation for
junior enlisted Airmen for promotion eligible SrA, SSgts, and TSgts.
4.18.1.2. Forced Distributor (FD). For wing/group/squadron-level organizational
structures, the FD will be the G-series orders commander or civilian director. For wings,
the FD is the deputy commander, delegable to the director of staff. Within MAJCOMs,
FLDCOMs, CCMDs, FOAs, DRUs, NAFs, and centers, the FD will be the military or
civilian director. For MAJCOM, FLDCOM, and CCMD commanders, the FD will be the
deputy commander.
4.18.1.3. Forced Distributor Identification (FDID). A nine-digit code that is assigned to a
position/PAS code and identifies the FD.
4.18.1.4. Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel (EFDP). The EFDP is comprised of the
EFDP president, command chief or Air Force senior enlisted leader (SEL), FDs of small
units (flight chiefs/designated representatives for large units), and recorder.
4.18.1.5. Master Eligibility Listing (MEL). Identifies all Airmen with an enlisted
evaluation scheduled to close out on the applicable SCOD as well as Airmen who are and
are not TIG/TIS-eligible. The listing also reflects the number of promotion allocations
earned.
4.18.1.6. Accounting Date. The date approximately 120 calendar days before the SCOD.
This date is used as a file freeze in order to account for the actual number of eligible
TIG/TIS promotion-eligible Airmen for each FD’s PAS code(s). No changes will be made
to the number of allocations on or after the SCOD unless specifically authorized by
AFPC/DP3SP as an exception. (T-1) See Table 4.6.
4.18.1.7. Static Close-out Date (SCOD). This is the fixed annual date that all enlisted
evaluations will close out for a specific grade. It is used to determine the final TIG/TIS-
120 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
eligible pool for forced distribution allocations. Enlisted evaluations cannot be signed
before this date. (T-1) See Tables 4.7 and 4.8.
4.18.1.8. Large Unit. Any organizational structure with 11 or more TIG/TIS-eligible
Airmen (by grade) as of the SCOD.
4.18.1.9. Small Unit. Any organizational structure with 10 or less TIG/TIS-eligible
Airmen (by grade) as of the SCOD.
4.18.1.9.1. Under a wing-level construct, squadrons, group staffs and wing staff
agencies could be classified as small units. Under a direct reporting unit or field
operating agency level construct, squadrons, group staffs, and directorates could be
classified as small units.
4.18.1.9.2. Under an office of the Secretary of the Air Force
(SAF)/HAF/CCMD/MAJCOM management level construct, subordinate directorates
with military or civilian directors that are senior raters could be classified as small units.
4.18.2. EFDP Member Roles and Responsibilities.
4.18.2.1. Panel President. A voting and scoring panel member. They must be the senior
rater assigned to the SRID or management level (assigned as the head of the management
level); for combatant commands (CCMDs) this will be the Air Force element commander
(the Air Force officer designated by the CCMD/CC as the AFELM/CC).
4.18.2.1.1. Responsibilities. Design and document procedures for their respective
EFDP and perform administrative duties in connection with the proceedings.
4.18.2.1.2. Ensures all members understand discussions regarding individual records
or award recommendations. Discussions between panel members are not to be shared
outside of the panel process. However, at the completion of the panel process and the
release of the promotion recommendations, panel members will out brief eligible
members to provide feedback and increased transparency of the panel process.
4.18.2.1.3. Ensure the consideration of all Airmen nominated to the EFDP without
prejudice or partiality in a consistent, fair, and equitable manner.
4.18.2.1.4. Administer EFDP charge to all panel members prior to board convening.
USSF panel President will administer the AF EFDP charges when presiding over an
AF EFDP.
4.18.2.2. Command Chief or Air Force Senior Enlisted Leader. Serves as an advisor to the
panel.
4.18.2.3. Forced Distributors. Voting and scoring panel members who represent Airmen
nominated from their particular small unit.
4.18.2.4. Recorders. A non-voting and non-scoring member. Recorders will not serve on
a panel for which they are being considered. They will also not assume the role or
responsibilities of a voter, scorer, or advisor for the same panel.
4.18.2.4.1. Assists the EFDP president with ensuring panel proceedings meet all
requirements.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 121
4.18.2.4.2. Advises all panel members on the EFDP process and other administrative
matters.
4.18.3. Delegation of Roles and Responsibilities.
4.18.3.1. EFDP President. Only under extraordinary circumstances may EFDP president
responsibilities be delegated to the next senior Air Force officer/civilian (normally the
deputy commander). If applicable, the deputy commander, etc., will delegate the FD
authority for the small unit to the next senior Air Force officer/civilian. (T-2) Example:
If the MAJCOM/CD is appointed EFDP president by the MAJCOM/CC, the next senior
Air Force officer/civilian will be appointed FD for the MAJCOM’s small unit FD.
4.18.3.1.1. Numbered Air Force/Center/Wing/Direct Reporting Unit/Field Operating
Agency. The deputy wing commander, field operating agency or direct reporting unit
deputy commander or director of staff, will serve as the “small unit commander” only
when there are eligible Airmen assigned to those respective staff agencies, under the
direct authority of the commander (senior rater). Senior raters will not serve in a dual-
hatted capacity, where they act as both the small unit commander and EFDP president.
(T-1) Allowing the deputy wing commander or director of staff to represent eligible
staff agency Airmen at the EFDP as a panel member gives the senior rater impartiality
as the EFDP president.
4.18.3.1.2. If the deputy commander or director of staff has been appointed as the
EFDP president, they cannot be dual-hatted and also serve as a panel member. (T-1)
The next senior Air Force officer/civilian will serve as the FD (panel member).
4.18.3.1.3. Numbered Air Forces/centers will hold EFDPs at the numbered Air
Force/center level and not roll up to the management level. The numbered Air
Force/center commander/director as the president (unless delegated).
4.18.3.1.4. Headquarters Air Force (HAF) Staff/Major Commands (MAJCOMs).
Management level commanders may delegate management level EFDP president
responsibilities no lower than the deputy commander. When EFDP president
responsibilities are delegated, the next senior Air Force officer/civilian (e.g., director
of staff) will serve as the “small unit commander” when there are eligible Airmen
assigned. Management levels or appointees, when management level EFDP president
responsibilities have been delegated, will not serve in a dual-hatted capacity. Allowing
the deputy commander or appointee to represent promotion eligible Airmen at the
EFDP gives the management level impartiality as the EFDP president. Exception: If
the deputy commander is unavailable due to deployment or TDY, EFDP president
responsibilities may be further delegated to the next highest ranking Air Force officer
or civilian equivalent (no lower than colonel).
4.18.3.1.5. Combatant Commands (CCMDs). The Air Force element commander
(AFELM/CC) will assume EFDP president responsibilities with a CCMD, unless the
CCMD’s commander is Air Force and requests to chair the EFDP proceedings. (T-1)
If the AFELM/CC is unavailable due to a prolonged deployment or TDY, EFDP
president responsibilities may be delegated to the next highest senior Air Force officer.
This delegation will be for the current EFPD only, not on a permanent basis. Short
122 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
absences (leave, routine TDY) do not qualify as a reason to delegate responsibilities
below the AFELM/CC.
4.18.3.1.6. For joint organizations, such as United States Military Entrance Processing
Command, which may not have an Air Force general officer or Air Force colonel
assigned, an exception to policy may be submitted to AFPC/DP3SP. The request must
include the organizations proposed EFDP process.
4.18.3.1.7. For joint organizations, the FD can request to designate the next senior Air
Force officer/civilian (no lower than Lt Col/civilian equivalent) to attend the EFDP.
This request must be approved by the EFDP president and documented in writing.
(T-1)
4.18.3.2. Command Chief and SELs. When circumstances warrant, the interim command
chief or SEL will serve as the advisor for the EFDP.
4.18.3.3. Force Distributor (FD) Authorities. When circumstances warrant, requests can
be made to the EFDP president to designate the next senior Air Force officer/civilian (no
lower than major or civilian equivalent) to represent them on the panel. (T-3) If the next
senior officer/civilian does not meet the grade requirement, another FD within the senior
rater’s purview (e.g., another squadron commander, group deputy) may represent the
organization. All requests must be approved by the EFDP president and documented in
writing. The FD authority will maintain all other responsibilities such as signing enlisted
evaluations and MELs.
4.18.4. Allocations and Notification.
4.18.4.1. Allocations. AF/A1 determines forced distribution promotion allocations.
4.18.4.2. Allocations are based on 5% of the total TIG/TIS promotion-eligible SrA, SSgt,
and TSgt population for “Promote Now” allocations, 10% of the total TIG/TIS promotion-
eligible SSgt and TSgt population for “Must Promote” allocations, and 15% of the total
TIG/TIS promotion-eligible SrA population for “Must Promote” allocations. In
accordance with the aforementioned allocation rates, AFPC provides the actual number of
“Promote Now” and “Must Promote” allocations to each FD authority via the final MEL.
See Tables 4.7 and 4.8. The tables are subject to change, therefore FDs and EFDPs will
utilize the allocations provided on the final MEL.
4.18.4.2.1. Large units (11 or more TIG/TIS eligible Airmen) will receive their own
forced distribution promotion allocations, and large unit FD authorities will award their
allocations at the unit level. (T-1) Large unit commanders (FD authorities) cannot
exceed the promotion allocations listed on the final MEL.
4.18.4.2.2. Small units (10 or less TIG/TIS eligible Airmen) roll-up, compete at and
receive promotion recommendation allocations via the senior rater or management
level (whichever is applicable) EFDP.
4.18.4.3. In cases where after aggregation there are not enough eligible Airmen from the
small units to earn “Promote Now” and “Must Promote” promotion allocations, the senior
rater or management level EFDP (whichever is applicable) will receive an outright
allocation of one “Promote Now” and “Must Promote.” (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 123
4.18.4.4. When there is only one eligible out of the senior rater or management level’s
total promotion eligible population, the senior rater or management level (whichever is
applicable) will receive an outright allocation of one “Promote Now” and one “Must
Promote.” (T-1) The senior rater or management level (whichever is applicable) will
determine if the promotion-eligible member’s record of performance warrants allocation
of either a “Promote Now” or “Must Promote” promotion recommendation and will award
the appropriate promotion recommendation.
4.18.4.5. Allocations Not Used. Management levels, senior raters, and FDs are not
required to use all allocations if they believe the performance quality and promotion
potential of Airmen in their unit does not warrant the full share of allocations. Additionally,
redistribution or carry-over of allocations is strictly prohibited. (T-1)
4.18.4.6. Forced Distribution of Students or Patients. FDs have a separate FDID for in-
utilization permanent party students. FDs will receive a separate allocation for their
TIG/TIS promotion-eligible student or patient populations. See paragraph 4.18.6.1.
(T-1) Note: Airmen TDY to school less than 20 weeks will fall under their home station
FDID.
4.18.5. Identifying and Notifying Organizations.
4.18.5.1. Identifying Organizations. AFPC will provide MELs identifying TIG/TIS-
eligible and non-TIG/TIS-eligible Airmen assigned as of the accounting date. (T-1) The
MEL identifies all Airmen with an enlisted evaluation scheduled to close out on the
applicable SCOD, regardless of an Airman’s promotion ineligibility condition(s) (e.g., on
the control roster, primary AFSC skill level too low, undergoing Article 15 suspended
reduction). See Table 4.6 for accounting dates.
4.18.5.2. Notifying Organizations. Organizations will receive an initial MEL identifying
if they are a large or small unit no later than the accounting date associated with each
grade’s SCOD. A final MEL will be forwarded following the applicable SCOD. Units
should adjudicate each MEL to ensure all unit promotion-eligible Airmen are accurately
captured.
4.18.6. Eligibility and Nominations.
4.18.6.1. Verifying Eligibility. Using the organization’s MEL, FD authorities verify the
eligibility of each Airman to ensure they meet the TIG/TIS requirements for promotion.
Only verify the TIG/TIS requirements and do not consider normal individual promotion
ineligibility conditions. (T-1) This will ensure only those meeting the TIG/TIS
requirements are considered, and the FD authority receives the correct number of forced
distribution promotion allocations. Note: FD authorities with SrA, SSgt, Sgt, or TSgt
promotion-eligible students (student squadrons) or patients (patient squadrons) will receive
forced distribution promotion allocations for their TIG/TIS promotion-eligible student or
patient populations separate from the forced distribution allocations for their TIG/TIS
promotion-eligible SrA, SSgt, or TSgt permanent party populations.
4.18.6.2. Nominations. Large or small unit FDs are responsible for considering all
individuals appearing on the unit’s final MEL. (T-1) FDs will consider all individuals
meeting TIG/TIS requirements.
124 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
4.18.6.2.1. Small unit promotion-eligible Airmen are nominated by the unit FD
authority to compete for award of a forced distribution promotion allocation at the
senior rater or management level EFDP (whichever is applicable). The maximum
number of “Promote Now” and “Must Promote” allocations the EFDP may award is
based on the combined total number of TIG/TIS promotion-eligible Airmen from each
small unit, by grade.
4.18.6.2.2. Each unit may nominate up to the maximum number of available
allocations. Example: If the total combined number of SSgt or Sgt promotion eligible
Airmen from all small units is 28, the total promotion allocations the EFDP may award
is four (one “Promote Now” allocation and three “Must Promote” allocations) based
on a 5% “Promote Now” allocation and 10% “Must Promote” allocation. Therefore, a
small unit FD may nominate no more than four eligible SSgts or Sgts.
4.18.6.2.3. If a small unit does not nominate an eligible Airman, the FD will annotate
the MEL accordingly and sign.
4.18.7. EFDP Nomination Folders.
4.18.7.1. To assist in ensuring the information being considered for all promotion-eligible
Airmen nominated to the EFDP is consistent, fair, and equitable, the nomination folder will
only include the Airman’s: career data brief (vMPF), decorations, and last three enlisted
evaluations (this includes the enlisted evaluation being considered for forced distribution).
Commanders may also submit a push-note (limited to system space availability/two lines)
when the panel proceedings are held virtually or when nominee packages will be sent to
panel members in advance of the physical panel. Push-notes will only convey the
nominee’s relative standing amongst all other Airmen nominated by the commander.
4.18.7.2. Enlisted evaluations being considered for forced distribution must be signed by
the rater prior to the EFDP proceedings. (T-1) Additionally, enlisted evaluations meeting
the EFDP cannot be awarded “Promote Now” or “Must Promote” allocations or be signed
by the FD prior to the panel. (T-1)
4.18.7.3. Performance assessment changes made after panel proceedings are limited to
significant quality force indicators negative or positive, that were not previously known.
4.18.8. EFDP Procedures.
4.18.8.1. EFDP proceedings may not commence, and promotion allocation selections may
not be made any earlier than the day following each applicable grade’s SCOD. (T-1) Any
and all notional or pre-forced distribution proceedings, ahead of the completion of each
grade’s entire reporting period (e.g., prior to 1159 hours on the applicable grade’s SCOD)
are prohibited. (T-1)
4.18.8.2. Physical or Virtual Panel. It is up to the EFDP president to determine how to
hold the EFDP based upon the nature of the organization’s structure. When the EFDP
president chooses to hold a physical panel (i.e., in person), nominee records may be
provided for review in advance of the physical proceedings. In such cases, the EFDP
recorder will ensure all records are available to all panel members to allow ample time to
review prior to the physical panel.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 125
4.18.8.3. Small Units.
4.18.8.3.1. Small unit TIG/TIS promotion eligible Airmen aggregate up to compete at
the senior rater or management level EFDP. HAF/SAF/CCMD/MAJCOM FDs with
10 or less TIG/TIS eligible Airmen aggregate from the senior rater up to the
management level EFDP. When a commander has promotion authority over two or
more units, the eligible Airmen are not combined. Each unit will comply with the large
or small unit.
4.18.8.3.2. Small unit FDs nominate eligible Airmen to compete at the EFDP.
Nomination folders will include the Airmen’s career data brief (vMPF), decorations,
and last three enlisted evaluations (this includes the enlisted evaluation being
considered for forced distribution). A push-note may also be included.
4.18.8.4. Large units. Large unit FDs are authorized to utilize the small unit EFDP process
(but not participate in small unit panels) or develop their own process. If the large unit
develops a process, the FD must disseminate the forced distribution procedures within their
organization that will be utilized no later than the accounting date for each applicable
evaluation cycle. (T-1)
4.18.8.5. Once selections are made, the FDID authority annotates and signs the applicable
MEL, identifying those selected to receive “Promote Now” and “Must Promote”
allocations. The FDID authority will then return all evaluations to the owning small unit
FD for application of the awarded allocation as well as enlisted evaluation signature by the
responsible unit commander/director/other authorized reviewer. Individual senior
raters/FDID authorities or management levels will not sign evaluations in-lieu of the FD.
4.18.8.6. If an egregious event or negative information transpires and is substantiated
during the reporting period and is discovered after the SCOD and after promotion
recommendations are allocated, the FDID authority, senior rater, or management level
(whichever is applicable), may remove or downgrade the promotion recommendation from
the ratee’s evaluation. (T-3) In such a case, the applicable forced distribution promotion
allocation will not be reallocated. (T-1)
4.18.9. Scoring.
4.18.9.1. Records are scored on a best-qualified basis. EFDP members will ensure that
Airmen selected to receive forced distribution promotion allocations are fully qualified to
assume the next higher grade.
4.18.9.2. The senior rater or management level (whichever is applicable) may use either:
4.18.9.2.1. A “rack-n-stack” process by which each panel member rank orders all
records from highest to lowest and all rankings are combined to develop an order of
merit.
4.18.9.2.2. A panel or MLR scoring process by which EFDP records are scored in 6-
to-10 point increments.
4.18.9.3. Scoring is based on documents in each eligible’s EFDP nomination folder only.
(T-1)
126 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
4.18.9.4. Panel members will assign each eligible a score (6-to-10 point) or ranking,
reflecting their assessment of relative performance, leadership/followership, and the
potential to serve at the next higher grade.
4.18.9.5. Panel members may score nomination folders in advance on the EFDP when
authorized by the EFDP president.
4.18.9.6. If a panel member identifies a record-based matter that causes concern, they will
bring the matter to the other panel members, the panel recorder, or directly with the panel
president, so that the matter has the attention of the other panel members.
4.18.9.7. Panel members are encouraged to discuss their own knowledge and evaluation
of the professional qualifications of their respective promotion-eligible Airman.
4.18.9.8. Panel members may not discuss or disclose the opinion of any person not a
member of the panel concerning the member.
4.18.9.9. Scoring Scale. See Table 4.1.
4.18.9.9.1. Defining "Splits." A "split" is a significant disagreement between EFDP
members about the score of a record. A “split” is considered a difference in a score of
2 or more points between any two panel members.
4.18.9.9.2. Resolving "Splits." All scoring stops and all voting EFDP members must
be present (physically or virtually) to discuss the records involved in a “split.” Only
EFDP members with split scores may change their scores in the process of resolving a
split. A “split” is resolved when there is a difference in a score of 1.5 or less points
between any two panel members.
4.18.9.9.3. Resolving “Ties.” If two or more records tie, and there are insufficient
numbers of “Promote Now”/“Must Promote” recommendations to award one to each,
the EFPD president will determine an appropriate method for breaking the tie. (T-1)
4.18.10. EFDP Report.
4.18.10.1. The panel report should contain a list of panel members, panel recorder, order
of merit (identifying total score, if/when applicable), and forced distribution promotion
recommendation status based on the available number of “Promote Now” and “Must
Promote” allocations, and cutoff score.
4.18.10.2. The report should be approved and signed by the senior rater or management
level as the panel president and by the panel recorder.
4.18.10.3. Supplemental EFDP consideration will not be given for the following reasons:
4.18.10.3.1. Incorrect data reflected on the career brief.
4.18.10.3.2. Denied EFDP nomination due to incorrect data reflected on the FDID
output products or in the career data brief (vMPF).
4.18.10.3.3. MELs not returned to the MPF, or individual was “overlooked” on the
listing.
4.18.10.3.4. EFDP nomination packages not completed/turned in/approved in time to
meet the board.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 127
Table 4.1. Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel Scale.
Score
Potential
10.0
Absolutely superior
9.5
Outstanding
9.0
Few could be better
8.5
Strong
8.0
Slightly above average
7.5
Average
7.0
Slightly below average
6.5
Well below average
6.0
Lowest
Table 4.2. When to Submit Enlisted Evaluations for RegAF, Active Guard Reserve, and
Stat Tour.
R
U
L
E
A
B
If
then the reason for the
evaluation is
1
RegAF ONLY: The ratee is a SrA as of the 31 March
SCOD.
Initial
2
RegAF ONLY: The ratee is an A1C or below, with 36 or
more months total active federal military service as of the 31
March SCOD. See Note 1.
Initial
3
ARC ONLY: The ratee is a SrA or above as of the SCOD of
the evaluation and has not had an evaluation.
Initial
4
ARC ONLY: The ratee is a SSgt or above and has not had
an evaluation for at least one year.
Annual
5
RegAF ONLY: Subsequent evaluations will close-out on the
SCOD (based on grade). See Note 2.
Annual
6
The ratee requires an enlisted evaluation due to placement on
a control roster. See Notes 1, 3, and 10.
Directed by Commander
(DBC)
7
An evaluation is necessary to document substandard
performance or conduct. See Notes 1 and 10.
DBC
8
The ratee is placed into record status 6, deserter. See Notes
3, 4, and 10.
DBC
9
The member needs an evaluation following a discharge action
per DAFI 36-3211. See Notes 1 and 5.
DBH
128 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10
Authorities place the ratee in evaluating identifier 9A100 or
9A000. See Notes 6 and 7.
DBH
11
Personnel have declared the ratee missing-in-action, captured,
or detained in captive status. See Notes 1 and 7.
DBH
12
HAF directs a special evaluation. See Note 8.
DBH
13
The ratee is a CMSgt.
Annual
14
The ratee needs an evaluation in conjunction with involuntary
removal from ANG AGR or Statutory Tour.
Directed by unit
commander, TAG or
NGB/CF
15
ANG unit commander, The Adjutant General (TAG) or
NGB/CF directs a special evaluation.
Directed by unit
commander, TAG or
NGB/CF
16
A1C who enlisted under the National Call to Service
program. See Note 9.
Initial
17
Any sentence of confinement as the result of a court-martial.
See Note 1.
DBC
18
ARC ONLY: In cases where a promotion or demotion has
occurred, and a member will have more than 24 months from
the close-out date of their last evaluation and the new
established static close-out date for their new grade.
DBH
19
AGR ONLY: In cases where a promotion or demotion has
occurred, and a member will have more than 24 months from
the close-out date of their last evaluation and the new
established SCOD for their new grade. AGR personnel will
require annual evaluations. A DBH report is required in
cases where a promotion or demotion has occurred, and a
member will have more than 12 months from the close-out
date of their last evaluation and the new established SCOD
for their new grade.
DBH
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 129
Notes:
1. For ARC refer to paragraph 4.7.1.2 for close-out date.
2. The close-out date is on the SCOD for the applicable grade (for example, a SSgt will have
their evaluation close out on 31 Jan [SSgt SCOD]). (T-1) Exception: Airmen selected for
promotion or Airmen who are demoted will have their evaluation close out on the SCOD of
their projected or received grade and in some cases, may exceed a year. (T-1) Example: A
SSgt selected for TSgt will now have their evaluation close out on 30 Nov. A SSgt demoted to
SrA will have their evaluation close out on 31 March.
3. The close-out date of the evaluation prepared when placing a member on a control roster is
the day before the date of placement on the control roster.
4. The close-out date is the effective date the ratee is placed in record status 6, deserter.
5. When a member is undergoing an involuntary separation due to substandard performance, a
commander will complete a DBC evaluation and may only comment on the negative behavior.
(T-1) This applies to TSgts and below and the commander will close out the evaluation one
day before the written notice of the proposed action to the Airman. (T-1). If a member is
being involuntarily separated for reasons other than substandard performance, then a DBC
evaluation is not required.
6. The evaluation's close-out date is the day before the date that authorities place the ratee in
reporting identifier 9A100 or 9A000.
7. Do not prepare enlisted evaluations for periods of missing-in-action, captured, or interned
status of less than 15 calendar days. For 15 calendar days or more, prepare an enlisted
evaluation as AFPC/DP3SP directs.
8. AFPC/DP3SP (or AFPC/DPMSP if the evaluation is necessary for promotion
consideration) directs evaluations under this rule.
9. A1Cs who enlisted under the National Call to Service program will receive their initial
enlisted evaluation upon completion of 16 months total active federal military service minus 1
day. (T-1)
10. A1C or below with less than 36 months total active federal military service (or date initial
entry uniformed services for ARC) do not receive an enlisted evaluation unless the member
has a minimum of 20 months TIS.
130 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 4.3. When to submit Enlisted Evaluations for ARC Non-AGR.
R
U
L
E
A
B
If (see Notes 1 and 7)
Then the reason for the
evaluation is
1
Close-out date will be first SrA SCOD, refer to
paragraph 4.7.1.2.
Initial (see Note 2)
2
The ratee is a SSgt or above and has not had a
report for at least two years. See Note 3.
Biennial
3
The commander directs an evaluation.
DBC (see Note 8)
4
The commander directs an evaluation to document
substandard performance or conduct.
5
The ratee is placed into record status 6, deserter
status. See Note 6.
6
HAF, AF/RE, ARPC or NGB directs a special
evaluation. See Note 4.
DBH
7
The ratee needs an evaluation in conjunction with
discharge.
DBH
8
The ratee is declared missing-in-action, captured,
or detained in captive status. See Note 5.
DBH
9
The ratee is a CMSgt. See Note 3.
Annual for AFR; Biennial for
ANG.
10
In cases where a promotion or demotion has
occurred, and a member will have more than 24
months from the close-out date of their last
evaluation and the new established SCOD for their
new grade.
DBH
Notes:
1. For IMAs, PIRR and PIRR Category E, the unit of attachment is responsible for completing the
evaluation.
2. Initial evaluation implementation for ANG Non-AGR SrA and above who have no previous report;
refer to paragraph 4.5.
3. If the ratee did not participate during the period, the report must state this information. (T-1).
4. AF/REP directs enlisted evaluations under this rule for AFR; NGB/A1P for ANG.
5. Do not prepare evaluations for periods of missing-in-action, captured, or detained in captive status
of less than 15 calendar days. If the ratee remains in one of these categories for 15 calendar days or
more, prepare an evaluation under this rule without regard to the number of days of supervision. Close
the evaluation on the day the ratee was placed in missing-in-action, captured, or detained in captive
status. These evaluations are as directed by AFPC/DP3SP or ARPC/DPTSE.
6. The close-out date of the evaluation is the effective date the ratee is placed in record status 6,
deserter.
7. Only one day is required for raters to close out an evaluation.
8. Only negative behavior and/or substandard performance is documented. Positive behavior and/or
performance will be documented on the next SCOD enlisted evaluation. (T-1)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 131
Table 4.4. Static Close-out Date Chart for RegAF, Active Guard Reserve, and Stat Tour.
Grade
SCOD
SrA and Below
31 Mar
SSgt and SSgt selects
31 Jan
TSgt and TSgt selects
30 Nov
MSgt and MSgts selects
30 Sep
SMSgt and SMSgt selects
31 Jul
CMSgt and CMSgt selects
31 May
Table 4.5. Static Close-out Date Chart for ARC Non-AGR.
Grade
SCOD
SrA and Below
31 Mar (Even years)
SSgt
31 Jan (Odd years)
TSgt
30 Nov (Even years)
MSgt
30 Sep (Odd years)
SMSgt
31 Jul (Even years)
CMSgt
31 May (Annual for AFR, Odd years for
ANG)
Table 4.6. Accounting Dates for Static Close-out Date Evaluations.
Grade (includes selectees)
Static Close-out Date
Accounting Date
SrA and below
31 Mar
3 Dec
SSgt
31 Jan
3 Oct
TSgt
30 Nov
3 Aug
MSgt
30 Sep
3 Jun
SMSgt
31 Jul
3 Apr
CMSgt
31 May
3 Feb
Note: Accounting dates are approximately 120 calendar days prior to each static close-
out date and are established as the 3rd of the month for consistency.
132 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 4.7. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution Allocation Table (SrA).
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
11 - 12
1
1
178 - 182
9
27
343 - 347
17
52
13 - 17
1
2
183 - 187
9
28
348 - 349
17
53
18 - 22
1
3
188 - 189
9
29
350 - 357
18
53
23 - 27
1
4
190 - 197
10
29
358 - 362
18
54
28 - 29
1
5
198 - 202
10
30
363 - 369
18
56
30 - 37
2
5
203 - 207
10
31
370 - 377
19
56
38 - 42
2
6
208 - 209
10
32
378 - 382
19
57
43 - 47
2
7
210 - 217
11
32
383 - 387
19
58
48 - 49
2
8
218 - 222
11
33
388 - 389
19
59
50 - 57
3
8
223 - 227
11
34
390 - 397
20
59
58 - 62
3
9
228 - 229
11
35
398 - 402
20
60
63 - 67
3
10
230 - 237
12
35
403 - 407
20
61
68 - 69
3
11
238 - 242
12
36
408 - 409
20
62
70 - 77
4
11
243 - 247
12
37
410 - 417
21
62
78 - 82
4
12
248 - 249
12
38
418 - 422
21
63
83 - 87
4
13
250 - 257
13
38
423 - 427
21
64
88 - 89
4
14
258 - 262
13
39
428 - 429
21
65
90 - 97
5
14
263 - 267
13
40
430 - 437
22
65
98 – 102
5
15
268 - 269
13
41
438 - 442
22
66
103 – 107
5
16
270 - 277
14
41
443 - 447
22
67
108 - 109
5
17
278 - 282
14
42
448 - 449
22
68
110 – 117
6
17
283 - 287
14
43
450 - 457
23
68
118 – 122
6
18
288 - 289
14
44
458 - 462
23
69
123 – 127
6
19
290 - 297
15
44
463 - 467
23
70
128 – 129
6
20
298 - 302
15
45
468 - 469
23
71
130 – 137
7
20
303 - 307
15
46
470 - 477
24
71
138 – 142
7
21
308 - 309
15
47
478 - 482
24
72
143 - 147
7
22
310 - 317
16
47
483 - 487
24
73
148 - 149
7
23
318 - 322
16
48
488 - 489
24
74
150 - 157
8
23
323 - 327
16
49
490 - 497
25
74
158 - 162
8
24
328 - 329
16
50
498 - 500
25
75
163 - 167
8
25
330 - 337
17
50
168 - 177
9
26
338 - 342
17
51
Note: Table is subject to change. Utilize allocations on the final MEL(s).
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 133
Table 4.8. (RegAF Only) Forced Distribution Allocation Table (SSgt and TSgt).
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
Total
Eligible
Total
PN
Total
MP
11 - 16
1
1
177 - 183
9
18
344 - 349
17
35
17 - 23
1
2
184 - 189
9
19
350 - 356
18
35
24 - 29
1
3
190 - 196
10
19
357 - 363
18
36
30 - 36
2
3
197 - 203
10
20
364 - 369
18
37
37 - 43
2
4
204 - 209
10
21
370 - 376
19
37
44 - 49
2
5
210 - 216
11
21
377 - 383
19
38
50 - 56
3
5
217 - 223
11
22
384 - 389
19
39
57 - 63
3
6
224 - 229
11
23
390 - 396
20
39
64 - 69
3
7
230 - 236
12
23
397 - 403
20
40
70 - 76
4
7
237 - 243
12
24
404 - 409
20
41
77 - 83
4
8
244 - 249
12
25
410 - 416
21
41
84 - 89
4
9
250 - 256
13
25
417 - 423
21
42
90 - 96
5
9
257 - 263
13
26
424 - 429
21
43
97 - 103
5
10
264 - 269
13
27
430 - 436
22
43
104 - 109
5
11
270 - 276
14
27
437 - 443
22
44
110 - 116
6
11
277 - 283
14
28
444 - 449
22
45
117 - 123
6
12
284 - 289
14
29
450 - 456
23
45
124 - 129
6
13
290 - 296
15
29
457 - 463
23
46
130 - 136
7
13
297 - 303
15
30
464 - 469
23
47
137 - 143
7
14
304 - 309
15
31
470 - 476
24
47
144 - 149
7
15
310 - 316
16
31
477 - 483
24
48
150 - 156
8
15
317 - 323
16
32
484 - 489
24
49
157 - 163
8
16
324 - 329
16
33
490 - 496
25
49
164 - 169
8
17
330 - 336
17
33
497 - 500
25
50
170 - 176
9
17
337 - 343
17
34
Note: Table is subject to change. Utilize allocations on the final MEL(s).
134 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 4.9. Instructions for Preparing an Enlisted ALQ Evaluation (Output Product).
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
1
Grade
Select appropriate grade. See
paragraph 1.4.9.
SrA, SSgt (S),
SSgt, TSgt (S),
TSgt, MSgt (S),
MSgt, SMSgt (S),
SMSgt, CMSgt
(S), CMSgt
2
Name
Enter Last Name, First Name,
Middle Initial, and any suffix
(e.g., JR., SR., III). If there is no
middle initial, the use of “NMI”
is optional. Name will be in all
upper case.
DOE,
MATTHEW A.
3
DoDID
Enter full DoDID number
1234567890
4
Duty Title
Enter the approved duty title
from MilPDS as of the SCOD or
in the event of a PCS or PCA, the
information as of the accounting
date.
If the duty title is abbreviated and
entries are not clear text, spell
them out. Consult with the
CSS/MPF for any corrective
actions. Ensure the duty title is
commensurate with the ratee’s
grade, AFSC, and responsibility.
Refer to the Enlisted Force
Structure for guidance pertinent
to duty titles.
(use format in example)
For personnel on a 365-day
extended deployment, use the
deployed duty title.
Admin NCOIC
5
DAFSC
Enter DAFSC held as of the
“THRU” date of the evaluation,
including prefix and suffix, if
applicable, or in the event of a
3F051
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 135
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
PCS or PCA, enter information
as of the accounting date. 365
day extended deployments will
use the TDY DAFSC.
6
Reason
Select the reason for evaluation.
Annual, Biennial,
First Annual,
First Biennial,
Directed by
Commander, or
Directed by HAF
7
Period
“FROM” Date: See paragraph
4.6.
“THRU” Date: 31 May of
current year. This is the SCOD
for the appropriate grade. See
paragraph 4.7 for variations.
SrA: 31 Mar 2023
– 30 Mar 2024
SSgt Select/SSgt:
31 Jan 2023 – Jan
30 2024
TSgt Select/TSgt:
30 Nov 2023 – 29
Nov 2024
MSgt
Select/MSgt: 30
Sep 2023 – 29
Sep 2024
SMSgt
Select/SMSgt: 31
Jul – 30 Jul 2024
CMSgt
Select/CMSgt: 31
May 2023 – 30
May 2024
8
Days Supervised
Enter the number of days of
supervision. See paragraph 4.8.
365
9
Days Non-Rated
Enter number of days Non-Rated
(if applicable) in accordance with
paragraph 1.4.11.
120
136 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
10
Organization and Command
Enter information as of close-out
date or in the event of a PCS or
PCA, the information as of the
accounting date. Nomenclature
does not necessarily duplicate
what is on the evaluation notice.
The goal is an accurate
description of where and to
whom the ratee belongs.
Command will be listed inside
parentheses. 365-day extended
deployments will use the home
station unit, “with duty at…”
AFR only: For IMAs,
information will be that of the
unit of assignment, and for PIRR
and PIRR Cat E, information will
be that of unit of attachment.
See paragraph 1.4.7.
123d Fighter
Squadron (ACC)
11
Location
Enter information as of the close-
out date unless the member has a
PCS, PCA, or departs from a
365-day extended deployment
then enter the information as of
the accounting date.
JB Langley-
Eustis, VA
12
Duty Description
Comments in narrative format
are mandatory.
Enter information about the
position the ratee held in the unit
and the nature or level of job
responsibilities. The rater
develops the information for this
section.
This description must reflect the
uniqueness of each ratee’s job.
Be specific—include level of
responsibility, number of people
supervised, dollar value of
resources accountable
Supervises two
Airmen. Authors
guidance on
performance
evaluations.
Prepares lesson
plans for ALS
curriculum.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 137
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
for/projects managed, etc. Make
it clear; use plain English. Avoid
jargon and topical references—
they obscure rather than clarify
meaning. Only acronyms on the
approved acronym list are
authorized.
Previous jobs held during the
reporting period may be
mentioned only if it impacts the
evaluation.
365-day extended deployments
will use the TDY duty
description.
RATER ASSESSMENT
13
Executing the Mission
Comments are mandatory; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.1. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
14
Leading People
Comments are mandatory; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.2. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
15
Managing Resources
Comments are mandatory; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.3. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
138 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
16
Improving the Unit
Comments are mandatory; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.4. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
17
Mandatory Comments
(Housing/Voting)
If ratee has oversight of military
privatized housing and or is a
voting assistance officer at any
point in the rating period, enter
the appropriate statement(s).
Rater must also include a unique
performance statement(s). See
paragraphs 1.9.2, and 1.9.3.
If required, enter the applicable
statement(s) “The Ratee
exercised effective oversight of
military privatized housing.” Or
“The Ratee was not effective in
oversight of military privatized
housing.”
If required, enter a unique
performance statement on the
ratee’s performance as the voting
assistance officer.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
18
Rater Name, Grade, and Branch
of Service
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day extended
deployment on or after the
accounting date, use the rater as
of the SCOD from the unit as of
the established accounting date.
See paragraph 4.3.1.
Multiple general officers serving
as general evaluators are
Sue J. Doe, Col,
USAF
Sally S. Mesaros,
SES (O-9
equivalent), DAF
Austin T. Smith,
GS-15, DAF
Jeremy R. Dice,
NH-IV (O-6
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 139
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
prohibited, see paragraph
1.7.1.5 and paragraph 1.7.1.6
for exceptions.
equivalent), DAF
19
Rater Duty Title
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day extended
deployment on or after the
accounting date, use the rater as
of the SCOD from the unit as of
the established accounting date.
See paragraph 4.3.1.
Commander
20
Rater Organization and
Command
Enter rater’s information as of
the close-out date. However, if
the ratee has a PCS, PCA, or
departs from a 365-day extended
deployment on or after the
accounting date, use the rater as
of the SCOD from the unit as of
the established accounting date.
See paragraph 4.3.1.
366th Fighter
Squadron (ACC)
21
Rater Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the rare
instance where digital signatures
cannot be used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type the
date next to the signature (DD
MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
See paragraph 1.4.12.
140 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
HIGHER LEVEL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT
22
CMSgt Only: Higher
Responsibility
Select the block that accurately
describes the ratee’s next level
of responsibility:
READY NOW - Select this
category when CMSgts are
ready to immediately assume
greater responsibility in a more
challenging position than
currently held.
ON-TRACK - Select this
category when CMSgts are
excelling in their current
position, demonstrating growth
potential, and are ready to
transition to a position in a
related specialty, or at a
different organizational level,
at the first available
opportunity.
CURRENT ASSIGNMENT –
Select this category when
CMSgts should remain in their
current assignment for one or
some of the following reasons:
are not forecasted to be moved
in the near-term; have not been
evaluated as a CMSgt in their
current position; may have a
specific expertise required in-
place; be in pre-defined tour
lengths; or be in nominative
positions.
GROOM - Select this category
when CMSgts require
additional grooming in their
duty position or as a CMSgt
Use drop down
function to select
level of
responsibility.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 141
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
prior to being placed in a
position with greater
responsibilities. These
CMSgts may be ready for
increased responsibilities in the
future.
DO NOT RETAIN – Select this
category when CMSgts are not
recommended for retention. Do
not retain recommendations
constitute a referral evaluation
and therefore require senior rater
comments in Section II, part 1.
Comments that exceed one line
will require the use of a DAF
Form 77.
23
SrA –TSgt Only: Promotion
Recommendation
This section is to be
completed only when the
member is eligible for a
promotion recommendation.
Promote (P):
Recommended for
promotion based on
performance at or above
established DAF standards
and expectations. Performs
with the majority of
personnel and at a level
commensurate with peers.
Must Promote (MP):
Recommended for
accelerated promotion based
on stellar performance well
above established DAF
standards and expectations.
Designated for outstanding
performers who perform at a
level higher than their peers.
142 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
RegAF personnel receiving
a “MP” receive a distinct
promotion advantage over
their peers.
Promote Now (PN):
Recommended for
immediate promotion based
on exemplary performance
that far exceeds established
DAF standards and
expectations. Reserved for
elite performers who
perform well above other
personnel in their peer
group. RegAF personnel
receiving a “PN” receive a
significant promotion
advantage over their peers.
Not Ready Now (NRN):
Not considered ready for
promotion at this time based
on the need for additional
grooming in the current
grade, or when personnel
may require specific
attention with regard to
performance of established
DAF standards and
expectations. NRN
evaluations do not
necessarily constitute a
referral, provided the report
contains no negative
comments.
24
MSgt – SMSgt only:
Stratification
(RegAF and AFR only) Senior
rater HLRs may stratify up to
25% of SNCOs. The top 20% of
SMSgts and top 10% of MSgts
will receive a numerator and
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 143
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
denominator stratification (#x of
x). An additional 5% of SMSgts
and 15% of MSgts will receive a
stratification statement of “Top
25% of (respective grade).” For
units with less than the required
TIG/TIS eligible members to
start normal rounding rules, a
stratification/endorsement
statement either in a numerator
and denominator format or a
“Top 25%” format is authorized;
the use of both stratification
formats combined between the
eligible members is not
authorized. See Tables 4.10 and
4.11.
See paragraph 4.11.2.1.
If no stratification is used, enter
the statement, “THIS SECTION
NOT USED”
25
Rater Assessment
Concur/non-concur with the
rater’s assessment by making the
appropriate selection.
26
Future Roles
Recommend up to three
roles/assignments that best
serve the United States Air
Force and continue the
member’s development.
Future roles may not serve as
veiled promotion statements,
i.e., you may ONLY
recommend personnel for a
future role that they are eligible
for based on current or
projected grade and/or the
grade that they are TIG/TIS
eligible for promotion to, as of
the evaluation SCOD.
Use drop down
functions to select
future roles.
1. NCOIC, Force
Management
2. NCOIC,
Operations
3. Section Chief
4. Flight Chief
5. First Sergeant
144 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
Example: A SSgt may not be
recommended for Section
Superintendent duties as that
constitutes a veiled promotion
statement to MSgt.
(CMSgt Only) If the senior
rater marks either “Ready
Now, On-Track, Current
Assignment, or Groom” then
select the block that accurately
describes the ideal future roles
(no more than two roles; first
recommendation or “primary
vector” has highest
precedence).
(CMSgt Only) Note: Senior
raters may not recommend
future roles for those ratees
considered “Do Not Retain”
for higher responsibility.
(CMSgt Only) Note: Senior
raters will stratify all CMSgts
receiving a primary vector for
the current year’s Command
Chief Screening Board.
(T-1) CMSgts being nominated
will be stratified against all
CMSgts under the senior
rater’s purview, not just those
eligible for or nominated for
Command Chief Master
Sergeant (CCM) duty. (T-1)
CMSgt selects may not to be
included in the total number of
CMSgts under the senior
rater’s purview.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 145
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
(CMSgt Only) A stratification
is prohibited for those CMSgts
not receiving nomination for
the current year’s Command
Chief Screening Board. CCM
nominations must be
accompanied by a “Ready
Now” recommendation.
CMSgts not receiving a
“Ready Now” recommendation
for higher responsibility are not
eligible for a primary vector
CCM duty nomination.
(RegAF Only) CMSgt ratees may
only be nominated for CCM duty
provided they meet the minimum
CCM TIG requirements
established by AF/A1LE for the
applicable year’s Command
Chief Screening Board.
27
Comment(s)
Comments are mandatory; must
include at least one performance
statement. See paragraph
1.6.3.11.1. May use “THIS
SECTION NOT USED” as a
mandatory performance
statement.
See paragraph
1.3.3.2.
28
Higher Level Reviewer Name,
Grade, and Branch of Service
Enter the HLR’s information.
The HLR is position-based.
HLRs assigned on or prior to the
close-out date, enter information
as of the close-out date; HLRs
assigned after the close-out date,
enter the information as of the
date signed.
Multiple general officers serving
as evaluators are prohibited; see
paragraph 1.7.1.5 and
Sue J. Doe, Col,
USAF
Sally S. Mesaros,
SES (O-9
equivalent), DAF
Austin T. Smith,
GS-15, DAF
Jeremy R. Dice,
NH-IV (O-6
equivalent), DAF
146 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
paragraph 1.7.1.6 for
exceptions. (T-1)
Jacob M. Freer,
Col, KSANG
29
Higher Level Reviewer Duty
Title
Commander
30
Higher Level Reviewer
Organization and Command
123d Operations
Group (ACC)
31
Higher Level Reviewer Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the rare
instance where digital signatures
cannot be used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type the
date next to the signature (DD
MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
See paragraph 1.4.12.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
32
Comment(s)
Complete only if criteria are met
for additional comments.
If not needed, state, “THIS
SECTION NOT USED”
33
Evaluator Name, Grade, and
Branch of Service
Enter evaluator’s information as
of the SCOD.
34
Role
Enter evaluator’s role.
Air Force
Advisor,
Functional
Examiner
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 147
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
35
Evaluator Duty Title
Enter evaluators duty title as of
the SCOD.
Financial
Manager
36
Evaluator Organization and
Command
Enter evaluator’s information as
of the SCOD.
37
Evaluator Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the rare
instance where digital signatures
cannot be used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type the
date next to the signature (DD
MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
REFERRAL REPORT
38
Referral Report Comments
Complete this section for referral
evaluations only. See
paragraph 1.11.
39
Referring Evaluator Name,
Grade, and Branch of Service
Enter the referring evaluator’s
information as of the SCOD.
40
Referring Evaluator Duty Title
Enter the referring evaluator’s
information as of the SCOD.
41
Referring Evaluator Signature
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the rare
instance where digital signatures
cannot be used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type the
date next to the signature (DD
MMM YY).
148 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
42
Date
Date will auto populate when
report is signed.
27 Mar 2023
43
Ratee Acknowledgement
The ratee must acknowledge
receipt prior to the evaluation
becoming a matter of record by
signing in this block. Signing the
evaluation does not imply
concurrence, but
acknowledgement and review of
personal information on the
evaluation. If the ratee non-
concurs with the evaluation, they
may submit an appeal in
accordance with Chapter 10.
The rater will suspense the ratee
three duty days (30 calendar days
for AFR) to sign the evaluation.
Non-digital: Handwrite, date
stamp or type the date. Sign on
or after the close-out date.
“Member unable to sign”—use
when member is incapacitated or
unavailable to sign; rater or HLR
(digitally) signs.
“Member declined to sign”—use
when member refuses to sign the
evaluation; rater or HLR
(digitally signs.
See paragraph 4.17.
Digital or wet
signatures. A
combination of
both is
authorized.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 149
ENLISTED PERFORMANCE BRIEF
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
Heading
Instructions
Example
44
Signature of Ratee
The evaluations have digital
signature capability which
includes a date stamp. In the rare
instance where digital signatures
cannot be used, sign in
reproducible blue or black ink
and handwrite, stamp, or type the
date next to the signature (DD
MMM YY).
Do not sign blank forms that do
not contain comments and/or
ratings, sign before the close-out
date (only on or after), or date
before the date the rater signed it
or earlier than the date of the
ratee’s endorsement to a referral
letter.
45
Date
Date will auto populate when
report is signed.
27 Mar 2023
Note: There are minor formatting differences between the PDF version of the Enlisted
Performance Brief (AF Form 716) and the system generated version completed in myEval.
150 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 4.10. (RegAF and AFR only) MSgt Stratifications.
# of TIG/TIS
Eligible
Total # of
Stratifications
Available
# of Stratifications
Available in Top 10%
(X of X) (See Note 1)
# of Stratifications
Available in Top
25% (See Note 1)
1
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
2
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
3
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
4
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
5
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
Note:
1. To calculate the total number of authorized numerator and denominator stratifications for
MSgts, units will multiply the total number of eligible MSgts by 10% and apply normal
rounding rules. To calculate the total number of authorized “Top 25% of MSgts”
stratifications, units will multiply the total number of eligible MSgts by 15% and apply normal
rounding rules. This is the only authorized method to calculate the number of authorized
stratifications. (T-1)
2. When there are four or less TIG/TIS eligible MSgts, HLRs may give only one stratification.
In this instance, the HLR may use only one numerator and denominator stratification or a “Top
25%” stratification.
Table 4.11. SMSgt Stratifications (RegAF and AFR only).
# of TIG/TIS
Eligible
Total # of
Stratifications
Available
# of Stratifications
Available in Top 20%
(X of X) (See Note 1)
# of Stratifications
Available in Top
25% (See Note 1)
1
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
2
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
3
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
4
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
5
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
6
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
7
1
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
8
2
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
9
2
(See Note 2)
(See Note 2)
10
3
2
1
11
3
2
1
12
3
2
1
Note:
1. To calculate the total number of authorized numerator and denominator stratifications for SMSgts, units will
multiply the total number of eligible SMSgts by 20% and apply normal rounding rules. To calculate the total
number of authorized “Top 25% of SMSgts” stratifications, units will multiply the total number of eligible
SMSgts by 5% and apply normal rounding rules. This is the only authorized method to calculate the number of
authorized stratifications. (T-1)
2. When there are seven or less TIG/TIS eligible SMSgts, HLRs may give only one stratification; when there are
eight to nine TIG/TIS eligible SMSgts, HLRs may give only two stratifications. In these instances, the HLR may
use either a numerator and denominator stratification or a “Top 25%” stratification.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 151
Table 4.12. Time-in-Grade (TIG) Senior Rater Eligibility Chart.
MSGT CHART
If ratee is:
and EPR c/o date is:
and date of rank is:
TIG Eligible
MSgt
1 Jan 22 - 30 Sep 22
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 21
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 22 - 30 Sep 22
after 1 Jul 21
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 22 - 31 Dec 22
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 22
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 22 - 31 Dec 22
after 1 Jul 22
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 23 - 30 Sep 23
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 22
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 23 - 30 Sep 23
after 1 Jul 22
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 23 - 31 Dec 23
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 23
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 23 - 31 Dec 23
after 1 Jul 23
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 24 - 30 Sep 24
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 23
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 24 - 30 Sep 24
after 1 Jul 23
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 24 - 31 Dec 24
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 24
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 24 - 31 Dec 24
after 1 Jul 24
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 25 - 30 Sep 25
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 24
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 25 - 30 Sep 25
after 1 Jul 24
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 25 - 31 Dec 25
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 25
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 25 - 31 Dec 25
after 1 Jul 25
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 26 - 30 Sep 26
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 25
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 26 - 30 Sep 26
after 1 Jul 25
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 26 - 31 Dec 26
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 26
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 26 - 31 Dec 26
after 1 Jul 26
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 27 - 30 Sep 27
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 26
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 27 - 30 Sep 27
after 1 Jul 26
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 27 - 31 Dec 27
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 27
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 27 - 31 Dec 27
after 1 Jul 27
NO
MSgt
1 Jan 28 - 30 Sep 28
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 27
YES
MSgt
1 Jan 28 - 30 Sep 28
after 1 Jul 27
NO
MSgt
1 Oct 28 - 31 Dec 28
prior to or equal to 1 Jul 28
YES
MSgt
1 Oct 28 - 31 Dec 28
after 1 Jul 28
NO
SMSGT CHART
If ratee is:
and EPR c/o date is:
and date of rank is:
TIG Eligible
SMSgt
1 Jan 22 - 31 Jul 22
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 21
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 22 - 31 Jul 22
after 1 Mar 21
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 22 - 31 Dec 22
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 22
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 22 - 31 Dec 22
after 1 Mar 22
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 23 - 31 Jul 23
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 22
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 23 - 31 Jul 23
after 1 Mar 22
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 23 - 31 Dec 23
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 23
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 23 - 31 Dec 23
after 1 Mar 23
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 24 - 31 Jul 24
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 23
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 24 - 31 Jul 24
after 1 Mar 23
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 24 - 31 Dec 24
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 24
YES
152 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
SMSgt
1 Aug 24 - 31 Dec 24
after 1 Mar 24
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 25 - 31 Jul 25
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 24
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 25 - 31 Jul 25
after 1 Mar 24
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 25 - 31 Dec 25
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 25
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 25 - 31 Dec 25
after 1 Mar 25
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 26 - 31 Jul 26
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 25
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 26 - 31 Jul 26
after 1 Mar 25
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 26 - 31 Dec 26
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 26
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 26 - 31 Dec 26
after 1 Mar 26
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 27 - 31 Jul 27
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 26
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 27 - 31 Jul 27
after 1 Mar 26
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 27 - 31 Dec 27
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 27
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 27 - 31 Dec 27
after 1 Mar 27
NO
SMSgt
1 Jan 28 - 31 Jul 28
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 27
YES
SMSgt
1 Jan 28 - 31 Jul 28
after 1 Mar 27
NO
SMSgt
1 Aug 28 - 31 Dec 28
prior to or equal to 1 Mar 28
YES
SMSgt
1 Aug 28 - 31 Dec 28
after 1 Mar 28
NO
Note: This table is used for static close-out date and out-of-cycle EPRs such as Directed by
Headquarters, DBC, etc.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 153
Table 4.13. The United States Air Force Band (3N2X1) and The United States Air Force
Academy Band (3N3X1) Direct Reporting from Basic Military Training and Promotion to
TSgt.
I
T
E
M
If the Airman has
then the member’s
Initial enlisted
evaluation will begin
with Date of Rank and
have a close-out date of:
Examples
1
both a total active federal
military service date
(TAFMSD) and DOR
between 2 July and 30
November of the same year
the following year’s TSgt
SCOD
1
2
any other combination of
TAFMSD and DOR
the first TSgt SCOD
following their DOR
2, 3, 4
Examples:
1. An Airman with a TAFMSD of 2 Jul 23 and DOR (E-6) of 8 Sep 23, would have an
INITIAL TSgt evaluation of 8 Sep 23 - 30 Nov 24.
2. An Airman with a TAFMSD of 1 Apr 23 and DOR (E-6) of 10 Jun 23, would have
an INITIAL TSgt EPR of 10 Jun 23 - 30 Nov 23.
3. An Airman with a TAFMSD of 1 Jul 19 and DOR (E-6) of 3 Sep 23, would have an
INITIAL TSgt EPR of 3 Sep 23 - 30 Nov 23.
4. An Airman with a TAFMSD of 1 Oct 23 and DOR (E-6) of 3 Dec 23, would have an
INITIAL TSgt EPR of 3 Dec 23 - 30 Nov 24.
Retraining guidance for Airmen selected to become a 3N2 or 3N3 TSgt (e.g., from
regional bands, or other Air Force Specialties):
If a member has no previous enlisted evaluations, an INITIAL report will be accomplished by
the premier band with a rating period from the date they arrived at their previous duty station
to the first 30 November TSgt SCOD following the new DOR (date arrived on station at
premier band), regardless of where member was assigned on the accountability date. The
losing unit will provide an LOE to assist in writing first TSgt EPR.
If a member has received a previous enlisted evaluation prior to becoming a 3N2 or 3N3
TSgt, an ANNUAL report will be accomplished by the premier band with a rating period
immediately following their last enlisted evaluation and close out on the first 30 November
TSgt SCOD following new DOR (date arrived on station at premier band), regardless of
where member was assigned on the accountability date. The losing unit will provide an LOE.
Note: If the member was already a TSgt prior to arrival at a premier band, the unit to which
they were assigned on the accountability date will maintain member on their MEL and will
accomplish the 30 November enlisted evaluation.
154 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Chapter 5
DAF FORM 77, LETTER OF EVALUATION
5.1. Purpose. Letters of evaluation (LOEs) assist raters in preparing officer and enlisted
evaluations and are most often used when the ratee is under the supervision of someone other than
the official rater. Raters may request LOEs from deployed/TDY supervisors or former supervisors
with less than 120 calendar days of supervision during the evaluation reporting period.
5.2. Types of LOEs.
5.2.1. Formal LOEs. Formal LOEs, commonly known as the mandatory LOEs, are filed in
the member’s official records (ARMS/PRDA). Complete mandatory LOEs for the following:
5.2.1.1. Deployed Commander. Documents performance of deployed officers (RegAF,
Guard, or Reserve) through the grade of colonel appointed on G-series orders to fill
detachment, squadron, group, and wing commander positions for at least 45 calendar days.
These LOEs will not restart the officer evaluation “clock” regardless of the TDY tour
length. They are considered “embedded” evaluations. Further, there is no required
minimum or maximum number of days of supervision. Officers filling 365-day
deployments as the detachment, squadron, group, or wing commander will receive an
officer evaluation in accordance with paragraph 3.9.
5.2.1.1.1. A negative assessment or comments will make the LOE a referral and
require additional rater comments. If the evaluation is a referral, the reverse side of the
form (Section VIII) is also completed. There is no minimum number of days required
for completion of a referral LOE. Note: A non-concur does not necessarily make the
report a referral.
5.2.1.1.2. Two evaluators, the rater and additional rater, will complete the DAF Form
77. (T-1) However, if the rater is a general officer, then the rater is considered a single
evaluator and an additional rater is not required unless the report is a referral.
5.2.1.1.3. The form may be typed or handwritten and completed no later than 7
calendar days after ratee relinquishes command. The goal is to ensure that the LOE is
completed before returning to home station. The FROM and THRU dates are
determined by the date assumed/relinquished command.
5.2.1.1.4. LOEs will be accepted directly from individual officers. However, they will
not be processed until the PERSCO team or the Air Force forward (AFFOR)/A1
verifies the eligibility of the officer. (T-1) The officer should contact their PERSCO
team or AFFOR A1 to route the LOE through the appropriate channels.
5.2.1.2. Deployment/Contingency Operations. Document performance for deployed
personnel not assigned to a deployed commander’s billet when there are 60 or more days
of supervision. While an LOE is mandatory, it will not be filed in the member’s official
record. Note: When the home station rater is also the deployed rater, an LOE is not
required.
5.2.1.2.1. There are no official means to track LOEs in a deployed/contingency
operation environment. The rater and ratee are responsible for accomplishing the LOE
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 155
and ensuring it is forwarded to the ratee’s home station rater. Contact the PERSCO
team for local procedures.
5.2.1.2.2. An LOE may be accomplished for periods shorter than 60 days. There is no
maximum number of days of supervision.
5.2.1.2.3. Complete LOEs no later than 7 calendar days from departure. When
circumstances preclude a rater from accomplishing a LOE at the time of departure,
every effort should be made to complete and provide a LOE to the home station when
feasible.
5.2.1.2.4. Failure to receive a LOE is not grounds to appeal a future evaluation based
on the absence or lack of deployment information in an evaluation.
5.2.1.3. PCS/PCA Departures. Document periods for ratees who will PCS/PCA prior to
the SCOD. In cases where the rater departs, complete a draft evaluation to fulfill this
requirement. While an LOE is mandatory, it will not be filed in the member’s official
record.
5.2.1.4. Period of Supervision. Document periods of supervision of at least 60 calendar
days but not enough to require an officer evaluation, less than 120 calendar days of
supervision.
5.2.1.5. Separation. For A1Cs and below with less than 36 months total active federal
military service, an LOE is required for separation cases involving parenthood, conditions
that interfere with military service, unsatisfactory performance, or failure in the fitness
program. If the ratee is separating to go into the ARC or transferring to another branch of
service, an evaluation is required. (T-1) However, for officers only, if there is less than
120 calendar days of supervision an LOE is required. See Table 5.1.
5.2.2. Informal LOEs. Informal LOEs, commonly known as the optional LOEs, are not filed
in the member’s official records/ARMS/PRDA or attached to the completed evaluation. Raters
may use the information from the LOE at their discretion. When used, information may be
paraphrased or directly quoted from the LOE.
5.2.3. Supplemental LOEs. Supplemental LOEs are filed in the member’s official records
(ARMS/PRDA), attached to the evaluation they are supplementing.
5.2.3.1. Types of Supplemental LOEs include:
5.2.3.1.1. Continuation sheet for referral evaluations.
5.2.3.1.2. Continuation sheet for evaluator disagreements.
5.2.3.1.3. Continuation sheet for the Air Force Advisor.
5.2.3.1.4. Continuation sheet for the Functional/Acquisition Examiner.
5.2.4. Administrative LOEs. Administrative LOEs are filed in the member’s official records
(ARMS/PRDA) to document missing, lost, removed, or voided evaluations.
5.2.4.1. Administrative LOEs are not derogatory in nature.
5.2.4.2. Administrative LOEs are used to justify legitimate gaps between evaluations such
as:
156 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
5.2.4.2.1. To document a break in service. See Table 5.1.
5.2.4.2.2. To document extended periods of lost time, including prisoner status and
appellate leave. Upon release, an DAF Form 77 will be accomplished by the servicing
MPF or CSS. The start date will be the day after the close-out of the last evaluation
and the end date will be the day the member is released from confinement. The next
evaluation will begin the day after the close-out date of the LOE. See Table 5.1.
5.2.4.2.3. To document educational leaves of absence, e.g., Bootstrap and/or
educational leave to a civilian institution. See Table 5.1.
5.2.4.2.4. To document a legitimate gap when the ratee was on the temporary disability
retired list and later removed and returned to duty. See Table 5.1.
5.2.4.2.5. To document a legitimate gap for other reasons when approved by AF/A1.
See Table 5.1.
5.2.4.3. Administrative LOEs are used to substitute lost, missing or removed evaluations
such as those:
5.2.4.3.1. Ordered removed by the AFBCMR, in accordance with DAFI 36-2603. See
Table 5.1.
5.2.4.3.2. Ordered removed by the ERAB in accordance with Chapter 10. See Table
5.1.
5.2.4.3.3. Lost and/or missing evaluations in which all actions to locate lost and/or
missing evaluations have failed. See paragraph 1.14 for procedures and Table 5.1 for
preparation of the DAF Form 77.
5.2.4.4. The use of administrative LOEs must be approved by AFPC or ARPC prior to
filing them into the member’s official records (ARMS/PRDA).
5.2.5. Other Purposes. AFPC/DPMSPE may use the DAF Form 77 to document when a board
specific PRF is not required or available as stated below:
5.2.5.1. For officers on appellate leave or in prisoner status.
5.2.5.2. For officers who enter RegAF directly into Air Force-level training.
5.2.5.3. For officers who have a break in service and reenter directly into Air Force-level
training.
5.3. Who Can Prepare.
5.3.1. Raters or any evaluators. Do not skip evaluators who are temporarily unavailable or to
afford a higher-level evaluator the opportunity to endorse or comment on the LOE.
5.3.2. Personnel responsible for observing a ratee’s performance when the ratee is not under
the direct supervision of the designated rater.
5.3.3. Personnel directed to do so by the Air Force Board of Correction or ERAB.
5.3.4. MPF or CSS/HR specialist personnel as authorized.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 157
5.4. Administrative Practices.
5.4.1. LOEs will cover the period from the first day of supervision (or the day following the
close-out date of the last officer evaluation, enlisted evaluation, or TR, whichever is later)
through the last day of supervision.
5.4.2. DAF Form 77 may be typed or handwritten.
5.4.3. Limit comments to space provided on formal LOEs. If additional space is required on
informal or supplemental LOEs, continue comments on a separate page and attach it to the
LOE.
5.4.4. Correct minor errors using a pen or correction fluid. Corrections and/or erasures that
change the meaning of a sentence must be initialed. Re-accomplish forms with excessive
corrections and/or erasures. Do not use self-adhesive correction tape.
5.4.5. Prepare LOEs in one copy.
5.4.6. Prepare LOEs using performance statements only.
5.4.7. Prohibited Comments. See paragraph 1.12 for prohibited comments.
5.4.8. Raters may show an DAF Form 77 to the ratee.
5.5. Completing DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation.
5.5.1. See Table 5.1 for step-by-step procedures on completing all LOEs.
5.5.2. Deployed Commander LOEs. See paragraph 5.2.1.2.1.
5.5.3. Formal LOEs. See paragraph 5.2.1.
5.5.4. General Officer (to include selects) LOEs. See Chapter 7.
5.6. Routing, Updating and Disposition Responsibilities.
5.6.1. Informal LOEs will not be placed in the Master Personnel Record Group. For all other
informal LOEs, to include deployed enlisted ANG AGR/Statutory Tour personnel, the
rater/supervisor forwards the completed form to the MPF, CSS/HR specialist PERSCO team
who will, in turn, forward to the ratee’s new and/or designated rater.
5.6.2. Supplemental LOEs are required to be attached to the evaluation they are supplementing
and will be made a matter of record. They will be placed in the OSR/SNCO selection record
attached to the documents they are supplementing. A copy will be forwarded to ARMS/PRDA.
(T-1)
5.6.3. Administrative LOEs are required to be placed in the OSR or SNCO selection record,
ARMS/PRDA to substitute a missing evaluation or explain a gap between evaluations. The
preparing agency forwards the original to the OSR or SNCO selection record, ARMS, and
PRDA. Perform any updates if required.
5.6.4. For all other LOEs not listed above, contact AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPT for
procedures and/or further guidance.
158 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
5.7. MPF, CSS/HR Specialist, and PERSCO Team Responsibilities.
5.7.1. Quality review LOEs and take corrective action if appropriate.
5.7.2. When applicable, make appropriate updates and forward the LOE to the rater pending
the next evaluation.
5.7.3. Provide LOEs to the member’s rater for use in preparing the next performance
evaluation or training report. LOEs closing during the period of the performance evaluation
will accompany the evaluation notice through the rating chain and remain with the notice and
evaluation until received by the MPF.
5.7.4. Forward LOEs to the member’s gaining MPF or CSS/HR specialist when the member
departs PCS, and no evaluation was required prior to departure.
5.7.5. Give the LOE to the member upon separation, retirement, or completion of the next
performance evaluation. Note: LOEs closing during the period of the performance evaluation
will accompany the evaluation notice through the rating chain and remain with the notice and
evaluation until received by the MPF or CSS/HR specialist. Once the MPF or CSS/HR
specialist determines the evaluation is acceptable for processing to file, they return the LOE to
the ratee.
5.7.6. PERSCO Team Specific Responsibilities.
5.7.6.1. Identifies raters’ and ratees’ projected departure dates to AFFOR/A1, works with
AFFOR/A1 to review and validate the list of commanders they service on G-series orders,
and establish tracking and suspense control for all deployed commander LOEs at the
deployed location. See paragraph 5.6 for disposition of completed LOEs.
5.7.6.2. Provide the deployed rating chain the G-series order number and date for LOE
preparation.
5.7.6.3. Upon receipt of final LOEs from deployed rating chain, verify if an Air Force
advisor is required and forward to the Air Force advisor if required.
5.7.6.4. Final disposition of completed deployed commander LOEs.
5.7.6.4.1. Digitally signed LOEs: Upload the completed DAF Form 77 according to
the Personnel Services Delivery Guide and submit to AFPC/ARPC for transmission to
ARMS/PRDA.
5.7.6.4.2. Wet signature LOEs. PERSCO teams upload the completed DAF Form 77
according to the Personnel Services Delivery Guide. PERSCO teams without system
access will mail the completed DAF Form 77 to AFPC/DPSTSP, 550 C Street West
Suite 7, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, TX 78150. When the servicing PERSCO
team is not collocated with the rater, the rater will mail the form to AFPC/DPSTSP. If
in a location where there is no mailing capability, PERSCO teams will place the
completed form in a pre-addressed envelope and seal it. The ratee, rater, PERSCO
team member, or trusted agent will be allowed to hand-carry and mail the form at first
opportunity.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 159
5.7.7. Additional Processing Responsibilities.
5.7.7.1. AFPC/DPSTSP.
5.7.7.1.1. Upon receipt of the DAF Form 77, AFPC/DPSTSP will validate the form
and update MilPDS for RegAF officers and send to ARMS/PRDA.
5.7.7.1.2. If it is determined that the officer is not eligible at any time in the process,
then the LOE will be changed to “Optional” and forwarded to member’s home unit
rater.
5.7.7.1.3. For RegAF officers, AFPC/DPSTSP forwards original, digitally signed
LOEs to ARMS/PRDA. For colonels, AFPC/DPMSPE sends “wet” signed LOEs to
ARMS/PRDA, AF/A1LO, and either mail or email a scanned copy to the respective
MAJCOM and MPF, if applicable.
5.7.7.1.4. For ARC officers, AFPC/DPSTSP forwards the original to ARPC/DPT, who
will then be responsible for distribution and/or update to applicable organizations,
depending on component and status.
5.7.7.2. ARPC Directorate of Personnel and Total Force Service (ARPC/DPT) and
AF/A1LO.
5.7.7.2.1. Will coordinate with AFPC/DPSTSP to identify officers meeting upcoming
promotion boards.
5.7.7.2.2. Will conduct a quality control review of all deployed commander LOEs,
process through ARMS/PRDA, and file the LOE in the officer’s OSR.
5.7.7.3. ARMS. Once a deployed commander LOE is received, it will be stored in ARMS.
5.7.7.4. MAJCOM or Combatant/Component Command. Responsible for designating the
AF advisor (must be a colonel or above) when the final evaluator for a deployed
commander LOE is not an AF officer or Department of the Air Force official.
160 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 5.1. Instructions for Completing the DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (See Note 5).
SECTION I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA
Item/Description
Instructions
1. Name
Enter Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial and JR., SR., III,
etc. Use of “NMI” (no middle initial) is optional. The name
will be in all upper case.
2. Social Security Number
Enter the Social Security Number.
3. Grade
Drop Down Menu. Select the appropriate grade. See Note 1.
4. Duty Air Force Specialty
Code
Enter the Duty Air Force Specialty Code held as of the THRU
date of the evaluation to include prefix and suffix.
5. Duty Title or Title of
Additional Duty
Enter the approved duty title as of the THRU date of the
evaluation.
6. Deployed Location or
Name Operation
Deployed CC LOE only. If applicable, enter the
operation/contingency name ratee was deployed in support of
(e.g., Operation ENDURING FREEDOM).
SECTION II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Item/Description
Instructions
PART A - Type of Report
Drop Down Menu.
For formal/informal LOEs, enter: Letter of Evaluation
For supplemental sheets, enter: Supplemental Sheet
For acquisition examiner, functional examiner, Air Force
advisor, enter: Acquisition Examiner, Functional Examiner,
Air Force
For administrative LOE: leave blank.
SECTION II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Item/Description
Instructions
PART B
1. From
Thru
See Note 2
From Date: Enter the date supervision began
Thru Date: Enter the date supervision ended
2. Report Is
Drop Down Menu. Select either Mandatory or Optional. See
Table 5.2.
3. Level of Deployed
Commander Duties
Performed
Deployed CC LOE Only. Drop Down Menu. Select either,
Detachment CC, Squadron CC, Group CC, or Wing CC.
4. Number of Days in
Commander Position
Deployed CC LOE Only. Enter the number of consecutive days
served in the deployed commander position, on G-series orders.
5. G-Series Order Number
Deployed CC LOE Only. Enter the G-series order number.
Date of Order
Deployed CC LOE Only. Enter the date of the G-series order.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 161
SECTION III. DEPLOYED COMMANDER ASSESSMENT (For Deployed CCs Only)
Item/Description
Instructions
Officer Satisfactorily
Completed Their Deployed
Command Tour
Deployed CC LOE Only. Select “Yes” if the officer
satisfactorily completed their deployed commander tour. Select
“No” if completion was unsatisfactory. If “No,” the report must
be referred.
SECTION IV. COMMENTS/ IMPACT ON MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT
Item/Description
Instructions
Comments Area
This section is prepared by the deployed rater and the focus of
the evaluation should be on what the officer did and on the
officer’s leadership, team building, and problem-solving
abilities in accomplishing the mission. Limit comments to
space provided on formal LOEs. If additional space is required
on informal or supplemental LOEs, continue comments on a
separate page and attach it to the LOE. Comments must be in
performance statements. See paragraph 1.12 for prohibited
comments; paragraph 1.9 and Notes 5 and 6 for mandatory
comments; and paragraph 1.11 for referral procedures.
SECTION V. RATER IDENTIFICATION DATA (See Note 3)
Item/Description
Instructions
Name, Grade, Branch of
Service, Organization,
Command, Location
Enter evaluator identification as of the close-out date.
Duty Title
Enter authorized deployed duty title.
Date
Digital signatures will auto-date form. If not available
handwrite, type or stamp. Do not date before close-out date.
Social Security Number
Enter last four of the evaluator’s social security number.
Signature
Digitally Sign. If digital capability is unavailable, wet sign in
reproducible blue or black ink. Do not sign before the close-out
date.
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL RATER (Deployed CC Letter of Evaluation Only)
Item/Description
Instructions
Concur/Non-concur Boxes
Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If non-concur is marked,
explain the reason for the non-concurrence in the comments
area.
Comments Area
Insert comments only if referral or to document non-
concurrence. Referral LOEs must contain the applicable
mandatory statement in accordance with paragraph
1.11.5.3.2.2.
Name, Grade, Branch of
Service, Organization,
Command, Location
Enter the name in all uppercase. Enter evaluator identification
in upper/lower or all upper case. All information will be as of
the close-out date. See Note 3.
Duty Title
Enter the duty title as of the close-out.
Date
Digital signatures will auto-date form. If not available
handwrite, type or stamp. Do not date before close-out date.
Social Security Number
Enter last four of the evaluator’s social security number.
162 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Signature
Digitally Sign. If digital capability is unavailable, wet sign in
reproducible blue or black ink. Do not sign before the close-out
date.
SECTION VII. RATEE’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Item/Description
Instructions
I understand my signature
does not constitute agreement
or disagreement
Drop Down Menu. If ratee is unavailable or refuses to sign,
select the applicable statement, “Ratee Unavailable to Sign” and
“Ratee Declined to Sign.” In this case the rater or additional
rater in the rating chain may sign for the ratee.
Signature
Digitally Sign. If digital capability is unavailable or the LOE is
a referral, wet sign in in reproducible blue or black ink. Do not
sign before the close-out date.
Date
Digital signatures will auto-date form. If not available
handwrite, type or stamp. Do not date before close-out date.
SECTION VIII. REFERRAL REPORT (Deployed CC LOE Only) (All other referral
LOEs must use the same procedures as outlined in Chapter 5. The DAF Form 77 is
designed to include the referral memorandum directly on the form.)
Item/Description
Instructions
I am referring.
State specifically what comments make the LOE a referral.
Send Comments to
Enter the grade and name of the referring evaluator’s deployed
rater.
Name, Grade, Branch of
Service of Referring
Evaluator
Enter evaluator identification as of the close-out date. See Note
3. If the evaluator named in this section is the additional rater,
Section VI will be completed in accordance with paragraph
1.11.
Duty Title
Enter the duty title as of the close-out date.
Date
Dates will be handwritten, typed or stamped. Do not date
before the close-out date. The ratee has 3 duty days (30
calendar days for ANG/AFR) to submit comments and the
rebuttal. All supporting documentation is limited to a total of
10 pages, 5 pages front and back.
Signature
Wet sign in reproducible blue or black ink. Do not sign before
the close-out date.
SECTION VIII. REFERRAL REPORT (Deployed CC LOE Only)
Item/Description
Instructions
Signature of Ratee
Signature is for acknowledging receipt. It does not constitute
agreement or disagreement. Wet sign in reproducible blue or
black ink. Do not sign before the close-out date.
Date
Date may be handwritten, typed or stamped. Do not date before
close-out date.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 163
SECTION IX. REFERRAL REVIEWER (Deployed CC Letter of Evaluation Only. Used
Only if Additional Rater Refers the letter of evaluation or as authorized by AFPC/DP3SP)
Item/Description
Instructions
Ratee Did/Did Not Submit
Comments
Place an “X” in the appropriate box.
I Do/Do Not Concur With
Assessment
Place an “X” in the appropriate box.
Comments Area
Insert comments for non-concurrence only.
Name, Grade, Branch of
Service, Organization,
Command, Location
Enter evaluator identification as of close-out.
See Note 3.
Duty Title
Enter the duty title as of the close-out date.
Date
Date may be handwritten, typed or stamped. Do not date before
close-out date.
Social Security Number
Enter only the last four of the evaluator’s social security
number.
Signature
Wet sign in reproducible blue or black ink. Do not sign before
the close-out date.
SECTION X. ACQUISTION OR FUNCTIONAL EXAMINER/AIR FORCE ADVISOR
REVIEW (Used only as applicable)
Item/Description
Instructions
Acquisition Examiner
Place an “X” in the applicable box.
Functional Examiner
Place an “X” in the applicable box.
Air Force Advisor
See Note 4.
Name, Grade, Branch of
Service, Organization,
Command, Location
Enter evaluator identification as of close-out. See Note 3.
Signature
Digitally Sign. If digital capability is unavailable or if LOE is a
referral, wet sign in reproducible blue or black ink. Do not sign
before the close-out date.
Date
Digital signatures will auto-date form. If not available or
referral handwrite, type or stamp. Do not date before close-out
date.
Notes:
1. Grade Data. Use the information below to determine the appropriate grade entry. For:
a. Officers. Enter the active duty grade in which serving on the close-out date. If the ratee has
been frocked, enter actual grade, not the grade the member is wearing.
b. Non-Extended Active Duty ANG and AFR Officers. Enter grade in which serving and “Non-
Extended Active Duty.” When an officer awaiting federal recognition of a unit vacancy
promotion to a higher grade is due an evaluation, show the officer's federally recognized grade
as of the close-out date of the evaluation, not the projected grade.
c. All Active Guard Reserve (AGR) on Extended Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. §§ 10211,
10305, 12310, 12402 or 32 U.S.C. § 708. Enter grade in which serving and “AGR”.
LEAD officers on Extended Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d), enter grade in which
serving and “LEAD”.
2. FROM and THRU Dates. Use the criteria below to establish the correct date to use:
164 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
a. On all LOEs, the FROM date is the first day of supervision or observation; the
day following the close-out of the last evaluation or TR whichever is later; or if there is not
previous evaluation, the extended active duty or total active federal military service date.
b. On informal LOEs, the THRU date is the last day of supervision or observation.
c. On formal LOEs, the THRU date is the day before the effective date (departure date) of the
PCS, PCA, temporary duty action, or the day before the commander’s written notice of a
planned separation in accordance with DAFI 36-3211.
3. Signatures and Dates.
a. Sign and date the original form. Do not sign or date before the close-out date. Enter only the
last four digits of the evaluator’s social security number. If the evaluator is a civilian or a
member of a foreign service, the social security number is not required.
b. Upon Senate confirmation, colonels on the brigadier general select list are permitted to sign
all Officer Evaluation System forms as “Brig Gen (Sel)” provided they are either designated by
their respective management level as a senior rater or they are assigned to an authorized, funded
or unfunded, brigadier general officer position, frocked or not.
c. Upon Senate confirmation, brigadier generals on the major general select list are permitted to
sign all Officer Evaluation System forms as “Maj Gen (Sel)” provided that they are either
evaluating other general officers or are assigned to an authorized, funded or unfunded, major
general officer position, frocked or not.
d. Upon Senate confirmation, all general officer selects, assigned to joint billets or unified
commands, may sign all Officer Evaluation System forms as “NAME, Brig Gen (Sel), USAF”.
e. Any LOE closing out prior to the senate confirmation date will not reflect the “Select (Sel)”
and, if necessary, be forwarded up the chain for endorsement. In addition, all frocked general
officers are authorized to sign all Officer Evaluation System forms in their frocked grade
without designating their frocked status (e.g., major general vice major general “frocked”).
4. The examiner/advisor may provide clarification about the ratee's duty performance, elaborate
on types of functions ratee performs (advisor), or clarify acquisition-related considerations
(examiner), and explain any uncommon phrases or terms. Limit comments to the space
provided. See paragraph 1.6.7 to determine when an acquisition/functional examiner/AF
advisor is required.
5. Gaps and Unrated Periods between Evaluations. See DAFI 36-2608.
a. Documenting Unrated Periods between Officer Evaluations. Complete an DAF Form 77 with
the inclusive dates of the unrated period. Enter the statement “Prior-service enlistee (or officer)
not rated for the above period,” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77. When an officer enters the
Air Force from another service, prepare a DAF Form 77 to cover the period between the close-
out date of the officer’s last performance evaluation in the other service and the date of entry
into the Air Force. The servicing MPF prepares the DAF Form 77 and forwards a copy to the
custodian of the SNCO selection record, Officer Command Selection Record Group (OCSRG),
OSR, and ARMS/PRDA. The servicing MPF informs the officer of the preparation and filing of
the DAF Form 77. Responsibility for the preparation of the DAF Form 77 is as follows:
(1) ARPC for individuals recalled under 10 U.S.C. §§ 10301, 10211, 12301(d), 12310, 10305,
9038 and 12402; US Property and Fiscal Officers recalls under 32 U.S.C. § 708; and recalls to
serve with the Selective Service.
(2) The losing ARC MPF, if assigned to nonparticipating status:
(a) For Reservists. ARPC/DPTSE documents voids in records for periods of service for officers
assigned to a reserve section, voids caused by a Guard officer moving from one state to another,
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 165
and voids caused when a member's federal recognition date is not the day following the close-
out of their last officer evaluation.
(b) For unit recalls, the servicing MPF or CSS prepares the DAF Form 77.
b. For Individuals with Prior Service with Previous Evaluations. When the ratee, including an
enlistee with prior service, has previous performance evaluations on file but has gaps in ratings
due to the breaks in military service, the FROM date becomes the day after the close-out date of
the last evaluation prepared. Enter the statement “Prior-service enlistee (or officer) not rated for
the above period” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77. For the THRU date:
(1) Update the day before the extended active duty date in the system for active duty personnel.
(2) Update the day before the assignment begins in the system for non-active duty SrA and
above.
(3) For enlisted members, project the annual evaluation one year from their extended active
duty date, unless the ratee does not have at least 20 months total active federal military service
on the extended active duty date; in this case, close out the evaluation when the ratee completes
20 months total active federal military service as an initial evaluation. Exception: A DBH
evaluation is required for promotion consideration. For ARC, less than 20 months date initial
entry uniformed services.
(4) For officers, project the annual evaluation one year from their extended active duty date.
Exception: A DBH evaluation is required for promotion consideration.
c. For individuals with prior service, but no earlier evaluations. When an individual with prior
service has no evaluations reports on file, the period of the DAF Form 77 begins with the ratee’s
total active federal military service date (Enlisted) or extended active duty date (Officers) and
closes out the DAF Form 77 one day before the reentry to extended active duty which is
reflected in the system.
(1) Enter the statement “Prior-service enlistee (or officer) not rated for the above period,” in
Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
(2) For enlisted members, update the system with rating code “PB” (Not rated (break in
service)) and the close-out date. For officers, forward the DAF Form 77 to the Master Personnel
Record Group custodian, for routing and distribution.
(3) For enlisted members, project the evaluation to the next static close-out date unless the ratee
does not have at least 20 months total active federal military service on the extended active duty
date; in this case, close-out the evaluation when the ratee completes 20 months total active
federal military service, as an initial evaluation.
(4) For officers, project the annual evaluation one year from their extended active duty date.
Exception: A DBH evaluation is required for promotion consideration.
d. Restored to Regular Active Duty. A release from active duty that has been voided by the
Board for Correction of Military Records and the ratee has been ordered back to active duty.
AFPC/DPMSP will prepare the DAF Form 77. Enter the statement: “No evaluation available
for the period (date) through (date). Officer restored to regular active duty by direction of the
Secretary of the Air Force,” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
e. Lost Time, Confinement or Prisoner Status, or Appellate Leave. To document extended
periods of lost time, including military and/or civilian confinement, prisoner status and appellate
leave, the member’s servicing MPF or CSS will prepare the DAF Form 77. Enter the statement:
“No evaluation available for the period (date) through (date). No evaluation required in
accordance with AFI 36-2406,” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
f. Hospitalizations/Convalescent and/or Casual/Patient Status. To document unrated periods on
166 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
individuals who are in full-time student (functional category “L”) or, hospitalizations, periods of
convalescent and/or casual/patient status, enter the statement: “No evaluation available for the
period (date) through (date). No evaluation required in accordance with AFI 36-2406,” in
Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
g. Educational Leave of Absences. To document unrated periods on individuals who are on an
educational leave of absences (e.g., Bootstrap and/or educational leave to a civilian institution),
the period will be from the time the individual started the educational program through when the
member returned to the unit (subtracting any ordinary leave). Section II A will have marked
"Supplemental Sheet." No other areas will be marked on the DAF Form 77. The DAF Form 77
will be signed ("wet") by no lower than the unit commander of the members' assigned unit.
Enter the statement: “Educational Leave of Absence from (date) through (date). No evaluation
required in accordance with AFI 36-2406” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77. The next
evaluation period will start the day after the thru date on the DAF Form 77.
h. Temporary Disability Retired List. To document an unrated period when the ratee was on the
Temporary Disability Retired List; then removed and returned to active duty (Temporary
Disability Retired List removal and return to active duty is prepared by AFPC Disability
Program Administrator [AFPC/DPFD]) enter the statement: "No evaluation for the period
(date) through (date). Officer not rated due to placement on the Temporary Disability Retired
List," in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
i. AFBCMR Directed. Board actions taken by the AFBCMR under DAFI 36-2603, will enter
the statement: "Not rated for the above period. Evaluation removed by the order of the
SecAF,” in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
j. ERAB Directed. Board actions taken by the ERAB in accordance with Chapter 10 will enter
the statement: (USAF) "Not rated for the above period. Evaluation removed by order of the
Chief of Staff, USAF," in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
k. Lost and/or Missing Evaluations. See paragraph 1.14 for procedures. For lost and/or
missing evaluations in which all actions to find/recover have failed, use the DAF Form 77 as a
substitute for a missing evaluation. Complete the name, social security number, and grade
blocks in section I. Mark the “Supplemental Sheet” block and complete the FROM and THRU
blocks in section II. Enter the statement: “No evaluation available for the period (date) through
(date) for administrative reasons which were not the fault of the member. The system [reflects
an overall rating of “X”]/ [does not reflect an overall rating] in Section IV of the DAF Form 77.
6. When an DAF Form 77 is used for other than performance evaluations, the HR specialist
enters their information in the signature block and signs in Section IV.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 167
Table 5.2. When to submit a Letter of Evaluation.
R
U
L
E
When to Prepare a Letter
of Evaluation
Type
File in MPerRGp
Yes/No
Mandatory
Optional
1
Deployed Commander Letter
of Evaluation. See Note 1.
Formal
Yes
X
2
Separation. See Note 3.
Formal
Yes
X
3
Change of Reporting Official
(CRO) due to the PCS/PCA
of the ratee or rater; and the
ratee is an active duty A1C
or below, with less than 20
months Total Active Federal
Military Service, or an AFR
SrA or below with less than
20 months from Date Initial
Entry Uniformed Services.
Only 16 months for those
airmen who enlisted under
the National Call to Service
program.
See Notes 2 and 6.
Informal
(not filed in the
permanent record)
No
X
4
Officer - CRO due to the
PCS/PCA of the ratee or rater
with any days of supervision.
See Note 2.
Enlisted - CRO due to the
PCS/PCA of the ratee or rater
with any days of supervision.
No
X
5
Enlisted AFR personnel
when the rater departs PCS.
No
X
6
RegAF officer and enlisted
personnel when deployed in
support of contingency
operations. See Note 2.
No
X
7
ANG personnel when
deployed in support of
contingency operations.
No
X
8
Supplemental Letter of
Evaluation. See Note 4.
Supplemental
Yes
X
9
Administrative Letter of
Evaluation. See Note 5.
Administrative
Yes
X
10
All Other Letters of
Evaluation, (Lt Col and
below), not covered above
are optional; however, they
are highly recommended
Informal (not filed in
the permanent record)
No
X
168 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Notes:
1. Deployed Commander LOE. Prepare for officers (in the grade of colonel and below) deployed in support of
contingency operations to fill detachment, squadron, group, and wing commander requirements. Tour length of
deployment to fill commander requirement must be 45 calendar days or more. If a commander is forward
deployed to fill another commander requirement at a different location, they may receive more than one LOE
provided the minimum 45 calendar day requirement is met at each location. The commander must be
designated on G-Series orders. Exception: Commanders filling 365-day extended deployment billets will
have an officer evaluation accomplished if deployed at the commander’s respective SCOD.
2. Supervision Requirements. A minimum of 60 calendar days and not more than 120 calendar days
supervision is required. Deployed personnel not covered in Rule 1, or deployed personnel not filling a 365-day
extended deployment, require a minimum of 60 calendar days supervision. However, supervision may be
greater than 120 calendar days, depending on how long the member is deployed and/or extended. The close-out
date will be one day prior to the member’s departure date.
3. Prepare when required by DAFI 36-3211.
4. Supplemental LOEs are required to be attached to the document they are supplementing and will be filed in
the Master Personnel Record Group with that document.
5. Administrative LOEs are filed in the Master Personnel Record Group for informational purposes, to explain
gaps in records, missing evaluations, breaks in service, etc.
6. If the ratee has less than 20 months total active federal military service and comments in the LOE are referral
in nature, only an informal LOE is authorized. The comments from this LOE may be included in the ratee’s
initial evaluation.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 169
Chapter 6
DAF FORM 475, EDUCATION/TRAINING REPORT
6.1. When to Use Training Reports (TRs).
6.1.1. Submissions are mandatory (see Table 6.2.):
6.1.1.1. Upon completion or interruption of, or elimination from formal training or
education when the scheduled course length is eight weeks or more or as authorized in this
chapter when the specific course is less than eight weeks (Chaplain or Medical Programs,
Squadron Officer School, and Officer Training School); AFR Air Reserve Technicians
(ARTs) and ANG Military Technicians attending formal training or education in civilian
status receive a TR and credit in the civilian evaluation system. Note: Only training of
20 weeks or more will be updated in MilPDS and restart the next evaluation inclusive dates.
(T-3)
6.1.1.1.1. If the interruption or elimination from training was of no fault of the officer,
a TR will be completed if the officer was enrolled in training for 10 duty days or more
to document performance. If the officer was enrolled in training for 9 duty days or less,
a TR is not required. However, a memorandum for record will be produced by the
training squadron commander stating the interruption or elimination was of no fault of
the officer and they are eligible to attend the training, provided they continue to meet
the requirements.
6.1.1.1.2. If the officer is at fault regarding the interruption or elimination from
training, a TR is required regardless of length of time enrolled in training.
6.1.1.2. Enlisted. DAF Forms 475 are not authorized for enlisted members.
6.1.1.3. For self-paced courses, when the prescribed course length is eight weeks or more,
regardless of the time actually required to complete the course.
6.1.1.4. At the end of each academic year, unless the course completion date is within four
months of the annual TR. The academic year for officers attending law school under
Funded Legal Education Program or the Excess Leave Program ends after the officer's
summer internship training.
6.1.1.5. For personnel participating in the World Class Athlete Program, one year from
beginning training, then annually until training is completed or member is eliminated from
training.
6.1.1.6. Reserve Chaplain Candidates. At the end of each active duty training tour of 10
days or more and processed as prescribed by AFRC.
6.1.1.7. Member is assigned to a full-time degree program through the Air Force Institute
of Technology. Requirements are the same as in effect for officers in attendance. The rater
on the TR is designated by the commandant of each Department of the Air Force school or
the detachment commander. The designee must serve in a grade equal to or higher than
the ratee.
6.1.1.8. Interrogator Duty Training. Members fulfilling these requirements must complete
six months of training with the US Army prior to departing for the actual deployment.
170 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Therefore, students attending Interrogator Training are administratively assigned to the
314th Training Squadron, Fort Huachuca, for the 23-week program. These evaluations
will be updated in MilPDS.
6.1.2. Submission for Advanced Academic Degree Subsequent Completion.
6.1.2.1. Upon completion of advanced academic degrees, a member who left full-time
student status prior to completing thesis or dissertation degree requirements may request
to have a TR filed in his or her record. Member must meet the following eligibility criteria
to reflect degree completion:
6.1.2.1.1. The member was assigned to a full-time degree program through the Air
Force Institute of Technology. (T-3)
6.1.2.1.2. The member completed all but the thesis or dissertation portion of the degree
program. (T-3)
6.1.2.1.3. The member has a previous DAF Form 475 in the Master Personnel Record
Group that clearly identifies the reason for non-completion as, “Thesis or dissertation
not completed during an Air Force Institute of Technology tour,” in accordance with
Table 6.1. (T-3)
6.1.2.1.4. The member completed the degree requirements of the Air Force Institute of
Technology program in which they were originally enrolled. (T-3)
6.1.2.1.5. The officer documented degree completion through Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) channels (verified via a MilPDS inquiry). (T-3)
6.1.2.2. The member who meets the above criteria is responsible for submitting an official
transcript to the AFIT Academic Coding Branch (AFIT/MSP) requesting completion of a
TR.
6.1.3. Directed Submission. When directed by HAF, for courses 8 weeks or longer.
6.1.4. AFIT Master’s Degree Students and Other Long School Students. Students will receive
one final TR upon completion of a course 18 months or less. Exception: Above the
promotion zone students will receive DBH TRs (as required) for their applicable central
selection boards. AFIT PhD students will receive a mid-course and final training report. If a
student is disenrolled for unsatisfactory progress or eliminated/withdrawn for other reasons, a
TR is rendered when the member is reassigned. In addition, consider DBC referral TRs if a
student does not meet standards in an area other than training progress.
6.1.5. Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
6.1.5.1. Students completing initial skills training courses will not receive a TR. It is a
total force policy, and the same consistent rules apply.
6.1.5.2. Students completing training (not initial training) courses 20 weeks or longer in
duration will receive a TR.
6.1.5.3. Students taking advanced or supplemental courses longer than 20 weeks will
receive a TR.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 171
6.1.5.4. There are no special or unique distribution instructions for Guard or Reserve
members on TRs. The same procedures used to process performance evaluations will be
used to process TRs.
6.2. Who Prepares Training Reports.
6.2.1. The officer designated by the commandant of each Department of the Air Force school
or the commander of each Air Reserve squadron. The designee must be serving in a grade
equal to or higher than the ratee, except for TRs submitted under paragraph 6.2.2. (T-1)
6.2.2. In exceptional cases, the student's commander and a military training institution may
mutually agree on an evaluator (civilian or military) not under the jurisdiction of the unit of
assignment. An official of a civilian institution will not sign or submit a TR. (T-1)
6.2.3. The education services officer may complete a TR only when they are the rater.
6.2.4. AFIT personnel prepare TRs for officers under the Funded Legal Education Program or
Excess Leave Program. The staff judge advocate of the student’s assigned unit for internship
training may prepare an optional LOE and submit it to AFIT at the end of each summer
internship.
6.2.5. Graduate School of Engineering and Management, AFIT, prepares TRs for officers
participating in the PhD program during both the academic and the research phases. During
the research phase, sponsoring laboratory and research facility personnel may prepare an
optional LOE and submit it to AFIT.
6.2.6. AFIT standardizes TRs that document completion of advanced academic degrees
received after leaving AFIT full-time student status, if all the criteria listed in paragraph 6.2.2
are met.
6.2.7. AFIT personnel prepare TRs on officers in graduate level study programs that are 26
weeks or longer. The evaluator may communicate directly with the institution to obtain the
information required to prepare the evaluation. See Table 6.1 for recording adverse actions.
6.2.8. Officer Training School personnel prepare TRs for officers who complete Officer
Training School.
6.2.9. The Headquarters Air Force Services Agency Commander prepares TRs on members
participating in the World Class Athlete Program.
6.3. Referral Training Reports. See paragraph 1.11.6.4.
6.4. Routing and Responsibilities.
6.4.1. For officers attending school in TDY status:
6.4.1.1. The school prepares the TR, performs a quality review, and makes distribution as
follows:
6.4.1.1.1. Forward the original to AFPC/DPSTSP (ADL) or ARPC/DPMSPE (Reserve
Active Status List [RASL]), who files the TR into the Master Personnel Record Group
and updates MilPDS.
6.4.1.1.2. For judge advocates (lieutenant colonel and below), forward a copy of the
TR to the Air Force Judge Advocate Professional Development Directorate (AF/JAX).
172 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
6.4.1.2. TRs on extended active duty officers are due to AFPC 60 calendar days after
evaluation close-out date. (T-2) AGR and LEAD officers’ evaluations are due to
ARPC/DPTSE 60 calendar days after the close-out date. (T-2)
6.4.1.3. TRs on non-extended active duty officers are due to ARPC/DPTSE 60 calendar
days after evaluation close-out date. (T-2)
6.4.2. For officers attending school in PCS status:
6.4.2.1. The school prepares the TR and forwards the original to AFPC/DPSTSP, ATTN:
Evaluations Operations, 550 C Street West, Joint Base San Antonio, TX 78150.
6.4.2.2. TRs are due to AFPC 60 calendar days after evaluation close-out date (120
calendar days for AFIT/civilian institution programs).
6.4.3. For non-extended active ANG officers, send TRs to the servicing MPF for quality
review, adding of opening dates and AFSCs. The MPF will distribute the completed original
TR to ARPC/DPTSE and copies to the OCSRG and State Adjutant General no later than 60
calendar days after close-out date.
6.4.4. AFIT/RRE will forward the completed TR that documents subsequent completion of an
advanced academic degree to all appropriate agencies for filing in the Master Personnel Record
Group. The TR will be filed based on the signature date of the DAF Form 475, not with the
original DAF Form 475 that indicated non completion of the advanced academic degree.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 173
Table 6.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 475, Training Report (Officers Only).
SECTION I. Identification Data (See Notes 1 and 2)
I
T
E
M
A
B
Item
To Complete
Instructions
1
Name
Enter Last Name, First Name Middle Initial, and Jr., Sr., etc. Use
of “NMI” when there is no middle initial is not mandatory. The
name will be in all upper case.
2
Social Security
Number
Enter social security number.
3
Grade
Select grade.
4
Duty Air Force
Specialty Code
(AFSC)
Enter Duty Air Force Specialty Code held as of the THRU date of
the TR. Include prefix and suffix.
5
Organization,
Command, and
Location
Enter organization data. For Squadron Officer School students and
Officer Training School students enter the organizational data for
Squadron Officer School and Officer Training School.
6
Period of Report
See Table 6.2.
7
Length of Course
For all formal training or education, enter number of weeks
(rounded down to the nearest whole week and followed by the
word “weeks”) of the scheduled training or education. Use
scheduled length of training even if the officer completes a self-
paced course early, course completion is delayed, the officer is
temporarily held beyond the actual course/training completion
date, or the officer is eliminated from training (see Note 3 and
Note 9).
8
Reason for Report
Place an “X” in the appropriate box (see Note 4).
9
Name and Location of
School or Institution
Enter required information (see Note 5).
10
Name or Title of
Course
Enter title of major subject or problems presented or discussed.
SECTION II. Report Data
I
T
E
M
A
Item
To Complete
B
Instructions
Evaluation Report
Data
Complete only the applicable items in this section; leave non-
applicable items blank.
1
AFSC/Aero
Rating/Degree
Awarded
Enter AFSC, aeronautical rating, or degree awarded.
2
Completion
Place an “X” in the box, if applicable.
174 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
3
Distinguished
Graduate (DG)
Place an “X,” if appropriate, in the "Yes" or "No DG Program"
block on final TR. Leave item blank if DG program exists and
ratee did not receive such a designation.
4
DG Award
Criteria/Course Non-
completion Reason
Enter DG Award Criteria or Course Non-completion Reason. For
a student designated as a DG in item 3, provide the criteria
(Example: Top 10 percent of class or grade point average above
3.5) (see Note 6).
SECTION III. Comments
I
T
E
M
A
B
Item To Complete
Instructions
1
Academic Training
Accomplishments
Do include comments if the ratee received recognition for specific
or above average achievement, such as designation as a DG. Do
not make promotion/developmental education recommendations
(see Notes 7 and 8).
2
Professional Qualities
Comments are mandatory concerning general attitude, military
bearing, appearance, conduct, and fitness. When an evaluator
cannot observe professional qualities due to geographic separation
(e.g., civilian institution AFIT students), include the statement,
"Ratee is geographically separated from evaluator," in the
“Professional Qualities” block of section III. Do not make
promotion/developmental education recommendations (see Notes
7 and 8).
3
Other Comments
Section may be used to clearly identify uncommon acronyms or
other information outside the training environment (e.g.,
performance during the inclusive periods).
SECTION IV - Evaluator
I
T
E
M
A
B
Item To Complete
Instructions
1
Evaluator Data
Enter information required and command of assignment for
evaluator in the spaces provided. Sign the original (copies: sign,
initial, or stamp SIGNED). Do not sign or date an evaluation
before the close-out date. The grade and duty title must coincide
with those held on the close-out date of the evaluation. Enter only
the last four digits of the social security number. If the evaluator is
a civilian or a member of a foreign service, the social security
number is not required.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 175
Notes:
1. See TR notice for ratee identification data. If any data is incorrect, notify the MPF or CSS/HR
specialist for correction.
2. See Table 6.2 for FROM and THRU areas.
3. For AFR selective service officers attending a National Security Seminar, leave blank.
4. Use the following guidelines in determining the reason for the TR:
a. Final. On completion of, interruption by official orders of, or elimination for any reason from
scheduled course/training program, or when released by the training organization.
b. Annual. At the end of each academic year, except for final year, for officers in extended programs.
When the graduation date is within four calendar months of the annual evaluation, submit a final TR in
place of the annual TR.
c. Directed. When directed by HAF or an appropriate commander for extended active duty officers or
AFR officers not on extended active duty, or NGB for ANG officers not on extended active duty. TRs
will reflect "Directed."
5. For AFR officers in selective service performing their annual active duty tour for training through
attendance at a National Security Seminar, enter "National Security Seminar" and location.
6. If the student has failed to complete the course of training, use one of the following phrases and
indicate whether the elimination was due to factors over which the student did or did not have control (if
derogatory comments are used, the TR must be referred):
a. Withdrawn without prejudice for the needs of the Air Force (only used for those in training for 10 duty
days (or more) and training was interrupted or the officer was eliminated due to no fault of their own).
b. Withdrawn for humanitarian reasons (only used for those in training for 10 duty days (or more) and
training was interrupted or the officer was eliminated due to no fault of their own).
c. Eliminated for academic deficiency.
d. Eliminated for flying deficiency.
e. Eliminated for physical reasons.
f. Eliminated for fear of flying.
g. Eliminated for manifestation of apprehension.
h. Eliminated for instructor non-adaptability.
i. Eliminated for skill or aptitude deficiency.
j. Voluntary self-elimination.
k. Physical fitness failure.
l. Thesis or dissertation not completed during AFIT tour.
m. If none of the above reasons apply, state the reason. To explain further, also enter "See Comments,"
and explain in the appropriate comment section.
7. The following entries are mandatory when applicable:
a. Comments regarding court-martial convictions.
b. Comments regarding elimination or interruption of training by official orders, citing specific reason
when possible.
c. If an officer has any adverse information filed in their officer selection record, comments relating to
the ratee’s behavior are mandatory if not already documented.
d. Comments mandatory for AFR selective service officers: enter "Officer is attending this section of
National Security Seminar as their annual short tour." Note: Evaluators are required to make comments
on TRs regarding adverse information filed in an officer’s officer selection record.
8. Comments are standardized on TRs prepared by AFIT/RRE.
9. Hold evaluations for students who complete a course early (Example: Self-paced course) until the
course supervisor determines whether the student is a distinguished or outstanding graduate. The THRU
date on the TR is the date the officer completes the course, not the date the school determines the officer
is a distinguished or outstanding graduate.
176 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 6.2. When to Prepare DAF Form 475, Training Report.
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
If the member is attending
and education or training is
then the
information
management
tool (IMT) is
1
A degree granting academic education
program through AFIT.
any length.
See Notes 1 and 2.
filed in Officer
Command
Selection
Record
(OCSRG),
Senior
Noncommissio
ned Selection
Record Group
(NSRG) and
Master
Personnel
Record Group
(MPerRGp).
See Note 3
2
Developmental Education, In-
Residence:
(Air Force) Primary Developmental
Education (PDE), Intermediate
Developmental Education (IDE), Senior
Developmental Education (SDE)
8 weeks or more, but less than
20 weeks. See Note 4.
3
20 weeks or more. See Note 1.
4
The National Security Seminar for all
selective service AFR officers not on
extended active duty (AFR Officers
only).
5
A course or series of courses considered
initial training in a utilization field. See
Notes 5 and 6.
8 weeks or more, but less than
20 weeks. See Notes 4 and 8.
6
20 weeks or more. See Notes 1
and 8.
7
A direct commissioning program, such
as Officer Training School. See Note 6.
8 weeks or less
8
The World Class Athlete Program. See
Note 11.
any length. See Note 1.
9
The Air Force Intern Program. See
Note 7.
20 weeks or more. See Note 1.
10
The Reserve Chaplains Program (AFR
Officers only).
10 days or more. See Note 8.
filed in the
OSR at ARPC/
DPTS
11
The Chaplain Candidate Program (AFR
Officers only).
active duty tour of 10 days or
more. See Notes 1 and 9.
12
8 weeks or less
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 177
13
Training or education not covered
above. See Note 10.
8 weeks or more but less Than
20 weeks. See Notes 4 and 8
filed in
OCSRG,
NSRG and
MPerRGp.
See Note 3
14
20 weeks or more. See Notes 1
and 8.
15
Interrogator Duty Training.
23 weeks or more. See Note
12.
Notes:
1. TRs prepared under this rule begin the day following the THRU date of the student’s last
officer evaluation or TR unless it is an initial TR. For initial TRs, the FROM date is: the date
of officer’s entry on extended active duty or start of the current AGR/LEAD assignment; or the
date of the first federally recognized appointment for ANG students not on extended active duty;
or for AFR students not on extended active duty, the date of the last assignment to the Ready
Reserve position presently held. The THRU date is the date the training or course ends or when
the officer is released by the training organization. Example: A student has an officer
evaluation that closed out on 1 July 2023 and attends a course beginning on 6 August 2023. The
course graduated on 5 August 2024. The period of evaluation should be 2 July 2023 to 5 August
2024. In the event the officer remains in casual status with the training organization, the period
of the evaluation will be to the date the officer is released. AFR Air Reserve Technicians
(ARTs) and ANG Military Technicians attending formal training or education in civilian status
receive TRs and credit in the civilian evaluation system. Note: For course lengths, refer to the
Air Force Education and Training Course Announcements at site
https://usaf.dps.mil/teams/app10-etca/sitepages/home.aspx, or other appropriate directive.
2. Do not accomplish TRs on students in the Education Leave of Absence Program in TDY
status unless course length is 26 weeks or more.
3. The OCSRG is not maintained on lieutenants or non-promotion eligible captains on the ADL.
4. TRs prepared under this rule cover a period independent of the ratee’s officer evaluation
period. Therefore, it is not necessary to prepare an officer evaluation solely because the officer
is going to school. Use the following period of report: FROM date is the course start date; and
the THRU date is the date of completion, interruption, or elimination from formal training or
education training. Example: A ratee had an officer evaluation that closed out on 1 Nov 2023
and attends a course from 1 January 2024 to 1 Apr 2024. The DAF Form 475 covers the period
from 1 January 2024 to 1 Apr 2024. The ratee’s next officer evaluation will have a FROM date
of 2 November 2023 and the time the officer is absent will be subtracted from the period of
supervision on the next officer evaluation. AFR Air Reserve Technicians and ANG Military
Technicians attending formal training or education in civilian status receive TRs and credit in the
civilian evaluation system. Note: For course lengths, refer to the Air Force Education and
Training Course Announcements at site https://usaf.dps.mil/teams/app10-
etca/sitepages/home.aspx, or other appropriate directive.
5. Includes Undergraduate Pilot Training, Student Undergraduate Pilot Training, Undergraduate
Navigator Training, and Student Undergraduate Navigator Training, Undergraduate Space and
Missile Training, Aircraft Maintenance Officer Course and other entry-level courses (as
determined by the MAJCOM). Officials at MAJCOM HQs and HAF are responsible for the
course content and curriculum and determine if the course is initial qualification. Note:
Officers in the second year of Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations
(AF/XO)-sponsored Nuclear Technology Fellows Program, working in their primary specialty,
178 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
and health profession officers who are in-utilization training for one year or more will have an
officer evaluation versus a TR. AF/XO and AF/SG will determine the rating chain for the
identified officers and in coordination with AFPC/DP3SP, will determine which positions will
be designated senior rater for these officers. These nuclear technology fellows and health
profession officers still remain students in training status. This guidance affects officer
evaluations only; it has no impact on the requirement for narrative only PRFs for the officers in
training.
6. This training applies to judge advocates, chaplains, medical officers, cyberspace officers, and
Air Force Reserve operation analysts, intelligence officers, security forces officers, chemists,
nuclear chemists, physicist/nuclear physicists, developmental engineers, and acquisition
managers.
7. Annual, Directed, and Final TRs, as appropriate, will be prepared at the end of each training
phase.
a. Annual TRs will be prepared by the sponsoring organization for interns in Phase IIIA; they
will close-out on 30 Jun.
b. Directed TRs will be prepared by the sponsoring organization for interns in Phase IIIB who
opt to complete a master’s degree or elect a third rotation; TRs will cover the period 1 Jul to 31
Dec.
c. Final TRs will be prepared by the sponsoring organization for interns who opt for a post-
training assignment upon completion of Phase IIIB or who opt for and complete a third rotation.
8. For self-paced formal Air Force training courses when the prescribed course length is eight
weeks or more, regardless of the time actually required to complete the course.
9. DAF Form 475 on chaplain candidates are prepared and processed as prescribed by ARPC.
ARPC/DPTSE will file chaplain DAF Forms 475 in the selection folder.
10. This is generally training designed to upgrade or enhance an officer's qualification in a
utilization field. Includes initial qualification in a weapon system for officers qualified in that
utilization field. Example: Pilots undergoing initial F-15 training would be evaluated under
this rule.
11. For members participating in the World Class Athlete Program, one year from beginning
training, then annually until training is completed or member is eliminated from training.
12. Members fulfilling these requirements must complete six months of training with the US
Army prior to departing for the actual deployment. Therefore, students attending Interrogator
Training are administratively assigned to the 314th Training Squadron, Fort Huachuca, for the
23-week program. These evaluations will be updated in MilPDS.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 179
Chapter 7
GENERAL OFFICER EVALUATIONS
7.1. Overview. This chapter covers procedures for completing DAF Form 78, Department of the
Air Force General Officer Promotion Recommendation. It applies to all RegAF and Reserve
brigadier generals and major generals (to include selects) except State Adjutant Generals.
7.2. Forms Used.
7.2.1. For brigadier and major generals (to include Senate confirmed selects and frocked), use
DAF Form 78. See Table 7.1.
7.2.2. Use DAF Form 77 to document performance and potential and to provide that
information to the management level. See Table 7.2. It is also used to document performance
of general officers/selectees who are serving in a TDY status for more than 60 but less than
179 calendar days. General officers/selectees that are serving in a TDY status for more than
180 calendar days receive an DAF Form 78. See Table 7.1.
7.3. Reasons for Reports.
7.3.1. Annual Reports. Brigadier general (including Senate confirmed selects) reports close-
out 31 July; non extended active-duty brigadier general (including Senate confirmed selects)
reports close-out 31 May.
7.3.2. Change of Reporting Official (CRO) Reports. In the event a CRO occurs, and there are
at least 60 calendar days of supervision, a CRO report is optional if the CRO occurs outside
60 calendar days from the annual requirement with the approval of AF/A1LG (AF/REG for
non-extended active duty officers). A CRO is any close-out date other than the SCOD (31 July
for brigadier generals and Senate confirmed selects).
7.3.3. Directed by HAF Reports. AF/A1LG (AF/REG for non-extended active duty officers)
may direct general officer (GO) reports at any time, regardless of the days of supervision.
7.3.4. Directed by NGB Reports. NGB-SL-B may direct GO reports at any time, regardless
of the days of supervision.
7.3.5. Officers Selected and Confirmed for Brigadier General. This report covers the period
of supervision since the member’s last report as a colonel and transitions the member to the
brigadier general annual report cycle. Use the Colonel SCOD when the selected member’s
report is due prior to Senate confirmation and prior to the brigadier general SCOD. This report
will count for the entire calendar year. See paragraph 7.4.8 for further details.
7.4. General Instructions.
7.4.1. Who receives reports. Brigadier generals (including Senate confirmed selects) will
receive at least one DAF Form 78 per calendar year. (T-1) If a CRO occurs between January
and the general officer SCOD (31 July for brigadier generals and Senate confirmed selects),
coordinate with AF/A1LG to determine appropriate procedures.
7.4.2. General Officers selected for Major General. Once a GO is selected for promotion to
major general, completion of the report is optional. Remove the GO from the Management
Control Group.
180 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
7.4.3. General Officers Who Have Applied for Retirement. If the GO is a brigadier general
and is eligible for promotion consideration to major general and the approved retirement date
is more than 90 calendar days from the promotion board convening date, a report is mandatory.
If the brigadier general is promotion eligible and the approved retirement date is within 90
calendar days of the major general board convening date, remove the GO from the management
control group.
7.4.3.1. Write a report if a GO withdraws their retirement. The report will close-out on
the appropriate current cycle performance report close-out date. (T-1)
7.4.3.2. Make a promotion recommendation on DAF Form 78, block 15, only if the
member withdraws their retirement within 90 calendar days prior to the annual cycle close-
out date.
7.4.4. General officers with dual responsibilities in separate management levels. The ratee's
management level of administrative assignment controls the promotion recommendation (or
evaluation). However, any of the ratees’ supervisors may submit appropriate communications
to the management level for consideration.
7.4.4.1. Use the ratee's duty effective date and the annual cycle close-out date to determine
the management level of administrative assignment.
7.4.4.2. Any member of the ratee's rating chain (in either management level) may submit
appropriate communications to the endorsing official for consideration.
7.4.5. Officers Removed for Cause. Document the reason an officer was removed from duty
for cause in the appropriate annual or CRO report. Contact AF/A1LG (AF/REG for non-
extended active duty officers, or NGB-SL-B for Air National Guard of the United States
general officers.
7.4.6. General officers reassigned to a new management level during the evaluation process
(includes command resignations). If the GO is reassigned to a new management level within
60 calendar days before or after the annual cycle close-out date, either the gaining or losing
management level completes the endorser portion (block 16) on the DAF Form 78. Both
management levels must agree on which management level will function as the endorsing
official. (T-1) AF/A1 and AF/A1LG (AF/REG for non-extended active duty officers) must
concur with the decision. (T-1) If a CRO occurs within the period 60 to 90 calendar days
before the annual cycle closes out and the ratee changes management levels during this period,
the losing management level completes the CRO report (do not complete block 15). Follow
the directions in the next subparagraphs to determine who completes the final endorsement
and/or promotion recommendation.
7.4.6.1. If the ratee worked directly for the losing management level, then the losing
management level completes blocks 1-15 of the DAF Form 78. The gaining management
level will complete the remaining portion, to include the final endorsement or promotion
recommendation. (T-1)
7.4.6.2. If the ratee did not work directly for the losing management level, then the losing
rater completes the rater portion of the DAF Form 78 (through block 15) and forwards it
to the losing management level. The losing management level completes a mandatory
DAF Form 77, attaches it to the DAF Form 78 and forwards both forms to the gaining
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 181
management level for completion, to include the final endorsement or promotion
recommendation.
7.4.7. General officers reassigned within the current management level during the evaluation
process. If the GO moves within 90 days of the appropriate annual cycle close-out date and
the officer's management level does not change, the rater completes a CRO report (minimum
90 calendar days supervision). This report will serve in place of the annual report. (T-1)
Provide the report to the management level for completion of blocks 15 through 19 (on
promotion-eligible officers) or blocks 16 through 19 (not promotion-eligible). The
management level will complete the report upon the annual cycle close-out date along with
other annual reports on officers in the same control group. (T-1) If a CRO occurs within the
period 60 to 90 calendar days before the annual cycle closes out and the ratee does not change
management levels during this period (e.g., rater departs PCS or ratee changes jobs within
management level, the rater completes a CRO report and the management level holds the report
until the end of the annual cycle. The CRO report will serve as the annual report. (T-1)
7.4.8. Officers Selected and Confirmed for Brigadier General.
7.4.8.1. When promotion to brigadier general is publicly announced by AF/A1LG
(AF/REG for non-extended active duty officers) as Senate confirmed, prepare an DAF
Form 78.
7.4.8.2. If the member’s last performance report as a colonel closes out before the annual
brigadier general cycle (31 Jul or 31 May for non-extended active duty), the member’s next
performance report will close-out 31 Jul, or 31 May for non-extended active duty, unless a
CRO or DBH report is required. (T-1) The member’s next report will comply with
paragraph 7.3. (T-1)
7.4.8.3. Use an officer ALQ evaluation when the selected member’s evaluation is due prior
to Senate confirmation and prior to the brigadier general SCOD. This report will count for
the entire calendar year. (T-1)
7.4.8.4. Forward reports within 30 calendar days of the close-out to: AF/A1LG for
extended active duty officers; NGB-SL-B for ANG officers; and AF/REG for reserve
officers.
7.5. Processing General Officer Evaluations. Email all digitally signed GO evaluations to
AF/A1LG for update in MilPDS and upload into the member’s record in ARMS/PRDA.
7.5.1. Extended Active Duty Officers Assigned to an Air Force Activity. In activities with a
director of personnel (A1/S1) function (e.g., MAJCOMs), the A1/S1 ensures evaluators
complete all reports correctly and forwards them to AF/A1LG within 30 calendar days of the
report close-out date.
7.5.2. Extended Active Duty Officers Assigned to Air Force Secretariat, Air Staff, or Non-AF
Activities. For activities not serviced by an Air Force A1/S1, AF/A1LG assists executive
officers with the preparation of the DAF Form 78.
7.5.3. Air Force Reserve General Officers. Send reports to AF/REG within 30 calendar days
of the report close-out date.
7.5.4. Air National Guard General Officers. Send reports to NGB-SL-B within 30 calendar
days of the report close-out date.
182 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
7.5.5. When a Report Becomes a Matter of Record. Once the Chief of Staff, United States
Air Force reviews the report and AF/A1LG accepts the report for file, the report becomes a
matter of record. For the Air National Guard general officers, the report becomes a matter of
record when NGB-SL-B accepts the report for file. For non-extended active-duty officers, the
report becomes a matter of record when AF/REG accepts the report for file.
7.5.6. Release of Reports to Ratees by Reporting, Reviewing, and Endorsing Officials. The
management level should provide a copy of the completed report to the ratee. The rater,
reviewing official or management level (at their discretion) should discuss its contents with
the ratee. Ratees may access copies of their reports via ARMS/PRDA or request copies from
AF/A1LG. Offices of primary responsibility are NGB-SL-B for ANG general officers, or
AF/REG for non-Extended Active Duty officers. Advise ratees a report is not considered a
matter of record until it is reviewed by CSAF (does not apply to ANG GO or AFR reports) and
filed in the selection record.
7.5.7. AF/A1LG maintains all extended active duty performance reports with close-out dates
on or after 1 February 1991. Note: AF Forms 71, 77, and 78 that closed out on or before 31
January 1991 are not available for review. They were rendered under an express promise of
confidentiality and are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy
Act.
7.6. Extensions of Close-out Dates.
7.6.1. The authority to extend the close-out date for general officer evaluations are AF/A1LG
(for RegAF and AFR extended active duty general officers), NGB-SL-B (for non-extended
active duty ANG general officers). Exception: In the event a CRO occurs prior to the annual
close-out date of an evaluation, and 60 calendar days of supervision has not been obtained as
of the annual close-out date, MPF/CSS personnel will adjust the close-out to the date on which
the rater achieves 60 days of supervision.
7.6.2. Events that occur after the close-out date. Extensions are only granted to allow
evaluators to document negative behavior (e.g., court-martial actions, investigations, etc.).
Extensions are not granted to document awards, achievements, or completion/non-completion
of any training. Extensions on DBH evaluations are not authorized. Extensions must be
requested prior to but no later than 30 calendar days after the close-out date of the evaluation.
7.6.3. Pending Administrative Actions. If an incident or event occurs that reflects a departure
from standards or derogatory in nature between the time an annual or initial evaluation closes
out and the time it becomes a matter of record that is of such serious significance that inclusion
in that evaluation is warranted, an extension of the close-out date may be requested by the unit
commander. This includes completion of an investigation begun prior to the close-out date or
confirmation of behavior that was only alleged as of the close-out date. Commanders may
request officer evaluation close-out date extensions to ensure resolution of any pending
administrative actions or other significant issues. Extensions will be granted to cover only the
time necessary to complete actions, not to exceed 59 days.
7.6.4. When the approving authority grants an extension, only one extension, not to exceed 59
days will be granted. (T-1) If the action cannot be finalized by, or event occurs after, the
extended close-out date, the evaluation will be completed using the original close-out date.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 183
(T-1) If desired, the commander can then direct another evaluation be rendered at the 120-day
point (60-day point for referral evaluations) to capture the incident.
Table 7.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 78, Department of the Air Force General
Officer Promotion Recommendation.
A
B
C
To Complete
Instructions
Block
Item
1
Name
Self-Explanatory.
2
Social Security
Number
3
Grade
Enter the appropriate grade and include the status if the ratee is a
selectee frocked. For example, Brig Gen (Sel) or Brig Gen.
4
Duty Title
Self-Explanatory.
5
Organization
6
Total Active
Federal
Commissioned
Service (TAFCS)
/Total Federal
Commissioned
Service Date
(TFCSD)/Total
Years’ Service
Date (TYSD)
7
Mandatory
Retirement Date
(MRD)/Mandatory
Separation Date
(MSD)/Date of
Separation
8
Reason
9
Fitness
Check appropriate block regarding member’s most recent,
current fitness assessment. Only mark the exempt block if the
member is exempt from all components of the fitness
assessment.
10
“FROM” Date
Members selected to brigadier general and publicly announced
by AF/A1LG as confirmed: The report opens on the day
following the close-out of the colonel’s previous report.
Subsequent general officer reports will open the day following
the close-out date of the previous report.
184 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
“THRU” Date
Brigadier general reports (includes brigadier general selectees
and those frocked to brigadier general) will close-out 31 July (31
May non-extended active duty) unless a CRO or DBH or NGB
report is necessary.
11
Rater’s Comments
Comments will be typed in plain language (narrative) format and
limited to 350 characters. Include comments concerning the
ratee's personal and professional characteristics with emphasis
on the ratee's potential to assume a higher grade or increased
responsibilities. Also, consider ratee’s success in contributing to
a healthy organizational climate, or command climate (if ratee is
a commander). As supporting rationale, identify specific jobs
where the ratee could be used in a higher grade. If not being
recommended for promotion but is being recommended for
further service in the ratee’s current grade, identify options for
future use. If an officer is the subject of a substantiated
allegation, complaint, or investigation, or if the officer was
removed from duty for cause, use this section to address the
issue(s). Do not consider or comment on marital status or the
employment, educational activities, or volunteer service
activities of the ratee’s spouse. As applicable, include comments
on achievements in implementing the recommendations of the
Secretary of Defense's Report to the President on Defense
Management of July 1989.
12
Rater’s ID (name,
grade, and duty
title)
Major general selectees may, once confirmed by the Senate, sign
the DAF Form 78 as a selectee. See Table 7.2 notes. Do not
date or sign prior to the THRU date.
13
Signature
Digital Signature.
14
Date
Date of signature will auto populate.
15a
Promotion
Recommendation
For Brigadier Generals: Block 15a will be completed on all
brigadier general and brigadier general selects. All brigadier
generals must have at least one year time in grade to be
considered for promotion to the next higher grade. See 10 U.S.C
§§ 619, 14303. If the brigadier general or brigadier general
select will have one year time-in-grade as of the board convening
date mark “ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION THIS CYCLE.” If
the brigadier general or brigadier general select will not have one
year time-in-grade as a brigadier general as of the board
convening date mark “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION
THIS CYCLE.” If the brigadier general has an approved
retirement on file mark “RETIREMENT.” Contact AF/A1LG
for any questions regarding the board convening date.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 185
15b
Numerical Grade
Complete this block for brigadier generals only if “Eligible For
Promotion This Cycle” is checked in block 15a. The exception
to this rule is for officers who are approved for retirement. If an
officer has a date of separation within 90 days of the board
convening date, do not complete this block. If the date of
separation is 90 or more days from the convening date the officer
must be considered and block 15b must be completed.
16
Comments
See instructions for block 11 (this table). Comments will be
typed in plain language (narrative) and limited to 250 characters.
If the rater is also the management level, use block 11 to enter
comments or type “The rater is also the endorsing official,” in
block 16.
17
Endorser’s ID
(name, grade, and
duty title)
Do not sign or date prior to the “TO” date. This block will still
be completed if marked “The rater is also the endorsing official.”
18
Signature
Digital Signature.
19
Date
Date of signature will auto populate.
186 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 7.2. Instructions for DAF Form 77 for General Officers.
A
B
C
To Complete
Instructions
Sec
Block
I
Name
In all upper-case letters, enter last name, first name middle initial, and
JR., SR., etc. Use of “NMI” when there is no middle initial is
optional.
Social Security
Number
Enter social security number.
Grade
Select the appropriate grade.
See Notes.
Duty Air Force
Specialty Code
Enter "90G0."
Duty Title or Title
of Additional
Duty
Enter the approved duty title as of the THRU date of the evaluation.
Deployed
Location or
Named Operation
Deployed CC LOE only. If applicable, enter the
operation/contingency name ratee was deployed in support of. (e.g.,
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM).
IIA
Type of Report
Drop Down Menu.
For Formal/Informal LOEs, enter: Letter of Evaluation;
For Supplemental Sheets, enter: Supplemental Sheet;
For Acquisition Examiner, Functional Examiner, AF Advisor, enter:
Acquisition Examiner, Functional Examiner, AF Advisor
For Administrative LOEs, leave blank.
IIB
Report Dates
Enter the dates as they appear on the DAF Form 78. If a TDY rating
official is rendering a report because of the ratee's TDY of 90 days or
more, enter the inclusive dates of the TDY.
“Report is...”
Drop Down Menu. Select either “Mandatory” or “Optional.” See
Table 5.2. If the DAF Form 77 will be attached to the DAF Form 78
or is being rendered by a TDY rating official resulting from the ratee's
TDY of 60 calendar days or more, mark the box entitled,
"Mandatory." All other DAF Forms 77 are optional.
Level of
Deployed CC
Duties Performed
Deployed Commander LOE only. Drop Down Menu. Select either
Det CC, Squadron CC, Group CC, or Wing CC.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 187
Number of Days
in CC Position
Deployed Commander LOE Only. Enter the number of consecutive
days served in the deployed commander position, on G-series orders.
G-Series Order
Number/Date of
Order
Deployed Commander LOE Only. Enter the G-Series Order Number.
Deployed Commander LOE Only. Enter the date of the G-Series
Order.
III
Deployed
Commander
Assessment
Deployed Commander LOE Only. Select “Yes” if the officer
satisfactorily completed their deployed commander tour. Select “No”
if completion was unsatisfactory. If “No,” the report must be referred.
IV
Comments
Hand-write comments in dark blue or black ink. Limit comments to
the space provided. Include comments concerning personal and
professional characteristics with emphasis on potential to assume a
higher grade or increased responsibilities. Also, consider ratee’s
success in contributing to a healthy organizational climate, or
command climate (if ratee is a commander). As supporting rationale,
identify specific jobs where the ratee could be used in a higher grade.
If not being recommended for promotion but is being recommended
for further service in the ratee’s current grade, identify options for
future use. If an officer is the subject of a substantiated allegation,
complaint, or investigation, or if the officer was removed from duty
for cause, use this section to address the issue(s). Do not consider or
comment on the marital status or the employment, educational
activities, or volunteer service activities of the ratee’s spouse. As
applicable, include comments on achievements in implementing the
recommendations of the Secretary of Defense's Report to the President
on Defense Management of July 1989.
IV
Evaluator Data
Information will be as of the THRU date of the report. Sign original
on or after THRU date. Once the U.S. Senate confirms the promotion,
major general selectees may sign the DAF Form 77 as a selectee. See
Notes. Remaining blocks are self-explanatory.
188 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Notes: (Brigadier and Major General “(Sel)”/“Frocked” signing Officer Evaluation System
forms)
a. Once Senate confirmed, colonels on the brigadier general select list are permitted to
sign all Officer Evaluation System forms as “(Sel)” provided that they are either designated by
their respective management level as a senior rater or they are assigned to an authorized
brigadier general officer position.
b. Once Senate confirmed, brigadier generals on the major general select list are permitted
to sign all Officer Evaluation System forms as “(Sel)” provided that they are either evaluating
other general officers or are assigned to an authorized Maj Gen officer position.
c. Frocked general officers are authorized to sign all Officer Evaluation System forms in
their frocked grade without designating their “Frocked” status (e.g., major general vice major
general “Frocked”).
d. Once Senate confirmed, all general officer selects assigned to joint billets or unified
commands may sign all Officer Evaluation System forms as “(Sel)”.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 189
Chapter 8
PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL REVIEW (MLR)
PROCESS
8.1. DAF Form 709 (for ADL officers).
8.1.1. Purpose. The purpose of the promotion recommendation process is to provide
performance-based differentiation to assist central selection boards. The DAF Form 709,
Promotion Recommendation, is used for promotion purposes only. Note: Except for
paragraphs 8.1.3.1.1–8.1.3.2.1.2, 8.1.3.2.3– 8.1.3.2.6.3, 8.2 and 8.6, this chapter does not
pertain to ARC officers who are not on the ADL.
8.1.2. Types of PRFs:
8.1.2.1. Narrative-Only PRFs. The losing senior rater completes these on all lieutenant
colonels and below. Exception: Not required for majors who are lieutenant colonel
selects, or lieutenant colonels who are colonel selects departing PCS for a school (e.g.,
developmental education, AFIT, or other AF-level training programs as described by
paragraph 8.3.5.2) or PCA/PCS to patient status. Complete narrative-only PRFs
regardless of promotion zone/promotion opportunity. Do not complete PRFs on
lieutenants or captains who will have less than four years’ time-in-grade as a captain upon
completion of schooling. Exception: For medical corps and dental corps officers only,
complete narrative-only PRFs regardless of their current grade, date of rank or promotion
selection status, due to the possibilities of their continual long term training status. See
paragraph 8.1.5.6. Note: In the rare case where a PRF is required for lieutenant colonels
while in a student status, the senior rater prior to the officer’s departure to developmental
education will write the PRF.
8.1.2.2. Recommendation-Only PRFs. The Air Force Student MLR President completes
these for all officers who are eligible for consideration by that review. Attach the
recommendation-only PRF to the narrative-only PRF and file both in the OSR. See
paragraph 8.1.5.6.
8.1.2.3. Regular PRFs. An eligible officer’s senior rater completes the PRF no earlier than
60 calendar days prior to the central selection board for which the officer is promotion
eligible (PRF cutoff date) and awards one of three recommendations (or four
recommendations for officers in the grade of colonel only):
8.1.2.3.1. A “Definitely Promote This Board” recommendation (for colonel only). The
strength of the ratee’s performance and performance-based potential warrants
promotion in the board in which the officer is eligible for promotion.
8.1.2.3.2. A “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation. The strength of the ratee’s
performance and performance-based potential warrants promotion.
8.1.2.3.3. A “Promote” recommendation means the ratee is qualified for promotion
and should compete on the basis of performance, performance-based potential, and
other considerations such as duty history, developmental education, advanced degrees,
etc.
190 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.1.2.3.4. A “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation. The strength of the
ratee’s performance and performance-based potential does not warrant promotion by
the central selection boards for which the officer is eligible. A senior rater must make
comments explaining to the central selection boards why the officer should not be
promoted. (T-1) Comments must focus on the substandard behavior of the officer and,
if desired, the punishment received. (T-1)
8.1.3. Completing the PRF. See Table 8.1 and paragraph 8.6 on promotion-eligible colonels
for specific guidance on preparing PRFs.
8.1.3.1. Comments in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, of the PRF are mandatory
for In- or Above-the-Promotion Zone eligible officers. Senior raters retain the latitude to
push their best-qualified officers for promotion consideration. Senior raters should
consider providing comments for officers two or more times Above-the-Promotion Zone
up to the grade of colonel; comments are optional on PRFs prepared to the grade of
brigadier general when the overall recommendation on the DAF Form 709 is “Promote.”
Comments are required on all PRFs with a “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation,
regardless of zone (Table 8.1.). Final decision authority for including comments on
Below-the-Promotion Zone and two or more times Above-the-Promotion Zone officers
remains with the senior rater.
8.1.3.1.1. In the performance recommendation, the senior rater should use plain
language and limit use of acronyms and/or abbreviations to provide a performance-
based differentiation and/or characterization of the eligible officer’s potential to serve
in the next higher grade. For officers being considered for colonel and below,
promotion recommendations are limited to the space provided. If a stratification is
used, the promotion recommendation narrative will begin with the stratification.
8.1.3.1.2. Endorsements for promotion are based upon an officer’s demonstrated
character and competence as detailed in the Secretary of the Air Force’s Memorandum
of Instructions for promotion boards. This is an opportunity for the senior rater to tell
the Central Selection Board why they should or should not promote this officer. This
should not be a summary of information already contained in the record of
performance. Recommendations or pushes for items that are decided through other
processes or means (e.g., developmental education, jobs, assignments) are not
authorized.
8.1.3.1.3. Comments on PRFs regarding completion of, or enrollment in, DE are
prohibited. Performance and special recognition comments on officers attending in-
residence education and/or training will be documented appropriately on the DAF Form
475 (see Chapter 6). Additionally, evaluators will not comment on an officer’s status
on the school’s list, selection for DE, and/or specific schools. Note: An assignment
recommendation for Air Force Institute of Technology Master’s or Doctoral degree
program is authorized. Senior raters may consider and comment on PRFs regarding
the selection for, attendance at, or completion of AADs.
8.1.3.2. Promotion Recommendation Form Stratification Guidance. Officer stratification
is defined as a quantitative comparison of an individual’s standing within an authorized
peer group and within a specific evaluator’s scope of rating authority. On the PRF, officer
stratifications provide a current period performance-based differentiation of officers
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 191
against their peers to assist central selection boards. Senior raters may provide up to two
types of stratifications as part of their promotion recommendation comments. If used, the
primary stratification must be among promotion eligible officers by zone and the optional
secondary stratification must be among an authorized peer group. If a senior rater does not
stratify an officer among eligible officers by promotion zone, they may not provide any
other stratification. Exception: For narrative-only PRFs, senior raters will not stratify
among eligible officers by promotion zone but may provide one peer group stratification
statement.
8.1.3.2.1. Stratification Types.
8.1.3.2.1.1. Primary - Eligible by Zone. Senior raters may stratify among eligible
officers by promotion zone (e.g., In-or-above-the promotion zone (I/APZ) from the
MEL for a specific promotion board). Example: #3/10 I/APZ eligible.
8.1.3.2.1.2. Secondary – Peer Group Stratification. If a senior rater stratifies an
officer among eligible officers by promotion zone, they may also provide one
secondary stratification in accordance with the following guiding principles. Note:
Stratification of officers between components (RegAF, Reserve, Guard) is
authorized as long as it is within a senior rater’s scope of authority and within one
of the authorized peer groups.
8.1.3.2.2. Authorized Peer Groups. For the purposes of stratification, authorized peer
groups are limited to the following categories: (Note: Only one authorized peer group
will be used as a secondary stratification.)
8.1.3.2.2.1. AF Grade. Includes only Air Force officers in the same grade (e.g.,
captains, majors, lieutenant colonels, colonels). Exception: An officer
permanently assigned to a position on a joint manning document may be stratified
against officers of the same grade, regardless of service affiliation, within the senior
rater’s scope of rating authority as described below.
8.1.3.2.2.2. Command Position. This refers to officers filling command positions
(e.g., detachment, squadron, group, or wing commanders to include wing command
equivalents, and materiel leaders). This does not include section commanders or
flight commanders. Command position stratification statements for individuals
below the grade of colonel (O-6) may also include their grade with the stratification
statement (e.g., #2/6 Maj Sq/CCs).
8.1.3.2.2.3. Duty Position. This refers to the officer’s duty position type, level and
scope of responsibility (e.g., section chiefs, flight commanders, operations officers,
branch chiefs, action officers, analysts, instructors, combat systems officers, pilots,
etc.). Officers may be stratified against civilian personnel in equivalent duty
positions (e.g., “#1/40 Analysts”; “#2/6 Flight Commanders”).
8.1.3.2.3. Exception: For narrative-only PRFs, senior raters will not stratify among
eligible officers by promotion zone but may provide one peer group stratification.
8.1.3.2.4. Scope of Rating Authority. Senior raters can only stratify officers within the
confines of their direct rating chain and knowledge. Senior rater stratifications may
192 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
not extend beyond the confines of their respective SRID (i.e., senior raters may not
stratify officers under subordinate SRIDs purviews).
8.1.3.2.5. Authorized Usage.
8.1.3.2.5.1. When used, all stratifications must stay within an authorized peer
group and the evaluator’s scope of rating authority.
8.1.3.2.5.2. Stratifications must be written in quantitative terms. (T-1) The use of
percentages in the numerator are prohibited (e.g., 5%/50). Examples of authorized
stratifications:
8.1.3.2.5.2.1. By AF Grade. “#3/30 Capts;” “#1/1 Majs;” “#2/12 Lt Cols.”
8.1.3.2.5.2.2. By Command Position. “#1/9 Grp/CCs;” “#1/7 Maj Sq/CCs;”
“#3/20 Lt Col Det/CCs.”
8.1.3.2.5.2.3. By Duty Position. “#1/6 Flt/CCs;” “#1/40 Analysts;” “#2/12
Branch Chiefs.”
8.1.3.2.6. Prohibited Usage.
8.1.3.2.6.1. Company grade officers (CGOs) and/or field grade officers (FGOs) are
not an authorized peer group for stratification purposes.
8.1.3.2.6.2. Awards are recognition based on a given set of criteria. Accordingly,
stratifications based on awards are not authorized (e.g., #1/50 as Sq CGO of the
Quarter).
8.1.3.2.6.3. The use of stratifications from anyone other than the senior rater are
prohibited. A senior rater may not quote stratification from another evaluator or
source. Using more than one secondary stratification is prohibited.
8.1.3.3. If promotion opportunity is 100%, regular PRFs are not required. This includes
individuals competing for I/APZ. Senior raters will prepare PRFs on all officers who
receive "Do Not Promote" recommendations and on all officers who receive a “Promote”
recommendation but have derogatory information (e.g., Article 15, courts-martial, referral
evaluation, Letter of Reprimand) filed in their OSR.
8.1.3.4. Statements that refer or imply to the stratification of an officer’s standing at a
MLR, such as: “#1 of 22 DPs awarded at the MLR,” or “If the MLR had one more DP,
they would get it,” are prohibited. This means the head of the management level or MPR
president may not use the denominator of the management levels eligibles when stratifying
their respective officers, who may have or have not competed at the MLR.
8.1.3.5. Promotion statements, reserved for the senior rater, will only be made on the PRF.
8.1.3.5.1. As a general rule, prohibited promotion statements are any comments, direct
or implied, that refer to a higher grade. For example, comments that state the individual
is performing above their grade, occupying a position requiring a more senior grade,
comparing an individual to officers of higher grade, or alluding to a higher-ranking
position are all prohibited. Exception: Statements of fact are authorized.
8.1.3.5.2. While it is impossible to provide an all-inclusive list of prohibited
statements; some examples are:
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 193
8.1.3.5.2.1. “Maj Beidler is senior officer material.” The term “senior” is a
euphemism for colonel and above, therefore not authorized.
8.1.3.5.2.2. “Capt DeSantis has excelled in a major’s billet,” refers to a grade
higher than the one the individual currently holds.
8.1.3.5.2.3. “Major Jenkins should be a group commander now,” recommends the
individual for a position two grades higher than the ratee—not normal progression.
8.1.3.5.2.4. “Capt Korte is ready for our toughest field grade jobs,” compares a
company grade officer with higher ranking, field grade officers.
8.1.3.5.2.5. “Already performing above current position,” refers to a higher grade.
8.1.4. Responsibilities:
8.1.4.1. The Senior Rater:
8.1.4.1.1. Reviews the ratee's officer’s OCSRG, decoration citations, duty
qualification history brief (DQHB) and UIF (if applicable) before preparing the PRF.
May consider other reliable information about duty performance and conduct except as
paragraph 1.12 or other regulatory guidance prohibits. Examples of other reliable
information may include but are not limited to LOEs, statements from a draft officer
ALQ evaluation and/or decoration, etc. To reference the “other reliable information”
in their record, the officer meeting the board may submit a letter to the central selection
board.
8.1.4.1.1.1. Do not use any other single unit retrieval formats (SURFs) other than
those indicated above when preparing the PRF (e.g., Assignment Management
System (AMS), SURF).
8.1.4.1.1.2. The intent of the "other reliable information" passage is to allow senior
raters to comment on performance accomplishments since the close-out of the last
evaluation. This allows a senior rater who has personal knowledge of an
accomplishment to comment about it in the PRF although not part of the official
record yet.
8.1.4.1.2. Must be knowledgeable of the ratee's most recent performance. The senior
rater may request subordinate supervisors to provide information on an officer's most
recent duty performance and performance-based potential and may ask for suggestions
based upon the officer's duty performance for PRF recommendations.
8.1.4.1.3. Will ensure no subordinate commander and/or supervisor asks or allows an
officer to draft or prepare their own PRF. Note: Eligible officers may provide input.
8.1.4.1.4. Will ensure there are no boards, meetings or panels of officers convened to
collectively score, rate, rank, stratify, produce stratification inputs for use in PRFs, or
tally the records and/or generate a priority list of eligible officers unless specifically
authorized by this instruction. Note: Senior raters may request subordinate
supervisors provide their assessment (without the use of any boards, meetings, or
panels) of the rank order of officers in their chain of command).
8.1.4.1.5. Is solely responsible for evaluating each officer’s OCSRG, career brief, and
DQHB in order to either award PRF recommendations among eligible officers or
194 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
submit officers to compete for aggregation or carry-over “Definitely Promote”
recommendations. The senior rater submits the PRF with Section IX unmarked when
submitting an officer for competition in aggregation or carry-over categories at a MLR
and/or HAF MLR.
8.1.4.1.6. Completes promotion recommendations. Corrects any error that results in
awarding more “Definitely Promote” recommendations than allocated by the
management level. However, if the senior rater fails to fulfill this responsibility, the
MLR president makes the appropriate corrections, to include re-accomplishing a PRF
a senior rater prepared.
8.1.4.1.7. Provides the ratee a copy of the PRF approximately 30 calendar days before
the central selection board. If communication cannot be completed in person, send the
PRF via secure communications. The reason for this is twofold:
8.1.4.1.7.1. Advise the ratee of the senior rater’s promotion recommendation.
8.1.4.1.7.2. Provide the ratee an opportunity to point out any typographical,
administrative or errors of fact to the senior rater so they may be corrected prior to
the central selection board. Note: If the ratee is geographically separated, send it
to the ratee by secure electronic communication, or “return receipt requested” mail.
Contact the MPF for assistance if necessary.
8.1.4.1.8. Must attach a memo (Figure 8.1) telling the ratee who receives a PRF with
a “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation that they have the right to submit a
letter to the Central Selection Board.
8.1.4.1.9. Will ensure the PRF remains a private matter with access being only between
the senior rater, the ratee, senior rater administrative support staff if senior rater desires
(e.g., executive officer, secretary, MPF), the MLR, and the central selection board.
Subordinate evaluators or others may have access to a PRF’s comments or rating only
if permitted by the ratee. Note: No officer eligible for a particular board will be
involved with the PRF process for that particular board.
8.1.4.1.10. Considers preparing a PRF on a newly assigned eligible officer who
received an outright “Promote” recommendation from their previous senior rater (an
outright “Promote” is someone who received a promote recommendation from the
senior rater and was not competed at an MLR). The exception is AF-level students
meeting the AF Student MLR, and whose effective date of duty as a result of PCS/PCA
to a new senior rater occurs after the PRF accounting date, but on or before the PRF
cutoff date. See paragraph 8.4.1.
8.1.4.1.11. Provides a signed MEL of officers considered for promotion
recommendations to the management level.
8.1.4.1.12. Ensures the management level receives PRFs as required by paragraph
8.1.5.
8.1.4.1.13. Ensures their SRID in the Air Force Promotion Management System
reflects only their eligible officers no later than 105 days before the central selection
board.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 195
8.1.4.1.14. Evaluates all additions to and deletions from the MEL through their MPFs
to their management level (e.g., officers who are gains as a result of a PCA/PCS
movement occurring prior to the PRF accounting date or officers initially assigned to
the wrong PAS code and SRID).
8.1.4.1.15. Officers Added or Deleted from Promotion Eligibility. This paragraph
applies to officers who become eligible or ineligible for promotion consideration in a
particular competitive category on or after the PRF accounting date. Causes for a
change in eligibility status may include: a special selection board (SSB) or AFBCMR
actions, administrative errors, changes in date of separation, or similar circumstances.
8.1.4.1.15.1. For officers whose eligibility for promotion consideration is
established after the PRF accounting date, the senior rater of record at the time
eligibility is established will write the PRF.
8.1.4.1.15.2. If the PRF is written after the senior rater completes the rank ordering
(Day-66) and determines that a definitely promote should be awarded, then place a
“1” in block VI for IPZ officer or place a “0” in block VI for APZ officers. See
Table 8.2.
8.1.4.2. The Military Personnel Flight (MPF):
8.1.4.2.1. Assists the management level in verifying accuracy of SRIDs and PAS
codes.
8.1.4.2.2. Provides PRF notices, a MEL, and a DQHB on each eligible officer to the
senior raters. Note: For officers not located with the senior rater, provide these
documents to eligible officers’ servicing MPF to be used in preparing PRF inputs for
the senior rater.
8.1.4.2.3. Provides other senior rater support and review as requested. The MPF will
send PRFs to the appropriate management level when requested by the senior raters.
8.1.4.2.4. Makes officers’ OCSRGs available to senior raters, to include records of
officers serviced by other MPFs.
8.1.4.2.5. Reviews PRFs to ensure administrative accuracy, when requested.
8.1.4.2.6. Processes narrative-only PRFs. See paragraph 8.1.5.6.
8.1.4.2.7. Advises senior raters when officers change promotion eligibility status after
the PRF allocation date (Day 66). See paragraph 8.1.4.1.15.
8.1.4.2.8. Ensures senior raters are provided a listing of newly assigned eligible
officers.
8.1.4.2.9. Evaluates any potential additions or deletions to the MELs for the senior
raters and management level they service. See paragraph 8.1.4.1.14.
8.1.4.2.10. Monitors Air Force Promotion Management System audit transactions at
least twice a week to identify any board adds, deletions, SRID changes, PCS/PCA,
and/or date arrived on station actions.
8.1.4.2.11. Coordinates with management level and senior raters as needed.
196 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.1.4.2.12. Check the Air Force Promotion Management System news daily.
8.1.4.2.13. Upon receipt of PRFs following the USAF Student MLR, distribute these
PRFs to the eligible officers. See paragraph 8.1.4.1.7.
8.1.4.3. The Management Level:
8.1.4.3.1. Designates senior rater positions for all units within their jurisdiction and
assigns SRIDs to those positions.
8.1.4.3.2. Identifies officers occupying those senior rater positions by name, assigns
them SRIDs by name and PAS code and ensures the Air Force Promotion Management
System is updated accordingly.
8.1.4.3.3. Validates SRID alignment in MilPDS with PAS code. Note: Ensure
MilPDS is updated accordingly; contact AFPC for any assistance.
8.1.4.3.4. Notifies senior raters and MPFs of preliminary “Definitely Promote”
allocations.
8.1.4.3.5. Notifies affected senior raters on the final PRF allocation date of available
“Definitely Promote” recommendations senior raters may award.
8.1.4.3.6. Ensures all eligible officers are considered for promotion recommendations
and are guaranteed at least one look for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation (the
guaranteed look is the senior rater).
8.1.4.3.7. Ensures senior raters and MLRs do not exceed the authorized number of
“Definitely Promote” allocations.
8.1.4.3.8. Ensures PRF recommendations on eligible officers are updated in the Air
Force Promotion Management System no later than 35 calendar days before the central
selection board.
8.1.4.3.9. Send all regular PRFs to AFPC/DPMSPE to arrive no later than 30 calendar
days before the central selection board.
8.1.4.3.10. Maintains copies of all PRFs and MELs until announcement of central
selection board results. Destroy all materials pertaining to the MLR upon
announcement of results. Exception: Maintain a copy of the OCSRG, including the
PRF, career brief of the competitive categories considered, and duty qualifications
history brief that earned the last “Definitely Promote” and the top two that earned a
“Promote” recommendation in carry-over competition for each competitive category,
or in the case that no “Definitely Promote” recommendations were awarded, maintain
the top two that earned a “Promote” recommendation. These records will serve as
benchmark records in support of a supplemental review.
8.1.4.3.11. Processes PRFs in accordance with paragraph 8.1.5.
8.1.4.3.12. Evaluates any potential additions or deletions to their senior raters and
coordinates with AFPC/DPMSPE as needed.
8.1.4.3.13. Monitors the Air Force Promotion Management System audit transactions
at least twice a week to identify any board additions, deletions, SRID changes,
PCS/PCA/date arrived station actions.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 197
8.1.4.3.14. Coordinates with senior raters, MPFs, and AFPC/DPMSPE as needed.
8.1.4.3.15. Monitors the Air Force Promotion Management System news daily.
8.1.4.3.16. Ensures the SecAF’s memorandum of instruction is available on myFSS,
is referenced and utilized for all MLRs and senior rater promotion processes within
their purview. The memorandum of instruction provides instructions to all
management levels and senior raters to ensure decision makers throughout the officer
promotion recommendation process are focused on the same priorities and special
emphasis areas as the central selection board.
8.1.4.4. AFPC/DPMSPE:
8.1.4.4.1. Establishes and announces PRF eligibility criteria and administrative
requirements for processing PRFs.
8.1.4.4.2. Ensures completed PRFs are disposed of in accordance with paragraph
8.1.5.
8.1.4.4.3. Flows PRF notices and duty qualification history briefs approximately 120
calendar days prior to the central selection board in the Air Force Promotion
Management System.
8.1.4.4.4. Processes all SRID changes with multiple management levels involved.
Note: It remains the initiating management level’s responsibility to obtain all
concurrences for other affected management levels prior to submission to AFPC.
8.1.4.5. The Ratee:
8.1.4.5.1. Contacts the senior rater to discuss any errors, omissions pertaining to the
PRF or if they have not received a copy of their PRF NLT 15 calendar days prior to
central selection board. (T-3)
8.1.4.5.2. May correspond by letter with the central selection board and address any
matter of record concerning themselves that they believe important to their
consideration. Letters must be submitted in good faith and contain accurate
information to the best of the ratee’s knowledge and must be signed by the ratee. (T-3)
8.1.4.5.3. Air Force Level students and patients (SRID “ST101” and “PT111”) eligible
for promotion may write a letter to the Air Force Student MLR to address any matter
of record concerning themselves that they believe important to their consideration.
Letters must be submitted in good faith and contain accurate information to the best of
the ratee’s knowledge and must be signed by the ratee. (T-1) The letters will be
destroyed upon conclusion of the Student MLR and will not be forwarded to the central
selection board. (T-3)
8.1.5. Processing and Using the PRF.
8.1.5.1. MPFs send PRF notices and MELs to senior raters upon receipt, approximately
120 days prior to the central selection board.
8.1.5.2. Senior raters sign completed PRFs on or after the PRF cutoff date. Senior raters
who intend to compete in aggregation (see paragraph 8.3.1.10) or carry-over (see
paragraph 8.3.1.9), must prepare and sign the PRFs, leaving Section IX blank.
198 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.1.5.3. Senior raters will submit all completed PRFs for quality review and ensure all
PRFs are available for update into the Air Force Promotion Management System by the
management level no later than 40 calendar days before the central selection board. (T-1)
8.1.5.4. The management level sends completed PRFs to AFPC/DPMSPE to arrive no
later than 30 calendar days before the central selection board. Management levels forward
PRFs to AFPC/DPMSPE for officers nominated to the AF MLR aggregate and carry-over,
with the “Overall Recommendation” left blank, to arrive no later than 35 calendar days
prior to the central selection board. When mailing hardcopy PRFs, documents may be sent
to AFPC/DPMSPE, 550 C Street West Suite 7, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX
78150-4705
8.1.5.5. AFPC/DPMSPE forwards all PRFs to AFPC/DPSORM to be filed in the officer’s
ARMS for the central selection board. AFPC/DPSORM destroys the PRFs after imaging.
PRFs filed on optical disk have limited access. Do not use them for assignments,
promotions (except SSBs), or other personnel actions. Retain these PRFs for historical,
legal, and appeal purposes only.
8.1.5.6. Narrative-only/Recommendation-only PRFs.
8.1.5.6.1. MPFs are responsible for processing narrative-only PRFs and ensuring all
eligible officers receive a copy of their narrative-only PRF prior to departure for PCS.
Note: Officers will not depart without a narrative-only PRF being accomplished
unless an approved waiver was granted in accordance with paragraph 8.1.5.6.4.1.
8.1.5.6.2. The senior rater sends the narrative-only PRF to the MPF no later than 30
calendar days prior to the officer departing PCA or PCS for school. Note: An officer
may become eligible for I/APZ consideration by a central selection board before
departing for school. In this case, prepare both a narrative-only PRF and a regular PRF
(see paragraph 8.1.2.3.). An officer may also be eligible for two or more promotion
boards while in AF-level student status, depending on the length of training. Since
narrative-only PRFs are not board specific, statements such as “My #1 Below-the-
Promotion Zone,” may become outdated before the officer meets a promotion board,
however, this should not preclude the senior rater from stratifying the officers as would
on a regular PRF.
8.1.5.6.3. The senior rater sends the narrative-only PRFs to the MPF for officers in
patient or missing-in-action/prisoner of war status. The MPF will process the PRF to
AFPC/DPMSPE no later than 60 calendar days after the officer enters this new status.
8.1.5.6.4. The MPF forwards the original PRFs to AFPC/DPMSPE NLT 30 calendar
days after the officer departs and updates a code “B” in MilPDS. The MPF maintains
copies of the PRFs until PRF receipt is confirmed by an update of narrative only (NAR)
PRF Flag to code “C” in MilPDS by AFPC/DPMSPE. MPFs can verify that the “C”
code is updated under officer grade data/grade miscellaneous in MilPDS. Once
confirmed, the MPF destroys its copies.
8.1.5.6.4.1. All narrative-only PRF waiver requests will be worked directly with
AFPC/DPMSPE.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 199
8.1.5.6.4.2. When requesting narrative-only PRF waivers, please include the
following information: Full name, social security number, date of rank,
competitive category, projected graduation date, and reason for the request. Note:
As waivers are reviewed using current schedules, should an officer become eligible
after a waiver has been granted, the narrative-only PRF will then be required from
the senior rater who was in the position when the officer departed for school. Only
if the senior rater is not available (retired and unable to be contacted or deceased,
etc.) will the current senior rater in the position be authorized to sign the narrative-
only PRF after the officer departed.
8.1.5.6.5. Senior raters provide a copy of the narrative-only PRF to the ratee
approximately 30 calendar days prior to departure for AF level training or patient
status.
8.1.5.6.6. AFPC/DPMSPE maintains narrative-only PRFs until officers leave student,
patient, or missing-in-action/prisoner of war status. AFPC/DPMSPE destroys
narrative-only PRFs when the officer no longer competes as a student.
AFPC/DPMSPE maintains the narrative-only PRFs until distributed as specified
below:
8.1.5.6.6.1. AFPC/DPMSPE forwards the narrative-only PRF to the HAF Student
MLR. After completion of the recommendation-only PRFs (which are attached to
the narrative-only PRFs), AFPC/DPMSPE forwards the narrative-only PRF and
recommendation-only PRF to the official record, ARMS/PRDA, for inclusion in
the OSR and provides copies to ratees via the ratees’ servicing MPF.
8.1.5.6.6.2. AFPC/DPMSPE maintains the original narrative-only PRF in a
separate file for use during future promotion consideration as a student. Exceptions
to the disposition of PRFs must be approved by AFPC/DPMSPE and be in the best
interest of the officer and the Air Force.
8.1.5.6.6.3. Immediately after completion of the central selection board, the
Selection Board Secretariat (AFPC/PB) removes the PRFs from the OSR and
forwards them to AFPC/DPSORM for placement on optical disk.
8.1.5.7. The HAF Student MLR (see paragraph 8.3.5.2.2) prepares recommendation-only
PRFs and attaches them to the student narrative-only PRFs.
8.2. DAF Form 709 for RASL Officers.
8.2.1. Reserve of the Air Force. Use DAF Form 709 for promotion to captain through colonel.
Refer to paragraph 8.7 for recommending colonels for promotion to the grade of brigadier
general. AFR will use DAF Form 709 for position vacancy promotion nominations to all
grades. ARPC/PB will issue instructions specific to each board via ARPC memorandums
(ARPCMs).
8.2.1.1. Mandatory Boards. An eligible officer’s senior rater submits the completed PRF
no later than 45 calendar days prior to the central selection board. The senior rater awards
one of three recommendations from the drop-down menu in block IX of DAF Form 709:
8.2.1.1.1. A “Definitely Promote”: The strength of the ratee’s performance and
performance-based potential warrants promotion. Note: The ResAF is not constrained
200 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
by the number of “Definitely Promotes” it can award. A senior rater may award as
many “Definitely Promotes” as desired.
8.2.1.1.2. A “Promote”: The ratee is qualified for promotion and should compete on
the basis of performance, performance-based potential, and other considerations such
as duty history, developmental education, advanced degrees, etc.
8.2.1.1.3. A “Do Not Promote This Board”: The strength of the ratee’s performance
and performance-based potential does not warrant promotion by the central selection
board for which the officer is eligible. A senior rater must make comments explaining
to the central selection board why the officer should not be promoted.
8.2.2. Completing the PRF. See Table 8.1 for specific guidance on preparing PRFs.
8.2.3. Responsibilities:
8.2.3.1. The Senior Rater:
8.2.3.1.1. Reviews the ratees’ evaluations, decoration citations, DQHB, personnel
information file, and UIF (if applicable) before preparing the PRF. They may also
consider other reliable information about duty performance and conduct except as
outlined in paragraph 1.12 or other regulatory guidance. Examples of other reliable
information may include but are not limited to LOEs and statements from a draft
performance report and/or decoration. To reference the other reliable information in
their record, the officer meeting the board may submit a letter to the central selection
board. Note: Do not use any other single uniform request formats other than those
indicated above when preparing the PRF (i.e., AMS SURFs). The intent of the other
reliable information passage is to allow the senior rater to comment on performance
accomplishments since the close out of the last evaluation. This allows a senior rater
who has personal knowledge of an accomplishment to comment about it in the PRF
although not part of the official record yet. The senior rater of record on the PRF
accounting date will write the PRF.
8.2.3.1.2. May obtain information on an officer’s most recent duty performance and
performance-based potential from subordinate or previous supervisors and may
consider their suggestions based upon the officer’s duty performance for PRF
recommendations. No officer will be asked to draft or prepare their own PRF. There
will be no boards or panels of officers convened to collectively score, rate, rank, or
tally the records and/or generate a priority list of eligible officers.
8.2.3.1.3. Is solely responsible for evaluating each officer’s record of performance and
DQHB, to award recommendations.
8.2.3.1.4. Completes promotion recommendations.
8.2.3.1.5. Provides the ratee a copy of the PRF (hand-delivered or sent in a sealed
envelope clearly marked, “To Be Opened By Addressee Only”) approximately 30
calendar days before the central selection board. PRFs are a private matter between the
senior rater and the ratee. Subordinate evaluators may have access to a PRF rating to
assist in the feedback process only if desired by the ratee. The senior rater must attach
a memo (Figure 8.1) telling the ratee who receives a PRF with a “Do Not Promote This
Board” recommendation that they have the right to submit a letter to the central
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 201
selection board. The ratee must acknowledge receipt of the memorandum. If the ratee
is geographically separated, send it to the ratee by secure electronic communication or
by “return receipt requested” mail. Contact the MPF for assistance, if necessary.
8.2.3.2. The MPF or ARPC/PB (as applicable):
8.2.3.2.1. Verifies accuracy of SRID and PAS codes.
8.2.3.2.2. Provides to senior raters the PRF notice, a MEL, and a DQHB on each
eligible officer.
8.2.3.2.3. Provides other senior rater support as requested (sends PRFs to the
appropriate management level as requested by senior raters).
8.2.3.2.4. Makes record of performances available to senior raters, to include records
of officers serviced by other MPFs.
8.2.3.2.5. Reviews PRFs to ensure administrative accuracy, when requested.
8.2.3.2.6. Informs senior raters when officers have a change in promotion eligibility
status after the PRF accounting date.
8.2.3.2.7. Provides senior raters a listing of newly assigned eligible officers.
8.2.3.3. ARPC/PB. Will announce PRF criteria for ResAF central selection boards via an
ARPCM.
8.2.4. Processing and use of PRFs.
8.2.4.1. MPFs send PRF notices and MELs to senior raters upon receipt, usually just after
the PRF accounting date.
8.2.4.2. The senior rater will complete the PRF in enough time to arrive at ARPC not later
than 45 calendar days before the central selection board.
8.2.4.3. ARPC/PB posts the OSRs from the electronic board operations support system
(eBOSS) back to ARMS. The PRF becomes part of the “as-met” records for the officer’s
future reference.
8.2.5. Officers Relocating During the PRF Process. To ensure officers who are assigned to a
new senior rater after the PRF accounting date but on or before the central selection board,
receive full consideration for their PRF, the losing and gaining senior raters may discuss the
officer’s performance and their intentions. For ANG and AFR, the senior rater of record on
the PRF accounting date will write the PRF and award performance rating.
8.2.5.1. Award a “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation when derogatory
information has been received since departure from previous assignment. If the losing
senior rater awards a “Do Not Promote This Board,” the gaining senior rater has no further
action. A senior rater must make specific comments to support the recommendation in
Section IV of the PRF. (T-2)
202 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.2.5.2. The MPF or ARPC/PB (as appropriate) will:
8.2.5.2.1. Screen all officers gained after the PRF accounting date to determine
eligibility and notify senior raters accordingly (refer to Air Force Promotion
Management System user’s guide). Ensure senior raters certify a review of all gained
eligible.
8.2.5.2.2. Provide the senior rater a DQHB on newly assigned officers.
8.2.5.2.3. Update corrections to SRIDs on officers who arrive at new locations on or
before the PRF accounting date. Notify ARPC/PB when an update to the Air Force
Promotion Management System is needed.
8.2.6. Officers Added to Promotion Eligibility. This paragraph applies to officers who
become eligible for promotion consideration or change component or competitive categories
on or after the PRF accounting date. Cause for a change in eligibility may include, but is not
limited to: ANG to AFR transfer; AFR to ANG transfer; change from Participating Reserve
to Non-Participating Reserve, or Non-Participating Reserve to Participating Reserve; change
from ADL to RASL (without a break in military status); change from other branch of service
to USAF RASL; change in date of separation; administrative errors; SSB or AFBCMR actions;
or similar circumstances.
8.2.6.1. When an officer is added to a promotion board or changes promotion zone
eligibility, the senior rater:
8.2.6.1.1. Prepares a PRF without a restriction as to the type of recommendation
awarded, since there are no adjustments made to allocations of definitely promote
recommendations on or after the PRF allocation date.
8.2.6.1.2. Only awards definitely promote recommendations to officers whose
OCSRG and DQHB are comparable to other officers who received “Definitely
Promote” recommendations during the normal PRF process.
8.2.6.1.3. Completes PRFs according to Table 8.1 (except section VI, Group Size). In
this section, enter a "1" for IPZ officers and a "0" for AP officers. Note: Group size
for non-line/LAF-J is always “N/A.”
8.2.6.1.4. Either recommends or does not recommend the officer for promotion, if the
promotion opportunity is 100%. A PRF is required only for officers who are not
recommended for promotion.
8.2.6.2. Senior raters void PRFs completed on officers subsequently deleted from
promotion eligibility following the PRF allocation date. When a PRF is voided and an
outright definitely promote was awarded, senior raters may re-accomplish PRFs. See
paragraph 8.3.1.8.2 for disposition of “Definitely Promote” recommendations after the
MLR convenes. The appropriate MLR must approve changes to I/APZ.
8.2.6.3. When an officer's zone of eligibility for promotion changes (e.g., from IPZ to
APZ), the above provisions apply. Senior raters prepare a new PRF as appropriate to reflect
the officer's correct promotion zone and void the old PRF.
8.2.7. Ranking of “Definitely Promote” Recommendations. Enter the rank order, in the group
size (block IV of the DAF Form 709), for all officers awarded a “Definitely Promote”
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 203
recommendation within each competitive category (e.g., line, judge advocate, nurse corps).
Example: 2/5/10. The senior rater has 10 officers in that competitive category meeting the
promotion selection board. The officer is ranked number 2 of 5 officers awarded a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation. For officers awarded other than a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation, leave group size blank. For officers gained after completion of PRFs, to
which the senior rater chooses to award a “Definitely Promote” recommendation, the ranking
will be 1/1/1. For a position vacancy board, enter the rank order for all officers nominated for
position vacancy within each competitive category. Example: 3/5. The senior rater has 5
officers in that competitive category meeting the position vacancy promotion selection board.
This officer is ranked number three of five officers awarded a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation.
8.2.8. Prisoners, Deserters, and Officers on Appellate Leave. Do not accomplish PRFs for
officers who become prisoners or deserters, or who are on appellate leave on or before the PRF
accounting date. ARPC/DPTSE will prepare an DAF Form 77. However, officers identified
as prisoners, deserters, or on appellate leave after the PRF accounting date will require PRFs
from the losing senior rater. The total number of eligible will include these officers.
8.2.9. Air Force Advisors for PRFs. If the senior rater on the PRF is not an Air Force officer
or Department of the Air Force official, an Air Force advisor is designated to advise evaluators
on matters pertaining to PRFs. Normally, this will be the same officer who conducts the review
of the officer’s ALQ evaluation. The Air Force advisor will not change any statements or the
promotion recommendation on the PRF.
8.2.10. Promotion Recommendations for Colonels. See paragraph 8.6 for AFR general
officer central selection boards or Air National Guard Federal Recognition Boards information
and instruction.
8.2.11. AGR Officers in Student Status. The Deputy to the Chief of Air Reserve (Deputy RE)
is the senior rater for AGR students only (AFR only).
8.2.11.1. When an AGR officer leaves for a school tour, the losing senior rater will prepare
a PRF as if the officer is still assigned. The PRF will be signed, but blocks VI, Group Size;
VII, Board; and IX, Overall Recommendation will remain blank. The PRF follows the
officer to the next assignment, and a copy is sent to Air Force Reserve Executive Services
(AF/REE).
8.2.11.2. If, while in student status, the officer becomes eligible for consideration by a
promotion board, the narrative-only PRF is sent to the Deputy RE for a recommendation-
only PRF.
8.2.11.3. The Deputy RE prepares the recommendation-only PRF according to Table 8.1
and rank orders all officers awarded a “Definitely Promote” recommendation by
competitive category within the student population. Example: 1/2/2 rank order means
the senior rater has two officers in that competitive category meeting the selection board;
the officer is ranked number one of the two “Definitely Promote” recommendations
awarded. Note: Student AGR PRFs are not included within the SRID that applies to the
Chief of Air Force Reserve.
8.2.11.4. The narrative-only PRF is attached to the signed recommendation-only PRF and
is forwarded to the promotion secretariat at the Air Reserve Personnel Center.
204 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.3. Management Level Reviews (ADL Lieutenant Colonel and Below).
8.3.1. The Allocation Process:
8.3.1.1. Definitely Promote. “Definitely Promote” recommendations are limited in
number to ensure only the most qualified records are endorsed. They send a strong signal
to the central selection board that the officer is ready for immediate promotion. “Definitely
Promote” allocation rates for IPZ and APZ officers are lower than the IPZ promotion
opportunity; this ensures a significant number of officers receiving “Promote”
recommendations will be promoted. Management levels receive a share of “Definitely
Promote” allocations based on the number of IPZ officers assigned. Allocation rates vary
for each competitive category, grade and promotion zone, and may fluctuate according to
changes in the promotion opportunity to guarantee the minimum promotion rate for
eligibles receiving a “Promote” recommendation (40% to major, 35% to lieutenant colonel
and 25% to colonel); this is called the promotion rate (P-Rate). AFPC/DPMSPE publicizes
the approved DP allocation rates for each PRF cycle in the Day 66 message. Exception to
policy requests of the approved DP allocation for each PRF cycle are not authorized and
will not be granted. (T-1).
8.3.1.2. PRF Accounting Date (approximately 150 calendar days before the central
selection board). On the PRF accounting date, AFPC matches eligible officers to senior
raters based on the officers’ unit of assignment data in MilPDS. AFPC/DPMSPE
announces the actual PRF accounting date. Between the PRF accounting date and Day 66
before the central selection board, management levels ensure the Air Force Promotion
Management System is accurate.
8.3.1.3. PRF Allocation Dates (approximately 150 and 66 calendar days before the central
selection board). The initial allocation date is approximately 150 calendar days before the
central selection board. This is when management levels estimate the number of
allocations available to each senior rater and for each MLR under their jurisdiction. After
this date, the number of allocations is adjusted to account for officers who become eligible
or ineligible for promotion and for officers who are still not aligned under the correct SRID
as verified and reported by the management level activity to AFPC/DPMSPE. These
adjustments are made up until the day before the PRF final allocation date (approximately
66 calendar days before the central selection board). On that day, the management level
determines the actual number of allocations and distributes to senior raters and MLRs based
on the number of eligible officers for that level. No changes are made to the number of a
management level’s allocations on or after the final allocation date unless authorized by
AFPC/DP3SP. In addition, no changes in the management level’s allocations are
authorized in cases where a brigadier general (Sel) is confirmed by the U.S. Senate on or
after day 66 and subsequently becomes eligible to be the senior rater for lieutenant colonels
in the organization. AFPC/DP3SP will approve exceptions in order to maintain integrity
in the Officer Evaluation System and to ensure fair and proper consideration is given to all
affected officers. (T-1) Note: The “Definitely Promote” Allocations are not adjusted
automatically in the Air Force Promotion Management System for any approved exception.
Calculations must be accomplished manually. (T-1) When submitting SRID changes after
the final allocation date, the request must be from an O-6/equivalent or above, who has
oversight of the MLR process. The request must provide justification as to why the
correction was not discovered within the time limit and what actions the management level
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 205
is implementing to ensure eligible officers are properly aligned prior to the PRF allocation
date. If multiple management levels are involved, the O-6/equivalent or above who has
oversight of the MLR process is required from each management level.
8.3.1.4. PRF Cutoff Date. This date is approximately 60 calendar days prior to the central
selection board. PRFs will not be signed prior to this date. (T-1)
8.3.1.5. Determining Air Force-Level Allocations.
8.3.1.5.1. Management levels determine the number of DP allocations they have by
applying the appropriate allocation rate to their IPZ or, if authorized, BPZ eligible
population. Management levels will round fractions up or down to the next whole
number as directed by AFPC with the publication of the Day 66 message. (T-1) The
allocation process to be used for a specific PRF cycle will be set and made public
approximately 120 days prior to the central selection board for each competitive
category. (T-1) AFPC will direct the MLR process that maintains the appropriate “P-
rate,” while minimizing the number of “Definitely Promote” recommendations
awarded to management levels who do not meet the minimum group size. (T-1)
Waiver requests are not authorized.
8.3.1.5.1.1. Example of the rounding up process: A management level has 462
IPZ eligible officers, and the allocation rate is 10%; the management level earns 47
“Definitely Promote” allocations (462 IPZ eligible officers x 10% allocation
rate=46.2 which rounds up to 47 allocations). The Air Force Promotion
Management System should be reviewed to determine “Definitely Promote”
allocations, but this does not preclude management levels from doing a manual
calculation.
8.3.1.5.1.2. Example of the rounding down process: A management level has IPZ
eligible officers, and the allocation rate is 10%; the management level earns 46
“Definitely Promote” allocations (462 IPZ eligible officers x 10% allocation
rate=46.2 which rounds down to 46 allocations). The remaining fraction will be
used at the HAF MLR for the specified competitive category. (T-1) The Air Force
Promotion Management System should be reviewed to determine “Definitely
Promote” allocations, but this does not preclude management levels from doing a
manual calculation.
8.3.1.5.2. APZ officers do not generate separate allocations; however, if the
management level has only line of the Air Force APZ eligible officer(s), then a single
“Definitely Promote” recommendation is available when the management level is
authorized to round up. In this case, the APZ officers would receive a "0" in Section
VI on the PRF. Refer to Table 8.2.
8.3.1.5.3. Management levels receive separate allocations for in-utilization permanent
party students.
8.3.1.6. Determining Senior Rater Allocations.
8.3.1.6.1. Minimum group size for one “Definitely Promote” allocation is at least three
eligible, even if the “Definitely Promote” allocation rate is 50% or higher. See Table
8.3.
206 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.3.1.6.2. Management levels determine each senior rater’s share of allocations in the
same manner as discussed in paragraph 8.3.1.5.1, except instead of rounding up,
senior raters round down for all categories. Example: A 55% allocation rate applied
to a senior rater’s 10 IPZ captains would yield five “Definitely Promote” allocations
(10 IPZ eligible x 55% allocation rate = 5.5 which rounds down to 5 allocations).
8.3.1.7. Returning Allocations. Senior raters may return earned allocations to the
management level if they believe the quality of officers in their unit does not warrant the
full share of allocations. Additionally, any “Definitely Promote” recommendations
awarded by the senior rater to eligible officers that subsequently become ineligible is
returned to the senior rater which may be reallocated using the senior rater’s order of merit
or returned to the management level for distribution.
8.3.1.8. Redistributing “Definitely Promote” Allocations.
8.3.1.8.1. Prior to the MLR convening, if a senior rater chooses not to use the full quota
of “Definitely Promote” allocations, those unused go to the carry-over quota.
8.3.1.8.2. Following an MLR, the MLR owns all “Definitely Promote” allocations.
Any returned “Definitely Promote” allocations for IPZ/APZ eligible officers are
redistributed through the MLR carry-over process using the carry-over order of merit.
8.3.1.8.3. BPZ “Definitely Promote” allocations are redistributed at the next higher
level or through the MLR carry-over process.
8.3.1.8.4. Redistribution must occur prior to the PRF becoming a matter of record.
8.3.1.9. Carry-over. Since allocations are rounded down when applying the allocation rate
to a senior rater's eligible population, there are normally fractions of allocations remaining.
These fractions accrue at the management level and result in allocations called carry-over
“Definitely Promote” allocations. Carry-over allocations (and any returned allocations)
are awarded to account for variations of quality within organizations under the
management level. For IPZ or APZ officers, management levels distribute allocations to
MLRs for award. For BPZ eligible officers, they distribute carry-over allocations directly
to senior raters or through the MLR process.
8.3.1.10. Aggregation.
8.3.1.10.1. Senior raters without the minimum number IPZ or APZ officers assigned
to earn a “Definitely Promote” recommendation in their (senior rater’s) own right may
compete their officers for “Definitely Promote” recommendations through aggregation.
Grouping of all such officers and the application of the allocation rate yields, after
rounding down, the number of definitely promote allocations available to officers
competing in aggregation. Example: If there are two senior raters in a given
management level with eligible officers, and each senior rater has only one eligible
officer, and the “Definitely Promote” allocation rate is 65%, then:
1 eligible x 65% = 0.65+ 1 eligible x 65% = 0.65 management level total = 1.30
Note: After rounding down, the management level earns 1 “Definitely Promote”
recommendation to award in aggregation and transfers the remaining .30 to carry-
over.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 207
8.3.1.10.2. Senior raters without the minimum number of BPZ officers assigned to
earn an allocation aggregate their officers to the next higher senior rater in the rating
chain until the number of eligible is large enough to earn at least one allocation.
8.3.1.10.3. Senior raters below the head of the management level who award BPZ
“Definitely Promote” recommendations to eligible officers aggregated from
subordinate senior raters' populations must make the promotion recommendation
decision without convening a board or panel of subordinates.
8.3.1.10.3.1. If aggregation proceeds to the management level to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph 8.3.1.10.2, the head of the management level may:
8.3.1.10.3.1.1. Personally distribute “Definitely Promote” allocations on their
own.
8.3.1.10.3.1.2. Convene MLRs to award the “Definitely Promote” allocations
based on order of merit.
8.3.1.10.3.1.3. For joint management levels, all PRFs, including BPZ, must be
quality reviewed. (T-1) See paragraph 8.3.2.4.2.2.
8.3.1.10.4. If the total number of line BPZ officers aggregated to the MLR is still too
small to earn a “Definitely Promote” allocation, all panel members, not just those with
officers competing for aggregation, score the records of the officers in the aggregated
group and may award one “Definitely Promote” recommendation. If awarded, this
“Definitely Promote” allocation will come from the carry-over allocation.
8.3.2. Management Level Review Requirements:
8.3.2.1. General. Management levels designate the organization or agency responsible for
holding a review. The commander or head of the designated organization holds the MLR
and may establish more than one MLR (e.g., at the numbered Air Force level or center
level). If the head of the management level is the sole senior rater, there is no MLR, and
the completed PRFs are forwarded to the Air Force MLR for quality review. However, if
the PRF cycle for the specific competitive category is determined for management levels
to round down, the sole senior rater may nominate the officer to the Air Force MLR for
consideration.
8.3.2.2. Timing and functions. Conduct MLRs 40-60 calendar days before the central
selection board. They have five functions: (1) to quality review all I/APZ PRFs; (2) to
award “Definitely Promote” recommendations to those officers whose senior rater had too
few eligible to earn a “Definitely Promote” allocation; (3) to award carry-over “Definitely
Promote” allocations available to the management level; (4) to award “Definitely Promote”
allocations to management level students; and (5) to nominate officers from their
management level to compete for “Definitely Promote” allocations available at the Air
Force MLR.
8.3.2.3. Board composition. The board is comprised of the president (must be an Air Force
officer), those senior raters who have either awarded a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation or have officers competing for aggregation or carry-over “Definitely
Promote” recommendations, a functional representative from the category under
consideration (if no participating senior rater is from the specific category), and a non-
208 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
voting recorder designated by the commander or head of the organization responsible for
conducting the MLR. (T-1) Note: No officer eligible for a particular board will be
involved with the process for that particular board. (T-1)
8.3.2.3.1. The head of the management level designates the MLR president. The
president must be an AF general officer when evaluating lieutenant colonels, and at
least an AF colonel when evaluating majors and below.
8.3.2.3.2. In cases where senior raters are not available to serve on the panel due to
some extraordinary circumstance, the head of the management level may authorize
senior raters to designate senior officials who meet the minimum grade requirement (a
general officer or equivalent when evaluating lieutenant colonels or at least a colonel
or equivalent when evaluating majors and below) from their organization or higher
chain-of-command to serve on their behalf.
8.3.2.3.3. If extraordinary circumstances require a senior rater’s departure during the
MLR, the MLR president or another senior rater, as designated by the affected senior
rater, may represent the departing senior rater. In all cases, the MLR president or senior
rater designated to represent another group of officers is still limited to one vote.
Additionally, if extraordinary circumstances require the MLR president to depart
during a review, the head of the management level will designate another president or
assume the presidency. In these cases, the records already scored will remain and the
MLR will continue.
8.3.2.3.4. Management levels may establish a representative sample of senior raters to
conduct the quality review of the I/APZ PRFs and officers’ OCSRGs at the MLR. At
the discretion of the management level, all senior raters who awarded a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation or who are competing officers for a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation do not need to participate in the quality review process at the MLR.
8.3.2.3.4.1. All senior raters with eligible officers competing for an aggregate
“Definitely Promote” allocation must serve as a member of the MLR during the
aggregation phase. However, in those cases where senior raters are not available
to serve on the MLR due to some extraordinary circumstance, the MLR president
may authorize senior raters to designate senior officials (a general review or
equivalent when evaluating lieutenant colonels or at least a colonel or equivalent
when evaluating majors and below) from their organization or higher chain of
command to serve on their behalf. If necessary, the MLR president may represent
those senior raters, however the MLR president is still limited to one vote. If during
the MLR a senior rater must be excused, the senior rater may designate another
senior rater already attending the MLR or the MLR president to act on their behalf;
however, the MLR president or another senior rater which was designated is still
limited to one vote.
8.3.2.3.4.2. When practical, all senior raters who are competing officers for carry-
over “Definitely Promotes” attend the MLR. If the management level determines
this is not practical or deems it otherwise appropriate, it may establish a
representative sample of senior raters to award carry-over “Definitely Promote”
recommendations. The management level uses a representative sample to ensure
the senior raters selected do not score the records of officers for whom they are the
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 209
senior rater. Note: In all cases, at least one representative will be from the
competitive category under consideration and must be a scoring member of the
MLR. (T-1)
8.3.2.4. Management Level Review Preparation.
8.3.2.4.1. Management Levels.
8.3.2.4.1.1. Establish MLRs.
8.3.2.4.1.2. Distribute aggregation and carry-over “Definitely Promote”
allocations to the MLR.
8.3.2.4.1.3. Notify each senior rater of the number of officers they may submit to
compete for carry-over allocations subject to limits established by the management
level.
8.3.2.4.1.4. Ensure MLRs are completed no earlier than 60 or no later than 40
calendar days before convening of the central selection board for which the PRFs
are prepared.
8.3.2.4.1.5. Determine the location of the MLR (normally held where performance
records on the officers being considered are available).
8.3.2.4.1.6. Ensure the officer’s OCSRG and DQHB for each officer are available
for the review.
8.3.2.4.1.7. Ensure the MLR president is provided a listing of eligible officers,
identifying those with personnel information files, letters of reprimand, and/or
Articles 15s. MLR presidents use this listing at their discretion to ensure senior
raters (and MLR members, when appropriate) have considered this information
when preparing promotion recommendation forms.
8.3.2.4.1.8. Establish scoring procedure for MLRs.
8.3.2.4.2. MLR Purpose and Process:
8.3.2.4.2.1. Ensure senior raters do not exceed their share of “Definitely Promote”
recommendations.
8.3.2.4.2.2. Ensure all BPZ records are reviewed separately from I/APZ eligible
records.
8.3.2.4.2.3. Quality review the OCSRGs, DQHBs, and PRFs of all I/APZ officers
in order to identify and discuss with appropriate senior raters those PRFs that appear
to contain exaggerated or unrealistic comments or comments that do not appear to
support the overall recommendation based on the OCSRGs and information
considered according to paragraph 1.12. Note: “Definitely Promote”
recommendations are limited in number to ensure that only the best qualified
records are endorsed. A “Definitely Promote” recommendation sends a strong
signal to the central selection board that this officer is ready for immediate
promotion. If a senior rater or head of the management level does not have officers
fitting this definition, a “Definitely Promote” recommendation should not be
awarded even though “Definitely Promote” allocations may be available. To award
210 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
“Definitely Promote” allocations to BPZ eligible officers when the record does not
support a “Definitely Promote” recommendation gives the officer unrealistic
feedback and sends mixed signals to the central selection board.
8.3.2.4.2.4. Award “Definitely Promote” recommendations to officers aggregated
from senior raters within their jurisdiction with less than minimum group size
needed to award “Definitely Promote” recommendations.
8.3.2.4.2.5. Award carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations based on
the Management Level’s allocations available or to nominate to the Air Force MLR
for aggregation or carry-over as appropriate.
8.3.2.4.3. Senior Raters:
8.3.2.4.3.1. Serve as members of the MLR.
8.3.2.4.3.2. Submit PRFs to the MLR on all I/APZ officers including officers
competing for aggregation and carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations.
Note: Since BPZ records are not required to be quality reviewed, senior raters
must submit their BPZ PRFs to the management level for updating.
8.3.2.4.3.3. Submit to the MLR recorder a single list of the names of their I/APZ
officers. For those officers on the list with completed PRFs, include name and
overall promotion recommendation; for those officers on the list submitted to
compete for aggregation or carry-over, indicate whether competing for aggregation
or carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations by annotating an “A” for
aggregation or “C” for carryover.
8.3.2.5. Review Procedures.
8.3.2.5.1. General Procedures.
8.3.2.5.1.1. For all MLRs, the recorder provides to the MLR president the total
number of “Definitely Promote” recommendations to be awarded by each senior
rater.
8.3.2.5.1.2. The MLR president ensures no senior rater exceeds the allowable
number of “Definitely Promote” recommendations. If a senior rater has awarded
more “Definitely Promote” recommendations than allowed, the senior rater
specifies which PRFs need correction, new PRFs are prepared, and the senior rater
completes Sections IX and X.
8.3.2.5.1.2.1. If the senior rater does not specify which PRFs need correcting,
the panel reviews the OCSRG and DQHB of all officers assigned to that senior
rater to determine which overall recommendations need changing. The panel
then prepares a new PRF, with Sections I through VIII copied verbatim from
the original PRF submitted by the senior rater.
8.3.2.5.1.2.2. The MLR president marks the "Promote" block in section IX of
the re-accomplished PRF and signs the form. Note: The president will leave
Section IX blank when the officer competes under aggregation or carry-over.
8.3.2.5.1.2.3. The panel will change the minimum number of PRFs required to
ensure compliance with prescribed “Definitely Promote” limits.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 211
8.3.2.5.1.2.4. The records of any officer whose PRF is re-accomplished under
this provision will automatically compete for carry-over “Definitely Promote”
recommendations.
8.3.2.5.2. PRF Review. MLR members will review the OCSRGs, DQHBs, and
completed PRFs of all I/APZ officers assigned to a senior rater as a group. If the MLR
believes a “Definitely Promote” recommendation is unsupported by the ratee's
OCSRG, they discuss this with the senior rater. Open discussion among MLR members
is encouraged. In all cases, a senior rater has the final authority to determine the content
of the PRFs they prepare (unless the content is inappropriate in accordance with
paragraph 1.12 of this instruction), and to award “Definitely Promote”
recommendations allocated by the management level.
8.3.2.5.3. Aggregation and Carry-over. The MLR assesses the relative merit of
OCSRGs of competitors for aggregation and carry-over “Definitely Promote”
recommendations. This is by a combination of numerical scoring and open discussion
among panel members. The MLR must ensure consistent and equitable procedures
apply to the OCSRG of each officer. The scores of all MLR members are totaled, rank-
ordered, and “Definitely Promote” recommendations awarded. If two or more records
tie, and there are insufficient numbers of Definitely Promote recommendations to
award one to each, the MLR president will determine an appropriate method for
breaking the tie.
8.3.2.5.4. Procedures for Award of I/APZ Aggregation Definitely Promote
Recommendations:
8.3.2.5.4.1. Officers submitted to compete for aggregation “Definitely Promote”
recommendations compete among themselves. The MLR president and only those
senior raters with officers competing under aggregation will review and score the
OCSRGs of these officers.
8.3.2.5.4.2. If the total number of IPZ officers aggregated to the MLR is still too
small to earn a “Definitely Promote” allocation, all panel members, not just those
with officers competing for aggregation, will score the records of the officers in the
aggregated group. (T-1) If authorized to round up for the specific category, the
management level may award one “Definitely Promote” recommendation. If
awarded, this “Definitely Promote” allocation will come from the carry over
allocations. (T-1) If only authorized to round down, then the management level
may nominate to the Air Force management level to compete for a “Definitely
Promote” allocation.
8.3.2.5.4.3. After all records are reviewed and scored and the MLR has awarded
the “Definitely Promote” recommendations, senior raters, or their designated
representatives, complete Section IX on the PRFs for their officers. The MLR
president verifies the results of the completed MLR by signing the order of merit.
Senior raters may make any changes to the PRF as a result of the MLR (e.g., if the
last line states, “my next Definitely Promote” and the officer received a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation from the MLR then the senior rater should change the
last line).
212 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.3.2.5.4.4. The records of officers from the aggregated group that did not receive
a “Definitely Promote” recommendation may compete for carry-over “Definitely
Promote” recommendations at the discretion of the senior rater, within the limits
prescribed by the management level.
8.3.2.5.5. Procedures for Award of I/APZ Carry-over Definitely Promote
Recommendations:
8.3.2.5.5.1. At the MLR’s discretion, and subject to the limit of “Definitely
Promote” allocations available in the carry-over phase, those officers who do not
receive a “Definitely Promote” recommendation from aggregation will be
submitted for carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations. Note: This is
based on the order of merit from the aggregation phase.
8.3.2.5.5.2. Normally, the MLR president and all senior raters with officers
competing for carry-over recommendations participate in the carry-over decision.
Exception: See paragraph 8.3.2.3.3. At the discretion of the MLR president,
other senior raters available may also participate in carry-over decisions.
8.3.2.5.5.3. Senior raters or their designated representatives complete Section IX
on PRFs for their officers by marking either a “Definitely Promote” or a “Promote”
as appropriate. The MLR president verifies the results of the MLR by signing the
order of merit. Senior raters may make any changes to the PRF as a result of the
MLR (e.g., if the last line states, “my next Definitely Promote” and the officer
received a “Definitely Promote” recommendation from the MLR then the senior
rater should change the last line).
8.3.2.5.6. Recorder Responsibilities. The MLR recorder forwards all PRFs and
annotated MELs to the personnel activity responsible for updating the Air Force
Promotion Management System. Note: No officer eligible for a particular board will
be involved with the PRF process for that particular board.
8.3.3. Officers Assigned Outside the DOD and to Other Military Departments.
8.3.3.1. Air Force officers in these categories require special provisions because their
organizations of assignment do not fall within the jurisdiction of a management level.
8.3.3.1.1. Allocation Process. For these officers, the Air Force District of Washington
acts as the management level. The responsibilities of Air Force District of Washington
are the same as those in paragraph 8.1.4.3, except for aggregated BPZ officers. The
HAF MLR (as described in paragraph 8.3.3.2) evaluates BPZ officers aggregated to
the highest senior in the rating chain for whom the senior rater does not have the
minimum group size required to receive an allocation.
8.3.3.1.2. Promotion Recommendation Form (PRFs). Senior rater submitting officers
to compete for aggregation or carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations
prepare and forward PRFs to Air Force District of Washington, leaving Section IX
blank.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 213
8.3.3.2. HAF Review.
8.3.3.2.1. The AFDW/CC facilitates the HAF MLR to convene 40 to 60 calendar days
before the central selection board for which the PRFs are prepared. The AF/CV, or
officer designated by the AF/CC, serves as the MLR president. The Air Force District
of Washington Commander with the assistance of AF/A1, selects a minimum of four
members, consistent with the minimum grade requirements for senior raters, to serve
as members (one must be from the competitive category being considered). (T-1)
8.3.3.2.2. The HAF MLR will review all completed I/APZ and BPZ PRFs and award
aggregation and carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations. Air Force District
of Washington is responsible for providing senior raters copies of completed PRFs on
their ratees. This MLR will also review all PRFs completed by sole senior raters (see
definition of sole senior rater in this instruction).
8.3.3.2.3. The recorder consolidates information on the number of BPZ officers
assigned, the number of BPZ “Definitely Promote” recommendations available, and
the number of “Definitely Promote” recommendations awarded. Note: No officer
eligible for a particular board will be involved with the PRF process for that particular
board.
8.3.3.2.4. If, during the review of completed PRFs, the board discovers that a senior
rater awarded more “Definitely Promote” recommendations than allowed, the MLR
president discusses this with the senior rater.
8.3.3.2.4.1. After the senior rater decides which PRFs to correct, they forward the
re-accomplished PRFs to the MLR by the most expeditious means.
8.3.3.2.4.2. If the senior rater does not specify which PRFs need correcting, the
panel reviews the OCSRG, the DQHB, and the career brief of all officers assigned
to that senior rater to determine which overall recommendations need changing.
The panel then prepares a new PRF, with Sections I through VIII copied verbatim
from the original PRF submitted by the senior rater. The MLR president marks the
"Promote" block in section IX of the re-accomplished PRFs and signs Section X.
8.3.3.2.4.3. The MLR holds PRFs they re-accomplish pending receipt of a re-
accomplished PRF from the senior rater. If they receive the senior rater’s re-
accomplished PRF before MLR conclusion, the re-accomplished PRF is submitted
to the MLR for review. If the MLR has concluded, the PRF is re-accomplished by
the panel president, submitted to Air Force District of Washington and the original
submitted by the senior rater will be destroyed. The management level will then
process the PRF as appropriate.
8.3.3.2.5. Award of “Definitely Promote” recommendations to I/APZ officers is
always separate and distinct from award of “Definitely Promote” recommendations to
BPZ officers.
8.3.3.2.6. The MLR president completes PRFs with Section IX left blank.
8.3.3.2.7. Since panel members may not be senior raters for the officers meeting the MLR,
members are encouraged to discuss an officer’s OCSRG and current performance with the
senior rater in any case where the panel members believe it necessary.
214 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.3.4. Joint Management Level Reviews.
8.3.4.1. Evaluation Reviews. The president of a panel held to evaluate Joint officers is
always an Air Force general officer. Joint management levels may exercise one of two
options: 1) hold their own reviews, or 2) allow the HAF MLR to evaluate their officers.
If the Joint management level is the sole senior rater, the HAF MLR will review all
completed Joint management level sole senior rater PRFs.
8.3.4.2. PRF. When senior raters submit officers to compete at the HAF MLR, Section IX
of the PRF is left blank.
8.3.4.3. If the management level chooses to hold a review but there is no Air Force general
officer assigned to the activity, the management level may obtain the assistance of an Air
Force general officer assigned to another activity. If necessary, the AF/A1 will assist the
management level in obtaining a general officer to serve as the president.
8.3.4.3.1. Senior raters submit to the panel all I/APZ completed PRFs as well as the
PRFs (Section IX blank) on all IPZ and APZ officers submitted to compete for
aggregation or carry-over “Definitely Promote” recommendations.
8.3.4.3.2. The responsibilities and procedures of joint reviews are the same as in
paragraph 8.3.2, regardless of recommendation, to be reviewed by a MLR (joint MLR
hosted by an Air Force general officer or HAF MLR). This is to ensure Air Force
officers in a joint environment are getting an Air Force look.
8.3.5. Officers Assigned as Permanent Party Students.
8.3.5.1. Management Level Students - officers assigned as permanent party students
training in their utilization field to include TDY in a training status. In-utilization training
includes any follow-on, specialized, requalification, upgrade, enhancement, or broadening
training in the officer’s utilization field. Management levels receive separate allocations
based on those populations since permanent party eligible and students must be evaluated
as two distinct categories. For both I/APZ line of the Air Force permanent party students,
allocations round up at the management level and down at the senior rater level. For I/APZ
non-line permanent party students, allocations round down. BPZ non-line/LAF-J
permanent party student allocations round up at the management level and down at the
senior rater level. Evaluation procedures are the same as outlined in paragraph 8.3.2.5.
Responsibilities of the management level with regard to students are the same as those in
paragraph 8.3.2.4.1.
8.3.5.2. AF-Level Students - officers assigned as permanent party students training outside
their utilization field. Outside utilization training includes developmental education,
degree-granting programs (usually Air Force Institute of Technology sponsored), language
training, education with industry programs, attaché/designate training, medical corps
(MC)/dental corps (DC) residency programs (when a new Air Force specialty code or
suffix is awarded upon completion of training or when determined by the competitive
category functional representatives), internships, and initial qualification training into a
new utilization field.
8.3.5.2.1. AFPC/DPMSPE acts as the management level for AF level students and
receives “Definitely Promote” allocations based on the number of IPZ officers eligible
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 215
for consideration by the HAF student MLR discussed in paragraph 8.3.5.2. The
allocation rate is applied to students, patients, and missing-in-action/prisoners of war
separately and rounded up at the management level.
8.3.5.2.2. Air Force Student Management Level Review. Convened at the direction of
AF/A1, considers all officers who are permanent party students, patients, and those
missing in action/prisoners of war within each separate category. It convenes
approximately 70 calendar days prior to the central selection board. AF/A1 designates
the MLR president and a minimum of four MLR members consistent with the minimum
grade requirements for senior raters (one member must be from the category under
consideration). (T-1) The MLR is responsible for the following:
8.3.5.2.2.1. Reviewing the OCSRGs, DQHBs, career briefs, and narrative-only
PRFs.
8.3.5.2.2.2. Scoring all I/APZ records and awarding “Definitely Promote”
recommendations based on the allocation rate prescribed for that competitive
category, grade and zone.
8.3.5.2.2.3. Scoring records and awarding promotion recommendations.
8.3.5.2.2.4. Awarding all Promotion Recommendations. There are no separate
procedures to award aggregation and carry-over allocations.
8.3.5.2.2.5. Ensuring the recommendation-only PRF is accomplished for each
officer, the appropriate recommendation in Section IX is marked, the PRF is signed
by the MLR, and is attached to the narrative-only PRF.
8.3.5.2.2.6. Ensuring ratees receive a copy of the completed recommendation-only
and the attached narrative-only PRFs. Note: These are distributed per paragraph
8.1.4.2.13.
8.3.5.3. Writing Letters to Air Force Student Management Level Review.
8.3.5.3.1. AF-level students eligible for promotion may write a letter to the Air Force
student MLR. The submitter must:
8.3.5.3.1.1. Submit the letter in good faith and ensure it contains accurate
information to the best of their knowledge. (T-3)
8.3.5.3.1.2. Sign and date the letter. (T-3)
8.3.5.3.1.3. Send the letter to AFPC/DPMSPE so it arrives no later than the 5 duty
days prior to the MLR convening date. The MLR will not consider letters that
arrive on or after the convening date. Address letters to: Calendar Year (insert
appropriate year and grade) USAF Student Management Level Review,
AFPC/DPMSPE. Letters may be faxed, emailed, or mailed but must have an actual
signed signature (i.e., payroll signature). (T-3)
8.3.5.3.1.4. If requesting return of the letter, provide a stamped self-addressed
envelope. Otherwise, the letter will be destroyed upon conclusion of the student
MLR. Letters will not be forwarded to the central selection board. (T-3)
216 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.3.5.3.2. AFPC/DPMSPE advises officers when letters do not meet the above
requirements and either returns or destroys the letter.
8.3.5.3.3. Letters on behalf of other officers are not permitted (to clarify, eligible
officers may provide letters as attachments to their letter; however, a stand-alone letter
cannot be submitted on their behalf).
8.3.5.3.4. The following attachments are not permitted: documents that can become
a permanent part of the officer's selection folder (e.g., PRFs considered by previous
central selection boards, unsigned officer evaluations and training reports, decoration
narratives, or letters of evaluation which become part of the permanent record).
8.3.6. Air-Force-Level Management Level Review (Aggregation and Carryover). This
convenes when the rounding down process is used (see paragraph 8.3.1.5.1.2.). Officers
compete for promotion by competitive category. Each competitive category may be different
and competes only within the category and only when the category rounds down at the
management levels. Due to the relatively small number of officers in each of these competitive
categories, the number of eligible officers under a senior rater will frequently be insufficient
to receive a “Definitely Promote” allocation, as is often the case even when officers aggregate
to the management level.
8.3.6.1. Promotion Recommendation Forms. Section IX is blank on PRFs for officers
submitted by the MLR to the Air Force MLR. With the results from the Air Force MLR,
AFPC/DPMSPE completes Section IX with either a “Definitely Promote” or “Promote”
recommendation. Section VI (Group Size) will always be “N/A”. (T-1)
8.3.6.2. A MLR and/or the HAF MLR may evaluate I/APZ for all categories.
8.3.6.3. Air Force Management Level Review.
8.3.6.3.1. This panel considers those officers aggregated from management levels
recommended to compete for aggregate and carry-over “Definitely Promote”
recommendations. AFPC convenes these reviews at AFPC approximately 30 calendar
days before the central selection board.
8.3.6.3.2. Composition: President (an Air Force officer) and a minimum of four
members as designated by AF/A1, or designated representative, consistent with the
minimum grade requirements, where possible. The competitive category under
consideration will not form the majority of MLR membership. (T-1) For MLRs, no
more than two members may come from the competitive category under consideration.
The remaining members will be from competitive categories not under consideration.
(T-1)
8.3.6.3.3. AFPC/DPMSPE limits the number of officers each management level may
submit to compete for aggregate and carry-over allocations to the total number of
“Definitely Promote” allocations available. AFPC/DPMSPE ensures the OCSRG,
DQHB, career brief, and PRF on each officer being submitted are available for review
and holds an Air Force MLR for each competitive category.
8.3.6.3.4. MLR responsibilities are the same as discussed in paragraph 8.3.2.4.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 217
8.4. Special Provisions (applies to ADL officers only).
8.4.1. Officers Relocating During the PRF Process. To ensure officers with a PCA or PCS
assignment to a new senior rater effective after the PRF accounting date, but on or before the
PRF cutoff date, receive full consideration for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation, special
provisions apply. The gaining senior rater considers all eligible officers (except patients)
regardless of promotion zone, who have a date arrived station (in MilPDS) effective after the
PRF accounting date, but on or before the PRF cutoff date, for a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation. For similar rules on promotion-eligible colonels. See paragraph 8.6.2.
8.4.1.1. The losing senior rater’s total number of eligible always includes officers in this
category when determining the losing senior rater’s share of “Definitely Promote”
allocations. As a result, the losing senior rater is responsible for preparing PRFs and
ensuring a quality review is completed.
8.4.1.2. Do not adjust the gaining senior rater’s number of “Definitely Promote”
allocations to include officers in this category. Take any “Definitely Promote”
recommendations awarded by a gaining senior rater from available allocations already
established by the gaining senior rater’s management level.
8.4.1.3. To provide these officers fair consideration, the losing and gaining senior raters
may discuss the officers’ performance and their intentions (via phone, memo, etc.).
8.4.1.4. The Gaining Senior Rater:
8.4.1.4.1. Must consider only eligible officers who will be given an outright “Promote”
recommendation by their losing senior rater. Gaining senior raters have no option to
award an outright “Definitely Promote,” nor can they nominate newly assigned officers
for aggregation or carry-over consideration when the losing senior rater nominates
them to the aggregation or carry-over process regardless of the outcome from the MLR.
8.4.1.4.2. Must consider all newly assigned officers who received a “Promote”
recommendation on their PRF from the HAF student MLR. Eligible officers
considered by the HAF student MLR are not competed in aggregation or carryover;
therefore, the gaining senior raters may award an outright “Definitely Promote,” or
compete the officer(s) in aggregation and/or carry-over.
8.4.1.4.3. Will accomplish a new PRF only if this provision is authorized in accordance
with paragraph 8.4.1.4.1. The newly accomplished PRF will contain the gaining
SRID in Section VIII of the PRF and complete ratee identification data, unit mission
description, and job description as of the date arrived station (PCS) or duty effective
date (PCA) to the gaining senior rater. Note: If the gaining senior rater is unable to
obtain a “Definitely Promote” recommendation, either outright or by
aggregation/carryover, then the accomplished PRF is destroyed and the original PRF
accomplished by the losing senior rater will be used for the central selection board.
8.4.1.5. The gaining senior rater will exercise the following options, as appropriate:
8.4.1.5.1. Decide to take no action to submit an individual for a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation.
8.4.1.5.2. Award a “Definitely Promote” recommendation from earned allocations.
218 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.4.1.5.3. Submit I/APZ officers to compete for aggregation and carry-over.
8.4.1.5.4. Award a “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation when substantiated
derogatory information has been received since departure from previous assignment if
time does not allow for not-qualified-for-promotion action processing. This is
considered a “Stop File” (see paragraph 8.5) and must be submitted in writing through
the management level to AFPC/DPMSPE. Gaining senior raters must get the
concurrence of the gaining MLR president and ensure the losing senior rater is
informed of the “Do Not Promote This Board” action. This will allow the opportunity
for possible redistribution of any previously awarded “Definitely Promote”
recommendations to other deserving officers prior to the central selection board.
8.4.1.6. If the gaining senior rater submits an officer for an aggregation or carry-over
“Definitely Promote” recommendation, the gaining senior rater must ensure the officer's
record of performance is available.
8.4.1.7. The gaining senior rater should notify the losing senior rater of their intentions.
8.4.1.8. The management level will:
8.4.1.8.1. Ensure consideration of all officers in this category for promotion
recommendation and manage all necessary actions to ensure full consideration by the
losing and gaining senior raters.
8.4.1.8.2. Work with MPFs to notify senior raters of their eligible officers who fall in
this category to ensure consideration for a definitely promote recommendation, as
outlined in paragraph 8.4.
8.4.1.8.3. Notify AFPC/DPMSPE when a gaining senior rater awards a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation or “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation. This
includes those awarded within a management level as a result of a PCA action. This is
considered a “Stop File” under paragraph 8.4 (commonly known as old guy/new guy)
circumstances and must be in writing in accordance with paragraph 8.5.
8.4.1.8.4. Ensure allocations are not adjusted to account for officers in this category.
8.4.1.9. The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) will:
8.4.1.9.1. Screen all officers gained after the PRF accounting date to determine
eligibility and notify senior raters accordingly. Ensure senior raters certify a review of
all gained eligible officers by signing the old guy/new guy report on individual
personnel or projected MEL which is generated from the Air Force Promotion
Management System.
8.4.1.9.2. Notify the Management Level of newly assigned officers whose SRID is not
correct as soon as possible; monitor date arrived station for changes (resulting from
finance office updates) that would necessitate a correction to the SRID.
8.4.1.9.3. Provide the senior rater an OCSRG and DQHB on newly assigned members.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 219
8.4.1.10. AFPC/DPMSPE will:
8.4.1.10.1. Update all “Definitely Promote” and “Do Not Promote This Board”
recommendations awarded by gaining senior raters and update inter-command SRID
changes upon “Stop File” requests from management levels.
8.4.1.10.2. Receive definitely promote PRFs accomplished by the gaining senior rater
through the “Stop File” process. If the losing and gaining senior rater both award the
same overall recommendation, the PRF from the gaining senior rater is destroyed.
8.4.2. Officers Added to or Deleted from Promotion Eligibility. This paragraph applies to
officers who become eligible or ineligible for promotion consideration in a particular
competitive category on or after the PRF allocation date. Causes for a change in eligibility
status may include: SSB or AFBCMR actions, administrative errors, changes in dates of
separation, or similar circumstances.
8.4.2.1. When an officer is added to a central selection board or changes promotion zone
eligibility, the senior rater:
8.4.2.1.1. Prepares a PRF without a restriction as to the type of recommendation
awarded, since there are no adjustments made to allocations of definitely promote
recommendations on or after the PRF allocation date.
8.4.2.1.2. Only awards definitely promote recommendations to officers whose
OCSRG and DQHB are comparable to other officers who received “Definitely
Promote” recommendations during the normal PRF process.
8.4.2.1.3. Completes PRFs according to Table 8.1 (except section VI, Group Size). In
this section, enter a "1" for IPZ officers and a "0" for AP officers. Note: Group size
for non-line/LAF-J is always “N/A.”
8.4.2.1.4. Either recommends or does not recommend the officer for promotion, if the
promotion opportunity is 100%. A PRF is required only for officers who are not
recommended for promotion.
8.4.2.2. Senior raters void PRFs completed on officers subsequently deleted from
promotion eligibility following the PRF allocation date. When a PRF is voided and an
outright definitely promote was awarded, senior raters may reallocate “Definitely
Promote” recommendations to other officers and re-accomplish PRFs. See paragraph
8.3.1.8.2 for disposition of “Definitely Promote” recommendations after the MLR
convenes. The appropriate MLR must approve changes to I/APZ.
8.4.2.3. When an officer's zone of eligibility for promotion changes (e.g., from IPZ to
APZ), the above provisions apply. Senior raters prepare a new PRF as appropriate to reflect
the officer's correct promotion zone and void the old PRF.
8.4.3. Prisoners, Deserters, and Officers on Appellate Leave. Do not accomplish PRFs for
officers who become prisoners or deserters, or who are on appellate leave on or before the PRF
accounting date. Notify AFPC/DPMSPE through the management level to have these officers
removed from the senior rater MEL unless the status is after the PRF accounting date.
AFPC/DPMSPE prepares a board-specific DAF Form 77 for ADL officers who fall into this
category and places it into their selection record. However, officers identified as prisoners,
deserters, or on appellate leave after the PRF accounting date will require PRFs from the losing
220 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
senior rater. The senior rater’s total number of eligible officers will include these officers when
determining “Definitely Promote” allocations.
8.4.4. Officers Eligible for Promotion when the Promotion Opportunity is 100%. When the
promotion opportunity for any grade is 100%, senior raters will prepare PRFs only on officers
who receive “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation or on a “Promote”
recommendation with derogatory information (e.g., Article 15, referral evaluation, letter of
reprimand) filed in their OSRs. Exceptions to this rule can be addressed to AFPC/DPMSPE.
Senior raters will annotate one the MEL with either a “P” (for “Promote” recommendations)
or “N” (for “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendations) and forward the MEL and PRFs
to the management level. Management levels will review all “Do Not Promote This Board”
promotion recommendations, update the Air Force Promotion Management System to show
either “Promote” or “N” (not recommended for promotion), and forward any completed PRFs
and MELs, signed by the MLR president, to arrive at AFPC/DPMSPE no later than 30 calendar
days prior to the board start date. Management levels may use a representative sample of
senior raters to evaluate “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendations.
8.4.5. Officers Assigned to Units Above the Management Level. Officers assigned directly
to the offices of the CSAF, SecAF, Chairman Joint Chief of Staff (CJCS), SecDef, Vice
President of the United States (VPOTUS), or President of the United States (POTUS), with
that individual as their direct reporting official, are above the management level, require special
provisions because they do not fall within the usual jurisdiction of a management level. These
select units generally have few promotion eligible officers for most boards.
8.4.5.1. Allocation Process. To ensure these officers receive full and fair consideration,
the individual above the management level unit acts as the management level and receives
separate “Definitely Promote” allocations for IPZ officers assigned. Since there is no
opportunity for this small pocket of quality officers to aggregate up or compete for carry-
over, the above the management level heads are authorized to award additional “Definitely
Promote” recommendations.
8.4.5.2. Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs). The above the management level
heads are sole senior raters and must prepare PRFs on all promotion eligible officers under
consideration by the appropriate central selection board. They award all PRF
recommendations.
8.4.5.3. Management Level Review (MLR). Since the above the management level heads
are sole senior raters, they do not conduct MLRs; the PRFs are forwarded to the HAF MLR
(Air Force District of Washington) for a quality review only.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 221
8.5. Correction of Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF) (ADL Officers) (“Stop File”
process). A PRF is considered a working copy until the start of the central selection board. If the
PRF is not a matter of record, senior raters have the flexibility to change PRFs. Note: All changes
to PRFs should be completed no later than 2 weeks prior to the central selection board. However,
in extreme circumstances and on a case-by-case basis, AFPC/DPMSPE may approve changes up
to one duty day prior to the central selection board. The request must be from an O-6/equivalent
or above, who has oversight of the MLR process and justification as to why the correction was not
discovered within the time limit.
8.5.1. For typographical errors, concurrence by the MLR president is not required. For content
changes, MLR president concurrence is necessary. The following steps should be followed:
8.5.1.1. Senior rater contacts the management level to discuss the issue. The management
level will notify AFPC/DPMSPE to place an immediate “Stop File” on the affected
officer’s PRF(s) with written communication, identifying the change (e.g., fax, email, and
letter) within 24 hours of initial notification.
8.5.1.2. The senior rater must notify the affected officer (in writing, or, if verbal, follow-
up in writing) of the intent to change the PRF.
8.5.1.3. The senior rater forwards the corrected PRF to the management level and provides
a copy to the officer.
8.5.1.4. The management level forwards the corrected PRF to AFPC/DPMSPE.
8.5.2. If the change to the PRF serves to weaken the narrative portion, is a negative content
change, or a downgrade in the overall rating, the MLR process that the original PRF met must
be re-accomplished. In addition to the steps above, the officer must be provided a copy of the
re-accomplished PRF and a letter, similar to the letter provided to an officer who receives a
“Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation, stating the officer’s right to write a letter to
the central selection board.
8.6. Correction of PRFs (ResAF Officers) (“Stop File” Process). A PRF is considered a
working copy until the start of the central selection board. If the PRF is not a matter of record,
senior raters have the flexibility to change PRFs. Note: All changes to PRFs should be completed
NLT two weeks prior to the central selection board. However, in extreme circumstances, and on
a case-by-case basis, ARPC/PB may approve changes up to one duty day prior to the central
selection board. The request must be from the senior rater (in writing or, if verbal, follow-up in
writing/electronic mail within 24 hours of initial notification).
8.6.1. The senior rater must notify the affected officer (in writing or, if verbal, follow-up in
writing) of the intent to change the PRF.
8.6.2. If the change to the PRF serves to weaken the narrative portion, is a negative content
change, or a downgrade in the overall rating, the PRF must be re-accomplished. In addition to
the steps above, the officer must be provided a copy of the re-accomplished PRF and a letter,
similar to the letter provided to an officer who receives a “Do Not Promote This Board”
recommendation, stating the officer’s right to write a letter to the central selection board.
222 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.7. Promotion Recommendations for Colonels. This section describes how to recommend
colonels for promotion to the grade of brigadier general. It applies to officers eligible for
consideration by the HAF or AFR general officer central selection board or an ANG federal
recognition board.
8.7.1. Responsibilities in the Promotion Recommendation Process.
8.7.1.1. Heads of management levels must:
8.7.1.1.1. Prepare PRFs on all promotion-eligible colonels under consideration by the
appropriate selection or federal recognition board (e.g., extended active duty colonels
with two years’ time in grade as of the board convening date). Note: Do not prepare
PRFs on prisoners or officers on appellate leave, or on ANG colonels being considered
for certificates of eligibility to the grade of brigadier general. When preparing PRFs
on promotion-eligible colonels, management levels may consider, in addition to the
OCSRG, other reliable sources of information, to include the senior officer UIF (if
applicable). Table 8.1, notes 4 and 6, contain further guidance. Guidance in this
instruction take precedence over those printed on the DAF Form 709. For ANG
colonels, the DAF Form 709 must be signed by the adjutant general. For adjutants
general, the DAF Form 709 must be signed by the Governor.
8.7.1.1.2. Personally complete PRFs by competitive category on all promotion-eligible
colonels who receive a “Definitely Promote This Board” and “Definitely Promote”
recommendation. Complete PRFs no earlier than 60 calendar days and no later than
30 calendar days before the selection or federal recognition board convenes.
8.7.1.1.3. Designate one or more representatives to perform this function for all other
promotion recommendations. Representatives must be senior in grade to the ratees.
Brigadier general selectees may not be designated as a representative for PRF purposes.
8.7.1.1.4. Send completed PRFs on all AFR colonels to AF/REG no later than 30
calendar days prior to the central selection board convening date.
8.7.1.1.5. Provide each ratee a copy of their PRF approximately 30 calendar days prior
to the appropriate board. Attach a memo (Figure 8.1) for ratees who received a “Do
Not Promote This Board” recommendation to advise the officer of the right to submit
a letter to the central selection board.
8.7.1.2. Vice Chief of Staff, USAF (AF/CV). The AF/CV, or designated representative,
serves as the single management level for Air Force colonels assigned outside the DoD, to
other military services, or as Air Force-level (e.g., senior service school) students.
8.7.1.3. Air Force Colonel Management Office (AF/A1LO).
8.7.1.3.1. Manages the PRF process for all RegAF list colonels.
8.7.1.3.2. Announces the PRF accounting date.
8.7.1.3.3. Matches promotion eligible officers to the appropriate management level on
the PRF accounting date.
8.7.1.3.4. Announces the “Definitely Promote This Board” allocation rate and a
combined allocation rate for the “Definitely Promote This Board”/“Definitely
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 223
Promote” recommendations in the personnel services delivery memorandum (PSDM)
released before the board.
8.7.1.4. Air Force Reserve General Officer Management (AF/REG). Manages the PRF
process for all AFR colonels.
8.7.1.5. National Guard Bureau ANG General Officer Management Office (NGB-SL-
B/AF). Manages the PRF process for all ANG colonels.
8.7.2. Processing and use of the PRF for colonels.
8.7.2.1. Send completed PRFs on all ADL colonels to AF/A1LO no later than 30 calendar
days prior to the central selection board convening date.
8.7.2.2. Send completed PRFs on all AFR colonels to AF/REG approximately 30 calendar
days prior to the central selection board convening date.
8.7.2.3. Send completed PRFs on all ANG colonels to NGB-SL-B/AF no later than 30
calendar days prior to the ANG federal recognition board convening date, or as directed by
NGB-SL-B.
8.7.2.4. Narrative-only/recommendation-only PRFs for patients and missing-in-
action/prisoners of war.
8.7.2.4.1. The senior rater sends the narrative-only PRF to AF/A1LO no later than 30
calendar days prior to the officer departing PCA or PCS for school.
8.7.2.4.2. The senior rater sends evaluations for officers in patient or missing-in-
action/prisoner of war status to AF/A1LO no later than 60 calendar days after the
officer enters this new status.
8.7.2.4.3. Senior raters provide a copy of the narrative-only PRF to the ratee prior to
the officer’s departure from home station.
8.7.2.4.4. AF/A1LO maintains narrative-only PRFs until the officer leaves patient, or
missing-in-action/prisoner of war status. AF/A1LO destroys narrative-only PRFs
when the officer no longer competes for promotion in this status. AF/A1LO maintains
the narrative-only PRFs until distributed as specified below:
8.7.2.4.4.1. For officers who become eligible for promotion consideration by a
brigadier general central selection board before they change status, AF/A1LO
forwards the narrative-only PRFs to AFDW, Military Personnel Branch
(AFDW/A1K).
8.7.2.4.4.2. After completion of the AF/CV recommendation-only PRFs (which
are attached to the narrative-only PRFs), the AF/CV forwards the PRFs back to Air
Force Colonel Management Office for inclusion in the HAF selection folder and
provides copies to the ratees.
8.7.2.5. Restrict the use of the DAF Form 709 to the brigadier general central selection
boards. Do not use PRFs for any other personnel action.
8.7.2.6. A PRF becomes a “matter of record” upon the convening date of the central
selection board for which it was prepared.
224 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
8.7.2.7. Destroy a colonel’s PRF within 30 calendar days of the officer’s promotion,
retirement, or separation.
8.7.2.8. Only the offices listed below may maintain copies of the PRF.
8.7.2.8.1. AF/A1LO for all ADL colonels.
8.7.2.8.2. AF/REG for all AFR colonels.
8.7.2.8.3. NGB-SL-B/AF for all ANG Colonels.
8.7.3. For instructions on completing the DAF Form 709 for colonels, see Table 8.4.
8.8. Supplemental Management Level Reviews for Recommendation Upgrade Post-Central
Selection Board (For ADL Only). The supplemental MLR is a competitive process required to
ensure fairness and equity in the post-central selection board PRF appeal process. As stated in
paragraph 8.1.4.3.10, management levels must maintain copies of the OCSRG that earned the
bottom “Definitely Promote” recommendation and the top two “Promote” recommendations in
carry-over at their MLR for each competitive category as it appeared before the MLR. The
OCSRG will serve as the “Definitely Promote” recommendation benchmark record to be competed
via a supplemental MLR against OCSRG of officers seeking a post-central selection board PRF
upgrade of the overall recommendation (Section IX) to a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.
8.8.1. Granting Supplemental Management Level Consideration. Management levels will
grant supplemental management level consideration only if they have the written support of
both the original senior rater and MLR president in accordance with Attachment 2,
paragraph A2.6.
8.8.2. Supplemental Management Level Review Procedures. Management levels will conduct
supplemental MLRs in conjunction with their next scheduled MLR, when appropriate
membership is present. When conducting a supplemental MLR, the applicant’s OCSRG, to
include the revised PRF as supported by both the original senior rater and MLR president, will
be competed head-to-head against the “Definitely Promote” recommendation and “Promote”
recommendation benchmarks and scored by all members of the MLR. Management levels
must ensure the applicant’s OCSRG contains only those documents that would have been
present during the original MLR. Scoring of the records will be a simple vote. The applicant’s
OSR must tie or beat the bottom “Definitely Promote” recommendation benchmark in order to
be awarded a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.
8.8.3. Disclosing of Supplemental Management Level Results. At the conclusion of the
supplemental MLR, the management level must ensure the MLR president certifies the results
via a results letter. If the applicant earned a “Definitely Promote” recommendation from the
supplemental MLR, the letter, along with the PRF, should be returned to the applicant to be
included in their appeal package (ERAB process in accordance with Chapter 10). See
paragraph 8.4.2.1.2. In addition, a copy of the letter and PRF must be forwarded to
AFPC/DPMSPE. If the applicant is not granted a “Definitely Promote” recommendation from
the supplemental MLR, then the applicant’s appeal to change the overall recommendation of
the PRF to a “Definitely Promote” recommendation is without merit. As such, the results letter
and PRF should be returned to the applicant, and only a copy of the letter must be forwarded
to AFPC/DPMSPE.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 225
Figure 8.1. Officer's Right to Submit a Memorandum to the Central Selection Board or
ResAF Central Selection Board (see DAFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective
Continuation, for further guidance).
226 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 8.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, (for
officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below).
L
I
N
E
A
B
C
To Complete
Instructions (See Notes 1 and 4)
Section
Item
1
I
Ratee
Identification
Data
See PRF notice for ratee identification data. If any data is
incorrect, notify the CSS/HR specialist and MPF to correct
the ADL. For RASL officers, notify the MPF (unit
assigned) or ARPC/DPTSE to correct any erroneous data.
2
Name
In all upper case, enter last name, first name, middle initial
and Jr., Sr., etc. If there is no middle initial, the use of
“NMI” is optional.
3
SSN
Enter Social Security Number.
4
Grade
Select grade (rank) from drop-down menu.
5
DAFSC
Enter the DAFSC, to include prefix and suffix, as of the
date the PRF notice is generated. See Note 2. See Note 3
for recommendation-only PRFs.
6
Organization,
Command,
Location
Enter organization, command, and location of assignment
(with attachment if applicable). For IMAs, information will
be that of the unit of assignment, and for PIRR and PIRR
Cat E, information will be that of unit of attachment.
See Note 3 for recommendation-only PRFs.
7
PAS Code
Enter the PAS code reflected on the PRF notice. If the PAS
code is incorrect, advise the CSS/HR specialist and MPF
(ADL officers), MPF (unit) or HQ RIO (IMAs). For IMAs,
information will be that of the unit of assignment, and for
PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be that of unit of
attachment. See Note 3 for recommendation-only PRFs.
8
II
Unit Mission
Description
Provides a description of primary unit responsibilities (e.g.,
what it is and does, and to whom it is responsible), and is
the same for all members of a unit. Limit to four lines.
This is normally the organization listed on the PRF.
However, in large organizations, it may be necessary to use
mission description for a lower level, such as the division
level if it more accurately portrays the activity in which the
officer performs duty. For recommendation-only PRFs,
leave blank.
9
III
Job Description
Complete as if on an officer evaluation.
For colonels in CSAF selected/designated wing equivalent
positions, include “Wing Equivalent” up front as the first
item in the job description
10
Duty Title
Enter the approved duty title as reflected in MilPDS.
Pending or projected duty titles will not be used (Example:
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 227
Officer departs to new duty location, losing senior rater may
not use new duty title). See the “Personnel Services
Delivery Transformation Training – Classifications: Duty
History” located in myFSS for further guidance. For
students, enter the student duty title (see Note 2). For AGR
students’ recommendation-only PRFs, enter “Student, type
of school” (e.g., Student, Industrial College of the Armed
Forces). For AFR position vacancy (PV), see Note 8. For
those assigned to a 365-day extended deployment billet,
enter deployed title.
11
Key Duties,
Tasks,
Responsibilities
This description must reflect the uniqueness of each ratee’s
job and not be standardized. Be clear and specific. Include
level of responsibility, number of people supervised and
dollar value of resources accountable for projects managed.
Avoid jargon, acronyms and topical references as they
obscure rather than clarify meaning. Mention additional
duties only if they directly relate to mission
accomplishment and previous jobs held during the reporting
period. For accessions receiving an evaluation while
awaiting the start of formal training, the first line of the
description will read “Officer is awaiting training.” This
may mirror the job description. See Notes 4 and 5. For
recommendation-only PRFs, leave blank.
12
IV
Promotion
Recommendation
Explain why the officer should or should not be promoted.
Limit comments to the next higher grade. See Notes 4 and
5. For narrative-only PRFs and RASL officers, comments
on all PRFs are mandatory. Comments are mandatory for
IPZ one time deferred (passed over) and APZ eligible
officers. Comments are optional for two or more times
deferred (passed over) APZ eligible officers. When
comments are optional, the final decision authority for
including comments remains with the senior rater.
Comments are required on all PRFs with a “Do Not
Promote This Board” recommendation, regardless of zone.
For ADL recommendation-only PRFs, this section is blank.
Comments are limited to the space provided.
13
V
Promotion Zone
For ADL I/APZ officers, in the drop-down menu, select
“I/APZ.” See PRF notice for promotion zone. Type or
hand-write entries. For narrative-only PRFs, leave blank.
14
VI
Group Size
For ADL officers, see Table 8.2. Type or hand-write the
entry. For narrative-only PRFs, leave blank. For ARC,
(I/APZ) rank order all officers awarded a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation, within each competitive
category, e.g., 2/5/10; the officer is ranked number 2 of 5
officers awarded a “Definitely Promote” recommendation
out of 10 officers in that competitive category meeting the
228 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
central selection board. Position Vacancy (PV): rank order
all officers nominated for PV within each competitive
category, e.g., 2/5; the officer is ranked number 2 of 5
officers. The senior rater has 5 officers in that competitive
category meeting the PV central selection board. The
Deputy RE ranks AGR student recommendation-only PRFs
according to the competitive category within the student
population. These PRFs are not included with the PRFs
under the SRID that applies to the Chief of Air Force
Reserve.
15
VII
Board
Enter the central selection board ID for which the senior
rater prepared the PRF (Example: P0423A indicates CY23
major board, and A0424A indicates the FY24 ANG major
board). The PRF notices includes the board ID. For
narrative-only PRFs that are wet signed, enter the date
signed in this section; if the narrative-only PRF is digitally
signed, leave blank. For RASL narrative-only PRFs, leave
blank.
16
VIII
SRID
Enter this code as shown on the PRF notice. For IMAs,
information will be that of the unit of assignment, and for
PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be that of unit of
attachment.
For narrative-only PRFs, leave blank.
17
IX
Overall
Recommendation
The senior rater selects from the drop-down menu one of
three recommendations. See Note 6 for additional
information on narrative-only PRFs, non-line/LAF-J, and
aggregate PRFs. For RASL, do not mark a
recommendation for PV or narrative-only PRFs. Nominees
for ANG colonel are exempt.
18
X
Senior Rater
Data
See instructions at Note 7.
Notes:
1. Senior raters complete PRFs no earlier than 60 calendar days for the central selection board
(the PRF cutoff date). For AFR, complete the PRFs in time to arrive at ARPC no later than 45
calendar days before the board convening date. Senior raters award one of three overall
recommendations: Definitely Promote (DP), Promote (P), or Do Not Promote This Board
(DNP). Excluding AFR and AGR officers, there is a limit on DP recommendations to ensure
they convey the intended message. There is no limit on P and DNP recommendations.
2. If changes to DAFSC or duty title are approved after the MLR but before the central
selection board, see paragraph 8.5 for correction procedures. Once the PRF is a matter of
record, a formal application for correction must be submitted in accordance with Chapter 10.
(T-1) For RASL officers, contact ARPC/DPTSE if data is incorrect. For AGR students, enter
“Student of (type of school).” E.g., PDE, IDE, SDE.
3. For Recommendation-Only PRFs:
a. Enter in Item 4, student DAFSC; for Item 5, the organizational designation, MAJCOM, and
a location of the ratee’s assigned school; and for item 6, student PAS code.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 229
b. For AGR students only: Enter in Item 4 the student DAFSC; for Item 5, Office of Air
Force Reserve (HAF), Washington District of Columbia; and for Item 6, student PAS code.
4. Some general guidelines:
a. For RegAF and ARC officers, promotion recommendation narratives are limited to the
space provided. In these comments, the senior rater should use plain language and limit use of
acronyms and/or abbreviations to provide a performance-based differentiation and/or
characterization of the eligible officer’s potential to serve in the next higher grade. If a
stratification is used, the promotion recommendation narrative will begin with the
stratification.
b. Endorsements for promotion are based upon an officer’s demonstrated character and
competence as detailed in the SecAF’s memorandum of instruction for promotion boards.
This is an opportunity for the senior rater to tell the central selection board why they should
(or should not) promote the officers. This should not be a summary of information already
contained in the record of performance. Comments or pushes for items that are decided
through other processes or means (e.g., developmental education, jobs, assignments) are not
authorized.
c. PRFs may include recommendations for promotion (limit comments to the next higher
grade).
d. Do not discuss classified information.
e. Include comments related to adverse actions. It is strongly recommended that control roster
actions be recorded.
f. Do not make recommendations for selective continuation since selective continuation boards
do not see PRFs. On central selection boards where promotion and selection continuation are
involved, PRFs are removed from the selection records before the start of the selective
continuation process.
g. Refer to paragraph 1.12 for inappropriate evaluator considerations and comments on
PRFs.
h. Duty information must be within the senior rater’s jurisdiction as of the PRF accounting
date.
i. Evaluators will not comment on an officer’s prior enlisted time. (T-1)
j. If an officer has a date of separation, has an approved retirement date, or is unsure about
career intent, it does not necessarily detract from performance-based potential and will not be
commented on in the PRF.
5. Comments are mandatory when an officer receives a DP or DNP recommendation, and
must substantiate, amplify, or explain the recommendation. (T-1)
6. For narrative-only PRFs, do not mark any of the three blocks and type “No Overall
Recommendation” in the top of this section. For non-line of the AF/LAF-J officers; MC and
DC promotion to major and lieutenant colonel; LAF, nurse corps (NC), medical service corps
(MSC), biomedical sciences corps (BSC), and chaplain corps (HC) promotion to captain, only
P or DNP recommendations are used on the PRF (when the promotion opportunity is 100
percent). Do not prepare a PRF for AF/LAF-J promotion to captain. For officers submitted in
aggregate or carry-over to an evaluation board, leave this section blank.
7. Senior Rater:
a. Enter name, grade, branch of service (military officers and Department of the Air Force
civilians only), organization, command of assignment, and location. Grade must be that in
which the Senior rater is serving. (T-1). Exception: Enter “Brig Gen (S)” for brigadier
230 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
general selectees confirmed by the Senate. Retired grade is not authorized. If an officer has
been frocked, enter their actual grade unless the officer is serving in a funded bullet and the
ratee is a lieutenant colonel or above.
b. Enter the last four digits of the Social Security Number if the evaluator is an Air Force
officer. The Social Security Number is optional, though encouraged, if the evaluator is a
civilian or member of another U.S. military service.
c. Do not include command level, unless it is an integral part of the duty title, with the official
duty title.
d. For ADL officers, enter current data as of the date of PRF completion. Do not complete the
PRF before the PRF cutoff date.
f. For ADL recommendation-only PRFs, the President of the AF Management Level Review
acts as the senior rater. Enter the following information: name; grade; branch of service; for
organization, enter “HAF Student MLR”; for location, enter the location of the review; social
security number; and for duty title, enter “President, HAF Student MLR.”
8. For PV nomination, place the position number to the far right in the “Duty Title” block.
All PV nominations must have a valid funded position number with an authorized grade higher
than the officer’s current grade when they arrive at ARPC/PB. (T-1). PRFs with missing
position numbers may be returned. PRFs with invalid position numbers or those for nominees
not the incumbent (an UMD overage) in the position will be returned. (T-1). Direct questions
to ARPC/PB.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 231
Table 8.2. What to Enter in (Group Size) on the PRF (ADL Lt Col and below only).
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
If the allocation
rate is
and the number of IPZ
eligible in an entire
management level is
(See Notes 1 and 2)
then enter
1
10 percent
10 or more
“N/A.”
2
9 or less
the actual number of eligible within the
entire management level.
3
15 percent
7 or more
“N/A.”
4
6 or less
the actual number of eligible within the
entire management level.
5
20 percent
5 or more
“N/A.”
6
4 or less
the actual number of eligible within the
entire management level.
7
25 to 30 percent
4 or more
“N/A.”
8
3 or less
the actual number of eligible within the
entire management level.
9
35 to 90 percent
3 or more
“N/A.”
10
2 or less
the actual number of eligible within the
entire management level.
Notes:
1. For line of the Air Force (LAF) officers only, the following rules apply: APZ eligible do
not generate “Definitely Promote” allocations; therefore, they do not apply when
determining the entry for Section VI on the PRF. For management levels with only LAF
APZ eligible members, please reference paragraph 8.3.1.5.2. When an officer is added to a
central selection board to change promotion zone eligibility after Day 66, enter a “1 for IPZ
officers or a “0” for APZ officers.
2. For non-line/LAF-J officers (I/APZ), always enter “N/A” regardless of the number of
eligible unless they fall under the criteria of paragraph 8.4.2. (e.g., board adds/promotion
zone changes).
232 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 8.3. Senior Rater “Definitely Promote” Allocation Rate Table – Active Duty List
Officers.
Allocation Rates (Percentages)
Number
of IPZ
Eligible
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
8
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
10
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
11
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
12
0
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
13
0
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
14
0
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
13
15
0
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
16
0
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
17
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
25
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
26
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
22
23
24
27
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
17
18
20
21
22
24
25
28
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
16
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
29
1
2
4
5
7
8
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
26
27
30
1
3
4
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
18
19
21
22
24
25
27
28
31
1
3
4
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
27
29
32
1
3
4
6
8
9
11
12
14
16
17
19
20
22
24
25
27
28
30
33
1
3
4
6
8
9
11
13
14
16
18
19
21
23
24
26
28
29
31
34
1
3
5
6
8
10
11
13
15
17
18
20
22
23
25
27
28
30
32
35
1
3
5
7
8
10
12
14
15
17
19
21
22
24
26
28
29
31
33
36
1
3
5
7
9
10
12
14
16
18
19
21
23
25
27
28
30
32
34
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 233
Allocation Rates (Percentages)
Number
of IPZ
Eligible
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
37
1
3
5
7
9
11
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
25
27
29
31
33
35
38
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
39
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
30
32
34
36
38
40
44
2
4
6
8
11
13
15
17
19
22
24
26
28
30
33
35
37
39
41
45
2
4
6
9
11
13
15
18
20
22
24
27
29
31
33
36
38
40
42
46
2
4
6
9
11
13
16
18
20
23
25
27
29
32
34
36
39
41
43
47
2
4
7
9
11
14
16
18
21
23
25
28
30
32
35
37
39
42
44
48
2
4
7
9
12
14
16
19
21
24
26
28
31
33
36
38
40
43
45
49
2
4
7
9
12
14
17
19
22
24
26
29
31
34
36
39
41
44
46
50
2
5
7
10
12
15
17
20
22
25
27
30
32
35
37
40
42
45
47
Note: To determine the number of senior rater “Definitely Promote” allocations
when there are more than 50 In-the-Promotion Zone eligible officers, multiply
the number of IPZ eligible officers times the allocation rate. If the result is not a
whole number, round down to the next lower whole number.
Example: A senior rater who has 63 eligible officers applied to a 65%
allocation rate earns 40 definitely promote allocations (63 X 65% = 40.95
allocations, rounded down to 40). This table applies to all competitive
categories. Exception: When the senior rater has three IPZ officers and the
allocation rate is 65%, senior raters may award two “Definitely Promote”
recommendations even though the computation does not result in two allocations
(1.95). This table reflects this exception.
234 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 8.4. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, (for
officers in the grade of colonel).
L
I
N
E
A
B
C
D
To Complete
Status
Instructions (See Notes 1 and 4)
Section
Item
RegAF
ARC
1
I
Ratee
Identification
Data
X
X
See PRF notice for ratee identification
data. If any data is incorrect, notify the
CSS/HR specialist and MPF for computer
correction of the active duty list (ADL
officers). For RASL officers, notify the
MPF (unit assigned) or ARPC/DPTSE to
correct any erroneous data.
2
Name
X
X
In all upper case, enter last name, first
name, middle initial and Jr., Sr., etc. If
there is no middle initial, the use of
“NMI” is optional.
3
SSN
X
X
Enter Social Security Number.
4
Grade
X
X
Select grade (rank) from drop-down menu.
5
DAFSC
X
X
Enter the DAFSC, to include prefix and
suffix, as of the date the PRF notice is
generated. For AFR refer to ARPCM.
See Note 2. See Note 3 for
recommendation-only PRFs.
6
Organization,
Command,
Location
X
X
Enter organization, command, and
location of assignment (with attachment if
applicable). For IMAs, information will
be that of the unit of assignment, and for
PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be
that of unit of attachment.
See Note 3 for recommendation-only
PRFs.
7
PAS Code
X
X
Enter the PAS code reflected on the PRF
notice. If the PAS code is incorrect,
advise the CSS/HR specialist and MPF
(ADL officers), MPF (unit) or HQ RIO
(IMAs). For IMAs, information will be
that of the unit of assignment, and for
PIRR and PIRR Cat E, information will be
that of unit of attachment. See Note 3 for
recommendation-only PRFs.
8
II
Unit Mission
Description
X
X
This block is not used for officers in the
grade of colonel. (AFR) Use approved
mission description based on PAS.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 235
9
III
Job Description
X
X
Complete as if on an officer evaluation.
For colonels in CSAF selected/designated
wing equivalent positions, include “Wing
Equivalent” up front as the first item in the
job description.
10
Duty Title
X
X
Enter the approved duty title as reflected
in MilPDS. Pending or projected duty
titles will not be used (Example: Officer
departs to new duty location, losing senior
rater may not use new duty title). See the
Personnel Services Delivery
Transformation Training – Classifications:
Duty History located in myFSS for further
guidance. For students, enter the student
duty title (see Note 2). For AGR students’
recommendation-only PRFs, enter
“Student, type of school” (e.g., Student,
Industrial College of the Armed Forces).
For AFR, use PRF notice/OSB. For AFR
PV, see Note 9. For those assigned to a
365-day extended deployment billet, enter
deployed title.
11
Key Duties,
Tasks,
Responsibilities
X
X
This description must reflect the
uniqueness of each ratee’s job and not be
standardized. Be clear and specific.
Include level of responsibility, number of
people supervised and dollar value of
resources accountable for projects
managed. Avoid jargon, acronyms and
topical references as they obscure rather
than clarify meaning. Mention additional
duties only if they directly relate to
mission accomplishment and previous jobs
held during the reporting period. For
accessions receiving an evaluation while
awaiting the start of formal training, the
first line of the description will read
“Officer is awaiting training.” This may
mirror the job description. See Notes 4
and 5. For recommendation-only PRFs,
leave blank.
12
IV
Promotion
Recommendation
X
Explain why the officer should or should
not be promoted. Limit comments to the
next higher grade. See Notes 4, 5 and 6.
X
Explain why the officer should or should
236 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
not be promoted. Limit comments to the
next higher grade. See Notes 4, 5 and 6.
For narrative-only PRFs RASL officers
and ANG officers meeting an FRB,
comments on all PRFs are mandatory.
13
V
Promotion Zone
X
X
This block is not used for officers in the
grade of colonel.
14
VI
Group Size
X
X
This block is not used for officers in the
grade of colonel (RegAF). If an officer is
awarded a DP, indicate the officer’s rank
order among the total number of DPs
awarded, then among the total promotion
eligible population (e.g., 2/5/10) (AFR).
15
VII
Board
X
X
Enter the central selection board ID for
which the senior rater prepared the PRF
(Example: P0423A indicates CY23 major
board, and A0424A indicates the FY24
ANG major board). The PRF notices
includes the board ID. For narrative-only
PRFs, enter the date signed in this section.
For RASL narrative-only PRFs, leave
blank. For ANG colonels nominated for
brigadier general, enter “N/A.”
16
VIII
SRID
X
X
This block is not used for officers in the
grade of colonel.
17
IX
Overall
Recommendation
X
X
The senior rater selects from the drop-
down menu one of four recommendations
(RegAF). See Note 7 for additional
information on narrative-only PRFs, non-
line/LAF-J, and aggregate PRFs. For
RASL, do not mark a recommendation for
PV or narrative-only PRFs. For AFR the
senior rater selects from the dropdown
menu one of three recommendations
(DP/P/DNP). For AFR, senior raters are
not constrained by how many DPs they
may award. For ANG colonels nominated
for brigadier general, enter “Definitely
Promote.”
18
X
Senior Rater
Data
X
X
See instructions at Note 8 for ADL
colonels, Note 10 for ANG colonels and
Note 11 for AFR colonels nominated for
brigadier general.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 237
Notes:
1. Senior raters complete PRFs no earlier than 60 calendar days before the central selection
board (the PRF cutoff date). For AFR, complete the PRFs in time to arrive at ARPC no later
than 45 calendar days before the board convening date. Senior raters of ADL colonels award
one of four overall recommendations: Definitely Promote this board (DPTB), Definitely
Promote (DP), Promote (P), or Do Not Promote This Board (DNP). Senior Raters of ARC
colonels award one of three overall recommendations: Definitely Promote (DP), Promote (P),
or Do Not Promote This Board (DNP).
2. If changes to DAFSC or duty title are approved after the MLR but before the central
selection board, see paragraph 8.5 for correction procedures. Once the PRF is a matter of
record, a formal application for correction must be submitted in accordance with Chapter 10.
(T-1) For RASL officers, contact ARPC/DPTSE if data is incorrect. For AGR students, enter
“Student of (type of school).” E.g., PDE, IDE, SDE.
3. For Recommendation-Only PRFs:
a. Enter in Item 4, student DAFSC; for Item 5, the organizational designation, MAJCOM, and
location of the ratee’s assigned school; and for item 6, student PAS code.
b. For AGR students only: Enter in Item 4 the student DAFSC; for Item 5, Office of Air
Force Reserve (HAF), Washington District of Columbia; and for Item 6, student PAS code.
4. Some general guidelines:
a. Endorsements for promotion are based upon an officer’s demonstrated character and
competence as detailed in the Secretary of the Air Force’s memorandum of instruction for
promotion boards. This is an opportunity for the senior rater to tell the central selection board
why they should (or should not) promote the officers. This should not be a summary of
information already contained in the record of performance. Comments or pushes for items
that are decided through other processes or means (e.g., developmental education, jobs,
assignments) are not authorized.
b. PRFs may include recommendations for promotion (limit comments to the next higher
grade).
c. Do not discuss classified information.
d. Include comments related to adverse actions. It is strongly recommended that control
roster actions be recorded.
e. Refer to paragraph 1.12 for inappropriate evaluator considerations and comments on
PRFs.
f. Duty information must be within the senior rater’s jurisdiction as of the PRF accounting
date. (T-1)
g. Evaluators will not comment on an officer’s prior enlisted time. (T-1)
5. Comments are mandatory when an officer receives a DPTB (RegAF), DP (AFR), or DNP
recommendation. Comments are optional when an officer receives a DP recommendation
(RegAF). Comments must substantiate, amplify, or explain the recommendation. (T-1)
Comments for P recommendations are prohibited (RegAF). Comments for P
recommendations are optional (AFR).
6. On PRFs prepared on promotion-eligible colonels, Section VI does not exist (RegAF).
Management level stratification will be placed in Section IV, Comments (RegAF). (T-1)
Focus on the potential to serve at the GO level. Use ratee’s accomplishments as a colonel to
demonstrate potential and explain why an officer uniquely qualifies for promotion more so
than others. Use comparative terms and gauge difficulty of job challenge, but do not repeat
238 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
content of officer evaluations. Highlight factors that demonstrate desired GO traits (breadth,
depth, versatility, adaptability, generalist qualities, leadership, management intellect, presence,
image, communication skills, experience, functional expertise, appreciation for future vision).
Use personal terms and be clear and concise. Identify true contenders and place heavy
emphasis on future use as a GO. The head of the management level (or designated
representative) may solicit advice and information from the ratee’s supervisors and
commanders, both current and past. If rendering a DPTB or DP recommendation, indicate the
officer’s rank order among the total number of promotion-eligible officers in the management
level and competitive category (RegAF). Example: An officer receiving a DP
recommendation who is second in a management level of 150 total eligible would have the
entry “2/150.” If the officer does not receive a DP recommendation, leave this section blank
or enter “N/A.”
7. For narrative-only PRFs, do not select any of the four blocks and type “No Overall
Recommendation,” in the top of this section. For officers submitted in aggregate or carry-over
to an evaluation board, leave this section blank.
8. For ADL colonels, the head of the management level must complete this section if the
recommendation is a DPTB or DP. (T-1) For other recommendations, the head of the
management level may designate one or more representatives, senior in grade to the ratee, to
complete this section.
9. For PV nomination, place the position number to the far right in this block. All PV
nominations must have a valid funded position number with an authorized grade higher than
the officer’s current grade with it arrives at ARPC/PB. (T-1) PRFs with missing/invalid
position numbers or those for nominees not the incumbent (an UMD overage) in the position
for which nomination may be returned. Direct questions to ARPC/PB.
10. For ANG colonels, the PRF must be signed by the Adjutant General of their state
affiliation. (T-1)
11. For AFR colonels, the head of the management level must complete this section if the
recommendation is a DP. (T-1) For other recommendations, the head of the management level
may delegate to any general officer or equivalent within the chain of command (most
commonly the senior rater).
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 239
Chapter 9
DAF FORM 3538, RETENTION RECOMMENDATION FORM (RRF)
9.1. When to Use the DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation. Use the DAF Form 3538
to provide performance-based differentiation and retention recommendations to assist involuntary
separation or retirement central selection boards such as force shaping, reduction in force, or
selective early retirement boards.
9.2. Responsibilities.
9.2.1. First Evaluator:
9.2.1.1. Reviews the ratee's OCSRG, DQHB, and UIF before preparing the retention
recommendation form. May consider other reliable information about duty performance
and conduct except as prohibited by paragraph 1.12 or other regulatory guidance.
9.2.1.2. Must be knowledgeable of the ratee's most recent performance. The first evaluator
may request subordinate supervisors provide information on an officer's most recent duty
performance and may ask for suggestions based upon the officer's duty performance for
PRF recommendations.
9.2.1.3. Is responsible for evaluating each officer’s OCSRG and DQHB and awarding one
of three retention recommendations for eligible officers:
9.2.1.3.1. A “Definitely Retain” recommendation means the strength of the ratee’s
performance and performance based potential alone warrants retention.
9.2.1.3.2. A “Retain” recommendation means the strength of the ratee’s performance
warrants retention.
9.2.1.3.3. A “Do Not Retain” recommendation means the ratee does not warrant
retention and should not be retained by the board for which the officer is eligible. The
first evaluator must make comments explaining to the board why the officer should not
be retained.
9.2.1.3.4. Evaluators may not base their retention recommendations on a member’s
intention to separate or retire or a board’s retention or separation quota.
Recommendations must be based on the member’s record of performance and their
potential for further service.
9.2.1.3.5. Comments are mandatory. Refer to paragraph 1.12 for inappropriate
comments. In addition, promotion recommendations are not permitted in the RRF.
9.2.1.3.6. For Colonel Retention Recommendation Forms. Comments should only
relate to the officer’s record as a colonel.
9.2.2. Second Evaluator.
9.2.2.1. Endorses the RRF no earlier than 60 calendar days before the central selection
board (the RRF cutoff date).
9.2.2.2. Ensures no subordinate commander and/or supervisor asks or allows an officer to
draft or prepare their own RRF.
240 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
9.2.2.3. Ensures there are no boards or panels of officers convened to collectively score,
rate, rank, or tally the records and/or generate a priority list of eligible officers unless
specifically authorized by this instruction. However, senior raters may request subordinate
supervisors to provide their assessment of the rank order of officers within their direct chain
of command.
9.2.2.4. Comments only if the second evaluator non-concurs with the first evaluator’s
recommendation. If the second evaluator non-concurs with the first evaluator’s
recommendation, then comments are mandatory explaining the decision. Note: AFPC
may provide alternate guidance when appropriate.
9.2.2.5. Provides the ratee a copy of the RRF (hand-delivered or sent in a sealed envelope
clearly marked, “To Be Opened By Addressee Only”) approximately 30-45 calendar days
prior to the board. The reason for this is two-fold: 1) to advise the ratee of the retention
recommendation and 2) to provide the ratee an opportunity to point out any errors of fact
so they may be corrected prior to the central selection board. Note: If the ratee is
geographically separated, send it to the ratee by “return receipt requested” mail.
9.2.2.6. Ensure the RRF remains a private matter with access being only between the
evaluators, the ratee and the board. Subordinate evaluators or others may have access to
comments or recommendation only on the RRF if permitted by the ratee.
9.2.2.7. Attach a memo telling the ratee who receives a RRF with a ‘Separate/Retire’
recommendation that they have the right to submit a letter to the board. See Figure 9.1.
9.2.3. The Ratee:
9.2.3.1. It is the ratee’s responsibility to contact the second evaluator if they have not
received a copy of the RRF no later than 15 calendar days prior to the board.
9.2.3.2. It is the ratee’s responsibility to ensure their record is current and accurate.
9.3. Retention Recommendation Form Submission. Administrative processing for the RRF, to
include SRID accounting, Air Force Promotion Management System management, unless stated
otherwise, will mirror that of the PRF except for those actions directly associated with the MLR
process. There is no MLR process for the RRF. Refer to paragraph 8.1.5 for processing
procedures and responsibilities.
9.4. Air Force Advisor Examination. For Air Force, when applicable, type, “AF Advisor
Review” on the left margin of the RRF and include the AF advisor’s name, grade, “USAF,” date,
and signature. See paragraph 1.6.7 for more guidance.
9.5. Correction of a Retention Recommendation Form. A RRF is considered a working copy
until the start of the board. If the RRF is not a matter of record, second evaluators have the
flexibility to change RRFs no later than two weeks prior to the central selection board. Use the
“Stop File” process (see paragraph 8.5) when correcting an RRF.
9.5.1. If the change to the RRF serves to weaken the narrative portion, is a negative content
change, or is a downgrade in the recommendation, the officer must be provided a copy of the
re-accomplished RRF and a letter, similar to the letter provided to an officer who receives a
“separate” recommendation, stating the officer’s right to write a letter to the central selection
board.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 241
9.5.2. A Retention Recommendation Form becomes a “matter of record” upon the convening
date of the central selection board for which it was prepared.
Figure 9.1. Officer's Right to Submit a Memorandum to the Central Selection Board
(CSB).
242 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 9.1. Instructions for Completing DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation.
I
T
E
M
A
B
C
To Complete
Instructions. See Note 1.
Sec
Item
1
I
Ratee
Identification Data
See the RRF notice for ratee identification data. If any data is
incorrect, notify the CSS/HR specialist and MPF for computer
correction.
Name
Enter Last Name, First Name Middle Initial and Jr., Sr., etc. If the
officer has no middle initial, the use of “NMI” is not mandatory. The
name may be all upper case.
Social Security
Number
Enter Social Security Number.
Grade
Enter appropriate grade (rank).
Duty Air Force
Specialty Code/Core
ID
Enter the DAFSC to include prefix and suffix or three-digit Core ID
as of the date the RRF notice is generated, as directed in specific
board guidance. See Note 2.
Organization
Enter organization, command, and location of assignment (with
attachment if applicable).
PAS
Enter the PAS code as reflected on RRF notice. If the PAS code is
incorrect, advise the CSS/HR specialist and MPF.
II
Job Description
Complete same as on a performance evaluation.
Duty Title
Enter the approved duty title. Pending or projected duty titles will not
be used. For students, enter the student duty title. See Note 2.
Key Duties
List key duties.
III
First Evaluator
Comments
Explain why the officer should or should not be retained. This section
covers the entire record of performance and provides key performance
factors from the officer's entire career, not just recent performance.
Comments must be typed. Do not make prohibited comments. See
Note 3.
IV
First Evaluator
Recommendation
The first evaluator marks one of three recommendations, as
appropriate by electronically placing an “X” in the block.
V
Board ID/Senior
Rater ID
Enter the board for which the senior rater prepared the RRF. The
RRF notice includes the board ID. Enter the five-character code used
to identify the position of the senior rater. Enter this code as shown
on the RRF notice.
VI
Second Evaluator
The second evaluator indicates concurrence or nonconcurrence with
the first evaluator’s recommendation by placing an “X” in the
appropriate box. See Note 3.
VII
Second Evaluator
Comments
Comments are mandatory when the second evaluator marks the
nonconcur block. The second evaluator must provide specific
comments to explain the disagreement. Comments must be typed.
Comments are not allowed if the second evaluator concurs.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 243
Notes:
1. Some general guidelines:
a. Comments must be in narrative format.
b. May include recommendations for professional military education and next assignment, but not
promotion.
c. Paragraph 1.12 applies.
d. Evaluators may consider and/or include information from other reliable sources (e.g., Reserve Officer
Training Corps distinguished graduates, Officer Training School distinguished graduates, etc.).
e. Do not comment on rankings or recommendations from prior DAF Forms 3538.
f. Comments may be warranted if an officer displays a reluctance to accept responsibility, has a negative
attitude towards the job, or performance has diminished. However, if an officer has a date of separation,
an approved retirement date, intends to separate or retire, or is unsure about career intent, it should not be
commented on in the RRF.
g. Do not discuss classified information.
h. Do consider including comments related to Article 15 actions or letters of reprimand, admonishment
or counseling. It is strongly recommended that control roster actions be recorded. It is mandatory to
record court-martial results unless actions resulted in acquittal.
2. If changes to DAFSC or duty title are approved after the RRF is a matter of record, a formal
application for correction must be submitted in accordance with Chapter 10.
3. Senior Rater (lieutenant colonels and below):
a. Enter name, grade, branch of service (military officers and Department of the Air Force social security
number civilians only), organization, command of assignment, and location. Grade must be that in which
the senior rater is serving. Exception: Enter “Brig Gen (S)” for brigadier general selectees. Retired
grade is not authorized. If an officer has been “frocked,” enter the actual grade unless the officer is
serving in a funded billet and the ratee is a lieutenant colonel or above.
b. Show social security number if the evaluator is a USAF officer (last four only). The social security
number is optional, though encouraged, if the evaluator is a civilian or a member of another US military
service.
c. Do not include command level, unless it is an integral part of the duty title, with the official duty title.
d. Do not enter any classified information.
244 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Chapter 10
CORRECTING OFFICER AND ENLISTED EVALUATIONS
10.1. Purpose.
10.1.1. The ERAB was established to provide Airmen with an avenue of relief for correcting
errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.
10.1.2. If an evaluation cannot be corrected under Table 10.2, an applicant’s first avenue of
relief for correcting an evaluation is through the ERAB, which is accessible via the
vMPF/myEval.
10.1.3. An applicant’s second and last avenue of relief is via the AFBCMR by submitting a
DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records under the Provisions of Title
10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, in accordance with DAFI 36-2603. Note: Applicants must
exhaust all other avenues of relief (e.g., the ERAB) before submitting their request to the
AFBCMR.
10.1.4. Retired or separated personnel are not eligible to apply for correction through the
ERAB; therefore, they must submit a DD Form 149 to the AFBCMR.
10.2. Program Elements.
10.2.1. Who Establishes the Board. The Commander, Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC/CC)
directs the business process owner of DAF Evaluation Programs to establish an ERAB to
assess requests to correct evaluations and to correct substantiated errors or injustices for RegAF
personnel. The Commander, Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC/CC) directs the
establishment of the ERAB to assess requests to correct evaluations and to correct substantiated
errors or injustices on ARC personnel.
10.2.1.1. For officer appeals, the board president must be at minimum an Air Force
commissioned officer or civilian in the grade of O-5/GS-12 and above. For enlisted
appeals, the board president must be equal to or higher than the requester or at a minimum
an Air Force senior noncommissioned officer or civilian in the grade of E-7/GS-9.
10.2.1.2. Each board consists of two board members and a board president. A board
member or president who was, or is, an evaluator for an applicant cannot consider that
person's appeal.
10.2.1.3. Evaluations that have become a matter of record are presumed to be accurate and
objective. Applicants filing an appeal must provide evidence that clearly demonstrate an
error or injustice was made.
10.2.2. Who Administers the Appeal Process. The Evaluations Programs Section
(AFPC/DPMSPE and ARPC/DPTSE) manages the appeals process and executes board
decisions. Following the board’s decision, destroys all working papers, memoranda,
worksheets, recommendations, and notes between the board members or between the board
and the evaluation section which pertain to the case. The board does not create nor maintain
formal records of proceedings.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 245
10.2.3. How the Board Will Operate.
10.2.3.1. Board members review applications and make recommendations to the ERAB
President.
10.2.3.2. The ERAB President.
10.2.3.2.1. Reviews the member's request, considers each board member’s
recommendations, and makes the final decision for the appeal.
10.2.3.2.2. Acts for the full board on applications which involve administrative and
technical corrections, or in cases that clearly lack the evidence necessary for
presentation to the full board, or in cases that require waiving the time limit for an
appeal.
10.2.3.3. The Board.
10.2.3.3.1. May be formal or informal.
10.2.3.3.2. Does not permit personal appearances. Neither applicants nor their
representatives can appear before the ERAB.
10.2.3.3.3. Handles all appeals confidentially and does not normally disclose
information to outside agencies.
10.2.3.3.4. Refers cases for action to appropriate agencies or individuals, such as Air
Force Office of Special Investigations, unit commander, and so on, if documents or
statements do not appear to be authentic. The Manual for Courts-Martial specifies
penalties for creating false or forged official statements and documents. Civilian Air
Force employees may be punished under federal law.
10.2.3.3.5. Reviews cases based on information supplied in the application. The
ERAB is not an investigative body and does not solicit additional documentation in
support of an application. However, if the board decides to consider information that
was not available to the applicant, the ERAB will notify the applicant and allow them
time to comment on the information. Exception: Information contained in MilPDS
or the Master Personnel Record Group.
10.2.3.3.6. Directs removal, inclusion, substitution and/or corrections to evaluations.
The ERAB is authorized to modify evaluations that differ from the applicant's request
(e.g., the applicant requests the report be voided because the feedback date is incorrect;
the ERAB may deny voiding the report and instead direct the feedback date be
corrected).
10.2.4. Prohibited Requests. The board will not consider nor approve requests to:
10.2.4.1. Void an evaluation when the error or injustice can be corrected administratively.
10.2.4.2. Void an evaluation while keeping attachments to that evaluation.
10.2.4.3. Void an evaluator's section while keeping comments or ratings of subsequent
evaluators.
10.2.4.4. Void an evaluator's comments but keep the ratings (or vice versa).
10.2.4.5. Delete required information or add unauthorized information to an evaluation.
246 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10.2.4.6. Change (except for deletions) an evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator
does not support the change. When an evaluator supports changing ratings, all subsequent
evaluators must also agree to the changes (including the commander on enlisted
evaluations, the reviewer on officer evaluations, and the MLR board president on PRFs).
(T-1) Justification is required from the original evaluators. See Attachment 2, paragraph
A2.3.
10.2.4.7. Re-accomplish an evaluation without the applicant furnishing the new
evaluation.
10.2.4.8. Void, correct, or change an evaluation that does not meet the 3-year time limit
without a waiver. See paragraph 10.5.
10.2.4.9. Correct or rewrite an evaluation post-board based solely on the omission of an
optional statement, or to make the evaluation stronger (e.g., professional military
educational/developmental educational/assignment recommendations, awards,
deployment information, senior rater endorsements, and/or stratifications are not
mandatory, therefore omission of any does not make the report inaccurate or unjust).
10.2.4.10. Void or correct an evaluation because an action (e.g., UIF, control roster,
Article 15, etc.) was removed:
10.2.4.10.1. Early or on the disposition date. Removal does not mean the action did
not take place. If the corrective action existed on or before the close-out date of the
evaluation, the evaluation may still be valid.
10.2.4.10.2. Because the corrective action was “set aside.” If the corrective action
(e.g., Article 15) was “set-aside,” but the behavior that led to the corrective action is
still supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the behavior existed on or
before the close-out date of the report, the evaluation may still be valid if the report
only reflects the behavior and not the corrective action that was “set aside.” If the
action that was “set aside” is mentioned in the evaluation, the ERAB would only
remove the reference to it; not the behavior that led to the action (See DAFI 51-202,
Nonjudicial Punishment, paragraph 5.7.2, regarding the effects of Article 15 Set
Asides). Examples:
10.2.4.10.2.1. The ratee received an Article 15 for driving under the influence, and
later the Article 15 was set aside for reasons other than a lack of evidence or
innocence. However, the evaluation only states “Used poor judgment—drove
under the influence of alcohol.” Since the evidence shows by a preponderance of
the evidence the ratee drove under the influence of alcohol, and the evaluation does
not mention the Article 15, the evaluation is still a valid report.
10.2.4.10.2.2. The ratee received an Article 15 for driving under the influence, and
later the Article 15 was set aside for reasons other than a lack of evidence or
innocence. The report states “Used poor judgment—rcvd Art 15 for Driving Under
the Influence.” In this case, the ERAB would not void the evaluation but would
correct the evaluation to reflect “Used poor judgment— Driving Under the
Influence.”
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 247
10.2.4.10.2.3. For the ERAB to decide favorably to void the evaluation, the
applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the behavior did not
take place and the corrected action taken was officially set aside and not just
removed or expired.
10.2.5. Appeals based on Promotion/Career Opportunity. Although not prohibited, ERAB
requests based solely on a willingness by evaluators to change evaluations after non-selection
for promotion will not be favorably considered unless proven the evaluation was erroneous or
unjust based on content. See Attachment 2, paragraph A2.5.1.
10.3. Correcting Evaluations.
10.3.1. Prior to Becoming a Matter of Record. Once a digital signature is applied, the
comments and ratings are locked and cannot be changed. In addition, the digital signatures
cannot be deleted. If a correction needs to be made after the form has been digitally signed,
then the rater will need to re-accomplish the form. The rater will be able to copy the text areas
from the erroneous form and paste them into the new form. The corrections can be made, and
the form resigned. The form will reflect the date of the new signature.
10.3.2. Appealing Evaluations and Requesting Changes After Evaluations Have Become a
Matter of Record. See paragraph 1.4.3 to determine when an evaluation becomes a matter of
record. Applicants must exhaust all avenues of relief before submitting their requests to the
AFBCMR. The other avenues available are:
10.3.2.1. Administrative Correction. See Table 10.2 to determine if the requested
correction can be made through administrative procedures without referral to the ERAB or
AFBCMR. Due to the electronic process, only AFPC/DPMSPE can make corrections to
evaluations. Once an evaluation becomes a matter of record, even administrative
corrections will require an applicant to submit an ERAB via the electronic process
(vMPF/myEval). An example of a case that would not require an ERAB or AFBCMR is
when a report is not viewable in ARMS/PRDA or MilPDS is not updated.
10.3.2.2. When the correction cannot be corrected administratively, the next avenue of
relief is through the ERAB. Procedures for appealing evaluations through the ERAB are
prescribed in this chapter.
10.3.2.3. If the correction cannot be corrected administratively, the ERAB denies the
appeal, or the requested action is not authorized by this chapter, the next avenue of relief
would be through the AFBCMR procedures and can be found in DAFI 36-2603.
10.3.2.4. Performance feedback assessment worksheets and sessions are not subject to
appeal.
10.3.3. Any changes or corrections that substantially alter the content from the original version
require original signatures from all evaluators. If an evaluator (other than the rater) is
unavailable and all attempts to contact them have failed, the individual who replaced the
missing evaluator will sign the evaluation. When correcting an administrative error prior to
the evaluation becoming a matter of record and one or more of the evaluators are unavailable
to sign the re-accomplished evaluation, any evaluator in the rating chain after the unavailable
evaluator may sign.
248 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10.3.4. Re-accomplish evaluations containing an excessive number of erasures, change
sentence meaning, or requiring corrections to the ratings. Do not use paper correction tape.
Do not correct ratings.
10.3.5. Evaluations will not be appealed under Chapter 10 or DAFI 36-2603 before becoming
a matter of record.
10.3.6. For PRF corrections, see paragraph 8.5 and Attachment 2, paragraph A2.6.
10.3.7. Corrected Copies of Digitally Signed Documents. See paragraph 1.4.5.2.
10.4. Responsibilities.
10.4.1. The Military Personnel Flight (MPF). Provides training and advises personnel on the
ERAB process. Opens a case management system case when applicable.
10.4.2. The Commander’s Support Staff (CSS). Provides guidance on the ERAB process and
how to access the vMPF and/or myEval.
10.4.3. The Total Force Service Center (TFSC) Personnel.
10.4.3.1. Be knowledgeable of the appeals process, and familiar with the contents of this
instruction.
10.4.3.2. Determine if the correction is minor or requires a formal application by the
member. Minor corrections will be processed by the applicable office of primary
responsibility in accordance with Table 10.2. Note: Any and all corrections involving
DAF Forms 709 and DAF Forms 3538 will immediately be forwarded to AFPC/DPMSPE
for correction.
10.4.3.3. Explains application procedures and documentation requirements via the vMPF
and/or myEval. The addresses for sending original documents are:
10.4.3.3.1. RegAF:
AFPC/DPMSPE
Attn: ERAB
550 C Street West, Suite 7
Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph TX 78150-4709
10.4.3.3.2. AFR/ANG (ARC):
ARPC/DPTSE
Attn: ERAB
18420 E Silver Creek Ave, Bldg. 390 MS 68
Buckley AFB CO 80011-9502
10.4.3.4. Assist applicants in completing the on-line application through the
vMPF/myEval. If applicant is other than the ratee, the TFSC refers the applicant to the
MPF or CSS/HR specialist who will initiate a case management system case. If the
applicant does not have access to the vMPF/myEval, the TFSC will refer the applicant to
the MPF/HR specialist who will initiate a case management system case.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 249
10.4.3.5. Provide the military addresses of personnel and assists applicants in contacting
retirees through the worldwide locator in accordance with AFI 33-332, Air Force Privacy
and Civil Liberties Program. Note: The Privacy Act protects retirees' addresses.
10.4.3.6. Explain and emphasize expedited waiver procedures in accordance with
paragraph 10.5 and Attachment 2, paragraph A2.4. Advise members that it takes
approximately 90-120 calendar days to process a case, and if they are requesting a
correction to be completed before a board to please plan accordingly. Expedited cases
must reach AFPC/DPMSPE no later than 45 calendar days before the board convening date
(not applicable for ARC). Note: Although every attempt is made to get cases completed
prior to a pending board, there is no guarantee that an application will be completed prior
to the board.
10.4.3.7. The TFSC will provide a cadre of specialists to act as liaisons for, and provide
guidance to, base level commanders and MPF personnel or CSS/HR specialists for any
questions related to the ERAB process or to check on the status of an application.
10.4.4. The Member.
10.4.4.1. Submits request for correction, insertion or removal of evaluations via the vMPF.
10.4.4.1.1. If applicant does not have access to the vMPF, they may contact the
servicing MPF or CSS who will open a Case Management System case.
10.4.4.1.2. If an applicant does not have access to the vMPF, and the servicing MPF
or CSS/HR specialist, then the applicant must obtain AFPC/DPMSPE approval. If
approved, the applicant must submit an DAF Form 948, Application for
Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports. See Table 10.6 for instructions. DAF
Form 948 will be authorized only on a case-by-case basis, and under extremely
extenuating circumstances (e.g., someone who is in confinement and has absolutely no
way to access to the vMPF). Non-availability waiver requests due to being out-of-the
office, on leave, or TDY will not be approved (not applicable for ARC).
10.4.4.2. Clearly and concisely state what the applicant wants (e.g., “Request my enlisted
evaluation rendered for the period 1 Jun 22 – 31 May 23 be removed,” or “Correct the duty
title in my enlisted evaluation that closed out on 31 May 23”).
10.4.4.3. Supply clear and credible evidence to support the application. See Attachment
2.
10.4.4.3.1. Supporting statements are required when making changes to an evaluation
and must have dates and signatures. These statements must relate specifically to the
period of the contested report. When information is not firsthand, the author must
identify the source. See Attachment 2.
10.4.4.3.2. All documents can be processed through the vMPF. All documents will be
scanned into the Personnel Processing Application of the vMPF with the application.
10.4.4.3.3. The applicant can obtain copies of the contested evaluations and or
documents required for their appeal through the ARMS/PRDA access in vMPF.
10.4.4.4. Make sure that no rule in this instruction prohibits their request. See paragraph
10.2.4 and Attachment 2.
250 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10.4.4.5. Applicants may contact the TFSC for guidance and application procedures.
10.4.4.6. Corrected Copies. See paragraph 1.4.5.2 and paragraph 1.4.5.3.
10.4.5. Corrections Initiated by Someone Other than the Ratee. When someone other than the
ratee finds an error in an evaluation, they:
10.4.5.1. Determine if the evaluation can be corrected administratively in accordance with
Table 10.2.
10.4.5.2. Take corrective action by contacting the MPF or CSS/HR specialist to initiate a
vMPF case or advise the ratee to take corrective action.
10.4.5.3. Provide a statement from the ratee, acknowledging they are aware of the pending
action and concur/non-concur with the request. Note: The ratee does not have to concur
to submit the request. This statement is for acknowledgement purposes only and gives the
ratee an opportunity to dispute the action.
10.4.5.3.1. If the ratee disagrees, they may explain why the correction should not be
approved and suggest an alternative within 10 calendar days from when the ratee was
notified of the pending action. Reasonable extensions may be requested. The omission
of any remarks will be considered as acceptance by the ratee.
10.4.5.3.2. If the ratee is unavailable to submit a statement, send a copy of the appeal
to the member with a memorandum explaining the error, and ask the member to provide
written comments within 10 calendar days from the date received. To ensure the
member has had an opportunity to review the appeal, have the member acknowledge
receipt on the statement or use certified mail to document the date of receipt.
10.4.5.3.3. Reasonable requests for an extension of the time limit should be approved.
10.4.5.3.4. When the member provides written comments, submit the applicant's
response and a copy of the memorandum with the application.
10.4.5.3.5. If the member fails to respond, annotate the remarks section of the
application with, "Comments from the ratee were requested but not received." Attach
a copy of the memorandum and either the member’s acknowledgment or the certified
mail receipt with the application.
10.4.6. AFPC/DPMSPE and ARPC/DPTSE.
10.4.6.1. Review all ERAB applications for DAFI compliance.
10.4.6.2. Process all applications that meet the requirements for submitting an ERAB.
10.4.6.3. Return all applications that do not meet the requirements for submitting an
ERAB.
10.4.6.4. When applicable, make corrections to evaluations, update MilPDS, and forward
the corrected evaluations to the appropriate offices.
10.4.6.5. Notify applicants of results via the vMPF or email.
10.4.6.6. Provide guidance to commanders, MPFs, and CSS/HR specialists as required.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 251
10.5. Meeting Time Limits and Expedited Requests.
10.5.1. Time Limits.
10.5.1.1. Submit appeals within three years following the date the evaluation became a
matter of record. If the exact date is not known, add two months to the date the final
evaluator signed the evaluation.
10.5.1.2. If the evaluation is more than three years old, submit a waiver of the time limit.
See Attachment 2, and paragraph A2.4.
10.5.1.3. Normal processing time for appeal applications is 90-120 calendar days from a
completed application. This does not include periods which applications are returned for
corrections or missing documents.
10.5.1.4. Promotion boards are closed out (cutoff) 30 to 45 calendar days prior to the board
convening date. In order to process an appeal in time, AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE
must receive the appeal no later than 45 days before the cutoff date, (90 calendar days
before the particular SSB or supplemental board). Although every attempt is made to
expedite these cases, there is no guarantee that the case will be worked in time to meet the
particular board, even when the case is marked “Expedited.”
10.5.2. Expedited Processing.
10.5.2.1. If an appeal must be resolved before a specific date or event, such as a pending
promotion or SSB, submit applications to AFPC/DPMSPE (RegAF) or ARPC/DPTSE
(ARC) no later than 90 calendar days before the specific date or event.
10.5.2.2. The only cases that will be accepted for expedited processing after the 90-day
cutoff will be evaluations, including PRFs, that have closed out within 90 calendar days of
the board convening date.
10.6. Using Classified, Privacy Act, and Restricted Release Information.
10.6.1. Do not include classified information in the body of an appeal. When necessary,
include classified information in attachments. The applicant ensures classified attachments are
submitted in accordance with security directives establishing control and mailing rules.
10.6.2. When submitting documents on someone else (e.g., evaluations on other individuals,
DAF Forms 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action, PCS orders, travel vouchers,
etc., on supervisors or coworkers), submit a statement from the concerned individual granting
permission to submit the particular document. Applications that do not comply will be returned
without action. The applicant may then resubmit the application with the permission statement
or remove the document from the application.
10.6.3. If the information in a restricted release file is essential to the case, request the
releasing agency to forward the information directly to AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE.
When submitting requests to the releasing agency, members must waive, in writing, the right
to review the information. Include a copy of this waiver with the appeal application. When
the board has decided the appeal, AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/DPTSE destroys the restricted
file or returns it to the releasing agency.
252 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
10.7. Requesting Special Selection Board (SSB) or Supplemental Promotion Consideration.
10.7.1. RegAF officers can, in conjunction with their appeal, request SSB consideration for
promotion, RegAF appointment, in-resident professional military education, selective early
retirement, or reduction-in-force separation boards.
10.7.2. AFR officers can, in conjunction with their appeal, request SSB consideration for
promotion.
10.7.3. RegAF enlisted personnel may request supplemental promotion consideration in
conjunction with the appeal application. Such a request must be indicated on the appeal
application; however, squadron commander’s concurrence is required when submitting the
request. The commander must complete the endorsement on the personnel processing
application by using the “HR Review” button in Case Management System; by submitting a
statement for application submitted by someone other than the ratee; or by signing the DAF
Form 948 when the applicant does not have access to the vMPF or MPF or CSS/HR specialist.
See paragraph 10.4.4.1.2. The commander must indicate concurrence or non-concurrence
and provide an explanation for non-concurrence.
10.8. Resubmitting an Appeal.
10.8.1. Applicants can resubmit an appeal only if they have substantial new evidence which
the board did not initially consider.
10.8.1.1. Do not resubmit an application when the only documentation added to the case
is a statement which simply rebuts the ERAB’s previous decision. The ERAB does not
view a rebuttal statement as new evidence and will decline to reconsider the case.
Statements from members of the rating chain which respond directly to questions or
concerns posed in the previous decision memorandum are acceptable new evidence.
10.8.1.2. Include all previous documentation with the new application.
10.8.2. If dissatisfied with the decision of the ERAB submit an appeal to the AFBCMR. See
paragraph 10.1.3.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 253
Table 10.1. How to Submit Requests for Correction.
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
D
If
the desired action is
then submit the request
then forward to
1
the ratee is
serving on RegAF
allowed under this
instruction (See
paragraph 10.4.4)
To the ERAB via the vMPF
using the Personnel
Processing Application
(PPA).
See paragraph 10.4.4.1.2
when the PPA is
unavailable.
See Notes 1 and 2.
AFPC/DPMSPE, Attn:
ERAB
550 C Street West,
Suite 7 (Bldg 499),
Joint Base San
Antonio- Randolph
TX 78150-4709
2
the ratee is a
participating
USAF Reserve or
Air National
Guard enlisted or
officer
on DAF Form 948 via
myEval. See paragraph
10.4.4.
See Note 1.
ARPC/DPTSE, Attn:
ERAB 18420 E. Silver
Creek Ave Bldg 390
MS 68,
Buckley AFB CO
80011-9502
3
the ratee is a non-
participating
reservist, retired,
discharged,
separated,
dismissed, or
dropped from
rolls; or request is
not allowed
not allowed under this
instruction. (See
paragraph 10.1.4)
on DD Form 149 in
accordance with DAFI 36-
2603.
AFBCMR,
(SAF/MRBC),
3351 Celmers Lane,
Joint Base Andrews
NAF Washington, MD
20762-6435 or via
email to:
saf.mrbc.workflow@u
s.af.mil.
4
not the ratee and
have found an
error in an
evaluation
allowed under this
instruction (See
paragraph 10.4.5)
in accordance with
paragraph 10.4.5 and rules
1 or 2 above (as applicable).
the office shown in
rules 1 or 2 above (as
applicable).
Notes:
1. Table 10.2 lists errors that are correctable without a formal application.
2. Submit the original DAF Form 948 with all supporting documents or DD Form 149
(whichever is applicable) with all supporting documents. See paragraph 10.4.4.
254 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 10.2. Correcting Minor Errors on Evaluations.
R
U
L
E
Minor Errors
Note: Once a digitally signed evaluation has been transmitted to AFPC or ARPC, only
AFPC or ARPC is authorized to make the correction. Submit an ERAB request via the
vMPF/myEval.
The error is considered minor if the request is to correct an error in:
1
The ratee’s identification data:
Name, grade, social security number, (component, ANG and AFR only), organizational
element, or the identification data of an evaluator who signed the evaluation.
Name, grade, social security, duty title, organizational element, date of signature, or final
evaluator's position.
Education or promotion or TIG/TIS eligible blocks.
See Notes 1, 2, and 3. Go to Table 10.3.
2
The ratee's DAFSC, duty title, or level of duty.
Enlisted: DAFSC must be reflected in the ratee’s duty history.
Officers: Not an administrative correction. Applicant must submit an ERAB request via
the vMPF/myEval. For active duty list officers, the DAFSC authorization must be
approved by the applicable AFPC assignment functional manager and reflected in the
ratee’s duty history.
Note: The MPF or CSS/HR specialist performs the duty history update once the duty title
is approved.
See Notes 1, 4, and 8. Go to Table 10.3.
3
The FROM or THRU date of the evaluation, the number of days of supervision, or the
reason for evaluation. See Notes 1, 5, and 6. Go to Table 10.3.
4
The marking of a “concur” or “non-concur” box, “meets/does not meet standards,” Forced
Endorsement, “is this a referral report,” or to add a missing rating.
See Notes 1 and 7. Go to Table 10.3.
5
Spelling, punctuation, or heading in an evaluator's comments.
See Notes 1, 9, and 10. Go to Table 10.3.
6
The ratee's name or grade in an evaluator's comments.
See Notes 1 and 9. Go to Table 10.3.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 255
Notes:
1. Do not make corrections using this table if any doubt exists about the appropriateness of the
request. Instead, submit a formal application in accordance with Table 10.1 with the
questionable circumstances fully outlined. Any person who knows of an error that is
correctable under Table 10.2 should bring it to the attention of the MPF evaluations section or
the records custodian responsible for maintaining the original evaluation.
2. Submit an application according to Table 10.1 if the request is to change or add signatures,
change or add signature dates on referral evaluations and supporting documents, and/or to
substitute a re-accomplished evaluation. Changes to the final evaluator's position will be made
only when the MPF evaluations section or the records custodian having custody of the original
evaluation determines conclusively that an error exists. Do not correct TIG eligibility as an
administrative correction; it must be corrected through the ERAB.
3. If a supplemental promotion board, or the AFBCMR has changed an individual’s grade due
to retroactive promotion resulting from a review, submit a request according to Table 10.1. In
these cases, the evaluation will be annotated with a statement that reads “Member promoted to
(grade) with a retroactive effective date prior to the date this evaluation was rendered.”
4. The evaluation may be changed when approved documentation existed on or before the
close-out date of the evaluation and a central selection board has not considered the evaluation.
If approved documentation did not exist, was subsequently approved, or the contested
evaluation has been considered by a central selection board, submit a request according to
Table 10.1.
5. If a correction to either the period of the evaluation or the number of days of supervision
would invalidate the requirement for that or any other evaluation on file, submit a request
according to Table 10.1.
6. If changing the close-out date of an enlisted evaluation would result in the ratee receiving a
supplemental promotion consideration, the rater must submit a request according to Table
10.1.
7. Caution. Take extreme care when adding missing ratings or correcting “concur” or “non-
concur” boxes. Submit an application in accordance with Table 10.1 any time the rater’s or
endorser’s rating(s) are missing and the “non-concur” box is also marked, or neither box is
marked. However, an unmarked or mismarked “concur” or “non-concur” box may be
corrected when, after reviewing the evaluator’s comments and ratings, there is no question as
to which box should have been marked. If a rating is also missing or doubt exists, submit an
application according to Table 10.1.
8. Submit a formal application according to Table 10.1 to request changes to the unit mission
description or the job description.
9. Do not change references such as “airman” or “sergeant” to reflect the person’s actual
grade.
10. Do not change words (other than misspellings), phrases, sentence structure, or grammar
under this table.
256 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 10.3. Minor Corrections – Offices Authorized to Make Corrections and Disposition.
R
U
L
E
A
B
If the correction is
authorized in
accordance with
Note: Once the evaluation has been transmitted to AFPC,
only AFPC is authorized to correct digitally signed evaluations
and an ERAB case must be submitted via the vMPF/myEval.
1
All enlisted grades
AB – CMSgt
AFPC
See Notes 1 through 5.
2
2Lts through Lt Cols
3
CMSgts selectees
and CMSgts
Chiefs’ Group
AF/A1LE
4
Colonel selects
and colonels (active duty
list)
Colonels’ Group
AF/A1LO
5
All general officers
and brigadier general
selectees (RegAF, AFR,
ANG)
General Officers’ Group
AF/A1LG
1040 AF Pentagon, Room 5C238
Washington District of Columbia 20330-1040
See Notes 1 through 5
6
All ANG or AFR officers
and enlisted personnel in
the grade of colonel and
below
ARPC/DPTSE
Attn: ERAB
18420 E. Silver Creek Ave, Bldg 390 MS 68
Buckley AFB, CO 80011-9502
See Notes 1 through 5
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 257
Notes:
1. Do not change words (other than misspellings), phrases, sentence structure, or grammar
under this table.
2. If the request is invalid, incomplete, or questionable, return it through any previous
processing levels to the correction initiator with appropriate instructions. The initiator must
identify all required changes because changing an evaluation’s close-out date can change the
number of days of supervision, the reason for evaluation, the signature dates, or the FROM
date of the subsequent evaluation.
3. If the correction is authorized, the office that maintains the original evaluation will make
the correction to the original and forward copies to the appropriate offices.
4. The ERAB and the AFBCMR have the authority to correct or direct correction and
distribution of all evaluations.
5. Disposition. Digitally signed via automated system. “Wet Signed” below.
a. TSgt and below (RegAF): Original – AFPC/DPSORM (ARMS/PRDA)
b. MSgt selects and above: Original – AFPC/ DPSORM (ARMS/PRDA)
c. ARC: Original – ARPC/DPTSE, AFPC/DPSORM (ARMS/PRDA)
258 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 10.4. Board Directed Corrections - Correcting and Disposition of Documents.
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
D
E
If the action is a
correction
that
then the agency
authorized to make
the correction is
who will
and
1
directed by the
ERAB
changes an
evaluation
AFPC/DPMSPE
ARPC/DPTSE
AF/A1LG
AF/A1LO
correct and initiate
correction of the
evaluation.
See Notes 1
and 2.
prepares an DAF
Form 77
See Notes 3, 4 and 5.
annotates the
document. See Note
6.
distributes
copies of the
corrected
evaluation,
DAF Form 77,
or other
documents to
records
custodians
with
appropriate
instructions.
See Note 8.
2
directed by the
AFBCMR
AFPC/DPMSPE
ARPC/DPTSE
AF/A1LG
AF/A1LO
correct and initiate
correction of the
evaluation as directed
by the AFBCMR.
See Note 7.
Notes:
1. On the bottom, reverse margin, type “CC” (for corrected copy), followed by the date, authenticator's
organization, office symbol, and signature (Example: CC, 1 Jun 23, AFPC/DPMSPE). Align
authenticator data in margin to allow adequate space for punched holes. The person signing the
annotation must be a SSgt/GS-5 or above.
2. For evaluations being re-accomplished, annotate the signature blocks of evaluators not reasonably
available ORIGINAL SIGNED. If used, the comments and ratings of the evaluators must be copied
verbatim from the original evaluation. Note: All measures must be exhausted before this measure can
be used.
3. For voided evaluations (excluding imbedded TRs and PRFs), prepare an DAF Form 77 with the
statement: (USAF) "Not rated for the above period. Evaluation was removed by Order of the Chief of
Staff, USAF.” If voiding evaluations for two or more consecutive reporting periods, prepare one DAF
Form 77 that shows the close-out dates of each evaluation.
4. For voided imbedded training reports, prepare an DAF Form 77 with the statement: (USAF) "A TR
for the above period was removed by Order of the Chief of Staff, USAF." For missing imbedded
training reports, no action will be taken since there is no gap in the ratee’s record. The best course of
action is to obtain a certified true copy (see paragraph 1.4.5.2.) or a replacement TR and request it be
included through the ERAB.
5. For a voided PRF, enter the statement: (USAF) "DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, for
promotion board (specify the promotion board, for example, 0589A) was removed by Order of the Chief
of Staff, USAF." Use a similar statement for voided retention forms.
6. For documents that are attached to an evaluation, annotate documents with ACCEPTED FOR FILE--
ATTACH TO (closing date) EVALUATION followed by the authenticator's data listed in Note 2.
7. Unless otherwise directed by the AFBCMR, annotate evaluations according to Note 2. For voided
evaluations, prepare an DAF Form 77 according to Note 4 except show the evaluation was removed "By
Order of the Secretary of The Air Force."
8. Disposition. Digitally signed via automated system. “Wet Signed” below.
a. TSgt and below: Original – AFPC/DPMSPE, processing to AFPC/DPSORM (ARMS/PRDA).
b. MSgt selects & above: Original – AFPC/DPMSPE, processing to AFPC/DPSORM ARMS/PRDA)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 259
Table 10.5. Correcting DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Forms.
R
U
L
E
A
B
C
D
To correct an error
in:
See Note 1
and the error is verified
by, and supporting
documents come from:
then request the
correction by:
and forward the
request for
correction to:
1
Sections I, III (Item 1),
V, VI, VIII, or X;
or the spelling or
punctuation in the
comments.
See Notes 2 and 3.
the senior rater, MPF or
the management level
message, scan or
fax
AFPC/DPMSPE
or ARPC/DPTSE
2
Sections II or III (Item
2)
the senior rater
an application under
Table 10.1. See
Note 4.
3
Sections IV or IX
the senior rater and
(RegAF and ARC) the
president of the MLR
Board. See Note 5 and
Attachment 2,
paragraph A2.6.
Notes:
1. When a PRF is sent to AFPC or ARPC, but it is not yet a matter of record (has not been
filed in the officer selection folder and/or scanned into ARMS/PRDA) contact the Evaluations
Operations Branch (AFPC/DPMSPE, ARPC/DPT) for instructions.
2. The duty title may be changed under this rule when the approved documentation existed on
or before the date the PRF was prepared. If approved documentation did not exist, or was
approved after the PRF preparation date, submit a formal application under Rule 2.
3. Do not change words (except misspellings), phrases, sentence structure, or grammar under
this rule.
4. If a promotion board has not considered the PRF, the application may be forwarded to
AFPC/DPMSPE. Please state that the evaluation it is a pre-board PRF that requires expedited
processing and list the board date.
5. If a promotion board has not considered the PRF, the management level can confirm
coordination with the MLR president, with their recommendation, by message, scan or fax.
260 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Table 10.6. Instructions For DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of
Evaluation Reports (see paragraph 10.4.4. before completing).
I
T
E
M
TITLE
INSTRUCTIONS
1
Name
Self-explanatory.
2
Grade
Enter data pertaining to the ratee of the contested
evaluation.
3
Social Security Number
If an appeal was previously submitted under another name
(e.g., changed due to marriage, divorce, etc.), indicate the
previous name in Item 12, Remarks.
4
Return Address
Provide current mailing address of applicant.
5
Office Phone
Enter DSN and Commercial.
6
Current Military Status
Place an “X” in the appropriate box.
7
Email Address
Enter a working email address in case of questions and/or
to forward the decision memorandum.
8
Type of Evaluation(s) being
appealed and the thru date
List all evaluations being appealed by type of evaluation
(e.g., officer or enlisted evaluation, TR, LOE, or PRF).
Identify officer or enlisted evaluations, TRs, and LOEs by
their THRU (close-out) date.
Identify PRFs by the BOARD ID (Found in Section VII
on the DAF Form 709).
9
SSB/Supplemental Promotion
consideration for officers and
active duty enlisted personnel
Applies only to:
Enlisted: RegAF Only
Officers: RegAF, Reserve, and Air National Guard.
For Reserve and Air National Guard enlisted personnel,
check the “N/A” block.
SSB consideration applies to central selection promotion
boards; RegAF boards; in-resident central developmental
education boards; selective early retirement board, and
report on individual personnel boards.
Clearly identify the board for reconsideration. Example:
“Promotion to Major, CY23A” P0424A, “RegAF
augmentation, CY 25”, or “SMSgt, 23E8”.
See paragraph 10.5. for expedited processing
requirements
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 261
10
Commander’s Certification
Enlisted Only. The commander must recommend
approval or disapproval for SSB consideration by placing
an “X” in the appropriate box and signing and dating this
section.
11
Action Requested
Clearly identify the action desired for each evaluation
being appealed. Example: “Void 31 Dec 21 Officer
Performance Report;” “Change Duty Air Force Specialty
Code to reflect...,” “Add Senior Rater Deputy
endorsement.” If a new evaluation is to be substituted,
ask for substitution, not to void the original evaluation
(e.g., “Substitute attached evaluation containing senior
rater endorsement for evaluation currently on file”).
Make sure the requested action is not prohibited by
paragraph 10.2.4. For enlisted, indicate if supplemental
promotion consideration is requested. The commander
will complete Item 10 of the application.
12
Reasons to Support Requested
Action
Completely describe the error or injustice. For ease of
consideration, list each allegation that applies to the
application sequentially. Then, as needed, fully address
each allegation. If more space is needed, continue on a
separate page. For extremely lengthy statements, enter
“See Statement at Attachment” and attach full statement.
13
List of Attachments
List all attachments in chronological order and identify
each.
Example:
1. TDY Travel Voucher 12 Mar 23
2. Contested Enlisted Performance Report C/O 14
May 23
3. Substitute 14 May 23 Enlisted Performance Report
4. Statement MSgt Smith 13 Sep 23
If more room is needed, continue on a separate page. For
numerous attachments, use tabs to make the case easier to
review.
14
Signature/Date
Applicant will sign and date application. In cases where
application is submitted by someone other than the ratee,
refer to paragraph 10.4.5.
262 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Figure 10.1. Sample, DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation
Reports.
ALEX WAGNER
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 263
Attachment 1
GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
References
10 U.S.C. § 1031, Administration of Oath
10 U.S.C. § 1566, Voting Assistance: compliance assessments; assistance
10 U.S.C. § 1722(g), Performance Appraisals
10 U.S.C. § 9038, Officer of the Air Force Reserve: appointment of chief
10 U.S.C. § 10211, Policies and Regulations: Participation of Reserve Officers in Preparation
and Administration
10 U.S.C. § 10216, Military Technicians (Dual Status)
10 U.S.C. § 10305, Air Force Reserve Forces Policy Committee
10 U.S.C. § 12301, Reserve components generally
10 U.S.C. § 12301(a), (war or national emergency)
10 U.S.C. § 12304, Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members; order to
active duty other than during war or national emergency
10 U.S.C. § 12302, Ready Reserve
10 U.S.C. § 12310, Reserves: For Organizing, Administering, etc., Reserve Components
10 U.S.C. § 12402, Army and Air National Guard of the United States: Commissioned Officers;
Duty in National Guard Bureau
10 U.S.C. § 619, Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion
10 U.S.C. § 641, Applicability of Chapter
10 U.S.C. § 9013, Secretary of the Air Force
10 U.S.C. § 14303, Eligibility for consideration for promotion: minimum years of service in
grade
32 U.S.C. § 708, Property and Fiscal Officers
32 U.S.C. § 709, Technicians: Employment, Use, Status
Joint Publication 1, Volume 2, The Joint Force, 10 June 2020
Joint Publication 1-2, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 8
November 2010
DoDI 5400.11, DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Program, 29 January 2019
DoDM5210.42_DAFMAN 13-501, Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), 3
April 2024
SORN F036 AF PC A, Effectiveness/Performance Reporting Systems
264 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
SORN F036 AFPC T, Officer Performance Report (OPR)/Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)
Appeal Case Files
UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice
DAFPD 36-24, Military Evaluations, 7 October 2022
AFI 33-322, Records Management and Information Governance Program, 23 March 2020
AFI 33-332, Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program, 10 March 2020
DAFI 36-3026V1, Identification Cards For Members of the Uniformed Services, their Eligible
Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel, 1 June 2023
DAFI 36-2110, Total Force Assignments, 15 November 2021
DAFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, 12 January 2024
DAFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), 4 October 2022
DAFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records Systems, 16 April 2021
DAFI 36-2710, Equal Opportunity Program, 23 May 2024
DAFI 36-3211, Military Separations, 24 June 2022
DAFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, 14 October 2022
DAFI 51-508, Political Activities, Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly of Air Force
Personnel, 24 March 2023
DAFI 51-509, Appointment to and Assumption of Command, 28 December 2023
DAFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports, 10 March 2021
DAFMAN 90-161, Publishing Processes and Procedures, 18 October 2023
DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
Enlisted Force Structure
Secretary of Defense’s Report to the President on Defense Management of July 1989
Prescribed Forms
DAF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation
DAF Form 78, Department of the Air Force General Officer Promotion Recommendation
DAF Form 475, Education/Training Report
DAF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col)
DAF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation
AF Form 715, Officer Performance Brief (O-1 thru O-6)
AF Form 716, Enlisted Performance Brief
AF Form 724, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Worksheet (2Lt thru Col)
AF Form 724-A, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 265
DAF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB/Spc1 thru TSgt)
DAF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru SMSgt)
DAF Form 912, Enlisted Performance Report (CMSgt)
AF Form 931, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Worksheet (AB thru TSgt)
AF Form 932, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt)
DAF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports
DAF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation
DAF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Recommendation
Adopted Forms
DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records Under the Provisions of Title 10,
U.S. Code, Section 1552
AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report
DAF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication
DAF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action
DAF Form 2098, Duty Status Change
DAF Form 1613, Statement of Service
AETC Form 156, Student Training Report
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAD—Advanced Academic Degree
ACA—Airman Comprehensive Assessment
ADCON—Administrative Control
ADL—Active Duty List
AEF—Air Expeditionary Force
AFBCMR—Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
AFDW—Air Force District of Washington
AFELM—Air Force Element
AFFOR—Air Force Forward
AFI—Air Force Instruction
AFIT—Air Force Institute of Technology
AFPC—Air Force Personnel Center
AFR—Air Force Reserve
AFRC—Air Force Reserve Command
266 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
AFSC—Air Force Specialty Code
AGR—Active Guard Reserve
ALQ—Airman Leadership Qualities
AMS—Assignment Management System
ANG—Air National Guard
AOR—Area of Responsibility
APZ—Above-the-Promotion Zone
ARC—Air Reserve Component
ARMS—Automated Records Management System
ARPC—Air Reserve Personnel Center
ARPCM—ARPC Memorandum
ART—Air Reserve Technician
BSC—Biomedical Services Corps
CAC—Common Access Card
CCM—Command Chief Master Sergeant
CCMD—Combatant Command
CES—Civil Engineering Squadron
CGO—Company Grade Officer
CJCS—Chairman Joint Chief of Staff
CMSAF—Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
CMSSF—Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force
CRO—Change of Reporting Official
CSAF—Chief of Staff, United States Air Force
CSS—Commander Support Staff
DAFI—Department of the Air Force Instruction
DAFSC—Duty Air Force Specialty Code
DANG—Director, Air National Guard
DATT—Defense Attaché
DBC—Directed by Commander
DBH—Directed by HAF
DC—Dental Corps
DE—Developmental Education
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 267
DG—Distinguished Graduate
DNP—Do Not Promote This Board
DoD—Department of Defense
DOR—Date of Rank
DP—Definitely Promote
DPTB—Definitely Promote This Board
DQHB—Duty Qualification History Brief
DRU—Direct Reporting Unit
EAD—Extended Active Duty
eBOSS—Electronic Board Operations Support System
EFDP—Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel
EPB—Enlisted Performance Brief
EPR—Enlisted Performance Report
ERAB—Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
ERRF—Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form
FD—Forced Distributor
FDID—Forced Distributor Identification
FGO—Field Grade Officer
FSS—Force Support Squadron
GO—General Officer
HAF—Headquarters Air Force
HC—Chaplain Corps
HLR—Higher Level Reviewer
HQ—Headquarters
HR—Human Resources
ID—Identification
IDE—Intermediate Developmental Education
IMA—Individual Mobilization Augmentee
IMT—Information Management Tool
IPZ—In-the-Promotion Zone
LAF—Line of the Air Force
LAF-J—Line of the Air Force Judge Advocate
268 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
LEAD—Leaders Encouraging Airman Development
LOC—Letter of Counseling
LOE—Letter of Evaluation
MAJCOM—Major Command
MC—Medical Corps
MEL—Master Eligibility List
MilPDS—Military Personnel Data System
MLR—Management Level Review
MP—Must Promote
MPA—Major Performance Area
MPerRGp—Master Personnel Records Group
MPF—Military Personnel Flight
MRD—Mandatory Retirement Date
MSC—Medical Service Corps
MSD—Mandatory Separation Date
MSG—Mission Support Group
MTF—Military Treatment Facility
myEval—My Evaluation
NAR—Narrative Only
NC—Nurse Corps
NCO—Noncommissioned Officer
NCOIC—Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge
NGB—National Guard Bureau
NMI—No Middle Initial
NRN—Not Ready Now
NSRG—Senior Noncommissioned Selection Record Group
OCSRG—Officer Command Selection Record Group
OPB—Officer Performance Brief
OPME—Officer Professional Military Education
OPR—Officer Performance Report
OSR—Officer Selection Record
P—Promote—PAS—Personnel Accounting Symbol
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 269
PCA—Permanent Change of Assignment
PCS—Permanent Change of Station
PDE—Primary Developmental Education
PDS—Personnel Data System
PERSCO—Personnel Support for Contingency Operations
PIF—Personnel Information File
PIRR—Participating Individual Ready Reserve
PN—Promote Now
POTUS—President of the United States
PPA—Personnel Processing Application
PRDA—Personnel Records Display Application
PRF—Promotion Recommendation Form
PV—Position Vacancy
RASL—Reserve Active Status List
RegAF—Regular Air Force
ResAF—Reserve of the Air Force
RIO—Readiness and Integration Organization
RRF—Retention Recommendation Form
SAF—Secretary of the Air Force
SAPR—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
SCOD—Static Close-Out Date
SDE—Senior Developmental Education
SDO—Senior Defense Official
SecAF—Secretary of the Air Force
SecDef—Secretary of Defense
SEL—Senior Enlisted Leader
SES—Senior Executive Service
SNCO—Senior Noncommissioned Officer
SNCOA—Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy
SR—Senior Rater
SRID—Senior Rater Identification
SSB—Special Selection Board
270 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
SSN—Social Security Number
Stat—Statutory
STEP—Stripes for Exceptional Performers
SURF—Single Uniform Request Format
TFCSD—Total Federal Commissioned Service Date
TAFMSD—Total Active Federal Military Service Date
TAFSC—Total Active Federal Commissioned Service
TAG—The Adjutant General
TDY—Temporary Duty
TFSC—Total Force Service Center (formerly the Air Force Contact Center)
TIG—Time-in-Grade
TIS—Time-in-Service
TR—Traditional Reservist
TR—Training Report
TYSD—Total Years’ Service Date
UCMJ—Uniform Code of Military Justice
UIF—Unfavorable Information File
UMD—Unit Manning Document
USAF—United States Air Force
USSF—United States Space Force
U.S.C.—United States Code
VLPAD—Voluntary Limited Period of Active Duty
vMPF—Virtual Military Personnel Flight
VPOTUS—Vice President of the United States
Office Symbols
2 AF/A1—Second Air Force, Manpower, Personnel, and Services Directorate
AF/A1—Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services
AF/A1LE—Air Force CMSgt Management Office
AF/A1LG—Air Force General Officer Management Office
AF/A1LO—Air Force Colonel Management Office
AF/A1P—Air Force, Directorate of Force Management Policy
AF/A1PP—Military Force Policy Division
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 271
AF/A1PPP—Promotions and Evaluations Policy Branch
AF/CV—Air Force, Vice Chief of Staff
AF/CVA—Air Force, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff
AF/JAX—Air Force Judge Advocate Professional Development Directorate
AF/RE—Chief of Air Force Reserve
AF/REE—Air Force Reserve Executive Services
AF/REG—Air Force Reserve Senior Leader Management Office
AF/REP—Air Force Reserve Directorate of Personnel
AF/SG—Office of the Surgeon General
AF/SG1—Medical Force Development Directorate
AF/XO—Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations
AFDW/A1K—Air Force District of Washington Military Personnel Branch
AFIT/MSP—Air Force Institute of Technology Academic Coding Branch
AFPC/CC—Commander, Air Force Personnel Center
AFPC/DPFD—Air Force Personnel Center Disability Program Administrator
AFPC/DPMN—Air Force Personnel Center Medical Service Officer Management
AFPC/DPSORM—Air Force Personnel Center Military Records Section
AFPC/DPSTSP—Air Force Personnel Center Evaluation Support Section
AFPC/DP3SP—Air Force Personnel Center Promotions, Evaluations and Recognitions Branch
AFPC/PB—Selection Board Secretariat
AFRC/A1K—Air Force Reserve Center Promotions, Retention and Customer Service Branch
ARPC/CC—Commander, Air Reserve Personnel Center
AFPC/DPMSPE—Air Force Personnel Center Evaluations and Recognition Operations Section
ARPC/DPT—Air Reserve Personnel Center Directorate of Personnel and Total Force Services
ARPC/DPTS—Air Reserve Personnel Center Sustainment Division
ARPC/DPTSE—Air Reserve Personnel Center Evaluations Section
ARPC/PB—Air Reserve Personnel Center Promotion Board Secretariat
NGB/A1—National Guard Bureau Manpower, Personnel, and Services Directorate
NGB/A1P—National Guard Bureau Force Management Division
NGB/CF—Director of the Air National Guard
NGB/HR—National Guard Bureau Human Resources Directorate
NGB-SL-B—National Guard Senior Leader Management and General Officer Management Office
SAF/MR—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
272 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Terms
Above the Management Level—There are seven units that are above the level this AFI defines
as management levels: President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, SecDef,
CJSC, SecAF, and CSAF. For purposes of the AFI, these units are also known as management
levels.
Acquisition Examiner—A person, either within the rating chain or appointed by the management
level (minimum colonel/captain (USN) or civilian equivalent for officers; major or Navy lieutenant
commander or an equivalent civilian for enlisted) serving in an acquisition position and in the same
acquisition career field as the ratee who provides examination of evaluations for individuals
serving in certain acquisition positions (paragraph 1.6.7.). The Acquisition Examiner examines
evaluations to ensure the evaluation reflects acquisition-related considerations.
Active Duty List (ADL)—Officers on active duty except (per 10 U.S.C. § 641): Reserve or Guard
officers on active duty for training, for administration of reserve components, to pursue special
work, for the administration of the Selective Service System, LEAD and AGR officers; warrant
officers; retired officers on active duty; students at the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences. For the purposes of this instruction, The Director of Admissions, Dean and
permanent professors at the United States Air Force Academy are considered to be on the active
duty list. The list is arranged by competitive category in the order of the seniority of the grade in
which they are serving.
Active Guard Reserve (AGR)—An ANG or AFR member serving on active duty in support of
the Guard or Reserve mission, under 10 U.S.C. §§ 10211, 10305, 12310, 12402 or 32 U.S.C. §
708 (Property and Fiscal Officers).
Advisor—An Air Force designated representative who provides a special review of evaluations
in activities outside the Department of the Air Force (paragraph 1.6.7.). The Air Force Advisor
advises non-United States Air Force evaluators of Air Force rating policies and procedures and
reviews officer and enlisted evaluations and PRFs for compliance with the provisions of this
instruction.
Aggregation—The process used when the number of eligible officers does not meet the minimum
number required for the senior rater to award promotion recommendations.
Airmen Leadership Qualities—Ten qualities grouped into four major performance areas (MPAs)
that are valued in our Airmen; used to develop and evaluate Airmen; and which are indicative of
potential for greater responsibility. In the MPA, Executing the Mission, the ALQs are: Job
Proficiency; Initiative; and Adaptability. In the MPA, Leading People, the ALQs are: Inclusion
& Teamwork; Emotional Intelligence; and Communication. In the MPA, Managing Resources,
the ALQs are: Stewardship; and Accountability. In the MPA, Improving the Unit, the ALQs are:
Decision Making; and Innovation. ALQs are evaluated via a proficiency-level scale.
Air National Guard (ANG) Non-AGR—Refers to members of the Air National Guard who are
not on Extended Active Duty nor assigned in permanent Active Guard Reserve (AGR) or Statutory
Tour status.
ALQ Evaluations—Represents the performance characteristics the Air Force wants to define,
develop, incentivize, and measure in the Air Force’s Airmen. Additionally, ALQ evaluations are
intended to be simple and consistent across all Airmen, with minor variations specific to grade
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 273
(e.g., stratification vs. forced distribution). ALQ evaluations include: (1) 2x evaluators (rater and
higher level reviewer); (2) alignment to the major performance areas (MPA); and (3) narrative-
style performance statements.
ALQ Evaluation Accounting Dates—The accounting date is solely for establishing the unit
responsible for accomplishing the evaluation on the SCOD. Accounting dates will be
approximately 120 calendar days prior to each SCOD and will be the third day of the month for
consistency. For a PCS, the date arrived station establishes the assigned unit on the accounting
date. For a PCA, the effective duty date establishes the assigned unit on the accounting date. As
of the accounting date, the ratee’s assigned unit (i.e., assigned organizational PAS code) and rating
chain, from rater to senior rater, as of the accounting date, will be responsible for drafting,
processing, and signing the SCOD evaluation.
ARC—Refers to members assigned to the Air Force Reserve (AFR) or Air National Guard (ANG).
Typically used to address the combination of all members assigned within both AFR and ANG.
Annual Cycle Close-out Date (applies to general officers)—Annual major general and major
general selectee evaluations close-out 30 June; annual brigadier general and brigadier general
selectee evaluations close-out 31 July.
ARC AGR—Refers to members assigned to the Air Force Reserve (AFR) or Air National Guard
(ANG) component who are serving in a full-time AGR status or on a Statutory Tour (ANG only).
Carry-over—For line officers, the difference between the "Definitely Promote" allocations
(rounded up) based on the population of a management level, and the sum of "Definitely Promote"
allocations authorized senior raters (rounded down) based on each senior rater's population
(including those senior raters whose population is aggregated).
Civilian Director—Civilians designated to lead units/organizations (PAS codes[s]), excluding
flight commanders. Also see “Other Authorized Reviewers.”
Commander—The commander (or officer so designated) for administrative purposes (that is,
control roster action, Article 15 jurisdiction, and so on) of the ratee's assigned organization. Also
see “Other Authorized Reviewers.”
Company Grade—Officers in the grades of second lieutenant through captain.
Combat Zone—That area required by combat forces for the conduct of operations. The territory
forward of the Army rear area boundary.
Command Climate—The perception of a unit’s environment by its members. Commanders are
ultimately responsible for the good order and discipline in their unit and have unique responsibility
and authority to ensure good order and discipline.
Commander’s Review—See “Other Authorized Reviewer.”
Communications Zone—Rear part of theater of operations (behind but contiguous to the combat
zone) which contains the lines of communications, establishments for supply and evacuation, and
other agencies required for the immediate support and maintenance of the field forces. See also
combat zone; rear area.
Definitely Promote (lieutenant colonels and below)—Recommendation on DAF Form 709 that
says the strength of the ratee's performance and performance-based potential alone warrants
274 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
promotion; (colonels only)—Recommendation on DAF Form 709 which indicates an officer
demonstrates the potential for immediate promotion.
Delegated Signature—When a member signs on behalf of a signatory using the signatory’s digital
signature.
Department of the Air Force (DAF)—Includes the Regular Air Force, the Air Reserve
Component (Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard), and the United States Space Force.
Do Not Promote This Board (colonels and below)—Recommendation on DAF Form 709 that
says the ratee does not warrant promotion on the central selection board for which the PRF is being
prepared.
Duty Qualification History Brief—A computer product used by senior raters in the promotion
recommendation process which includes such whole person factors as developmental education,
advanced academic information, board certification, joint duty and acquisition corps data and
award and decoration information.
Embedded Evaluations—an evaluation that is attached to the annual evaluation at the SCOD.
Enlisted Performance Brief (EPB)—The output of the enlisted ALQ evaluation that is completed
in myEval. The offline version of the EPB is the AF Form 716, Enlisted Performance Brief.
Evaluations—A general reference to the Airman Comprehensive Assessment (AF Forms 724,
931, and 932), OPB (AF Form 715), PRF (DAF Form 709), Education/Training Report (DAF
Form 475), Letter of Evaluation (DAF Form 77), and the General Officer Promotion
Recommendation (DAF Form 78), and EPB (AF Form 716).
Evaluator—Any individual who signs a performance report in a rating capacity.
Field Grade Officer—Officers in the grade of major through colonel.
Final Out—The day before an individual's departure from the member’s station for PCS,
retirement, separation, terminal leave, leave in conjunction with PCS, or unit PCA.
Forced Distributor (FD) (also referred to as FDID authority)—The forced distributor is the
HLR for TSgt and below and is the evaluator designated to complete the promotion
recommendation section of the ALQ evaluation. For wing/group/squadron-level organizational
structures, the FD will be the G-series orders commander or civilian director (delegable to section
commander or equivalent only for non-TIG/TIS eligibles). For wings, the FD is the deputy
commander, delegable to the Director of Staff. Within MAJCOMs, CCMDs, FOAs, DRUs, NAFs,
and Centers, the FD will be the military or civilian director. For MAJCOM and CCMD
commanders, the FD will be the deputy commander. When there is a subordinate organization/unit
below the director and the subordinate organization’s unit commander is on G- Series orders, the
subordinate organization’s commander will serve as the FD, not the parent organization
commander/director. Note: If the officer in one of these positions is from a sister- service, they
must be an O-5 or higher to serve as a FD.
Forced Distributor Identification—A nine-digit code (first two digits is the Management ID; the
third, fourth and fifth digits are the senior rater code; sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth digits are the
last four of the unit PAS code) which will provide identification to the PAS codes just as with the
senior rater IDs.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 275
Frock—The practice of a commissioned or noncommissioned officer selected for promotion
wearing the insignia of the higher grade before the official date of promotion.
Higher Level Reviewer—The HLR is the final evaluator on the ALQ evaluation who is a senior
leader with direct knowledge of and visibility on the performance of the ratee within their peer
group during the evaluation period. The intent is to improve Airmen’s experience in receiving
meaningful and actionable feedback on performance evaluations reviewed by the designated senior
leader. For officers, see paragraph 3.14. For enlisted, see paragraph 4.12.3.
Inappropriate Statements—Statements from inappropriate items that evaluators must not
consider or refer to when recording performance.
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA)—An individual filling a funded authorization
identified as augmenting the RegAF components within departments or agencies of the U.S.
Government. This is further defined by the DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
which states, in part: an individual reservist attending drills who receives training and is pre-
assigned to an active component organization, or a Selective Service System billet that must be
filled on, or shortly after, mobilization.
Management Level (ML)—DoD organizations (e.g., major command) where the senior official
evaluations directly to the SecDef, SecAF, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force (CSAF), Chief of Space Operations (CSO) or State Adjutant General or Governor.
Only the CSAF or CSO may approve exceptions; however, the HAF Deputy Chief of Staff,
Personnel, may exercise similar authority in cases involving the management levels of general
officers. No individual can serve as the head of two separate management levels for the same
board, unless the individual is serving in a dual-hatted capacity. As used in this instruction,
management level also refers to the personnel activity that supports the senior official. For RegAF
colonels, the management level must be a 3-star equivalent or higher.
Management Level Control Group (Applies to GOs)—The number of promotion eligible
general officers assigned to a management level, subdivided by grade and competitive category.
Management Level Review (MLR)—A process used in the promotion recommendation phase of
the officer evaluation system (Chapter 8).
Management Level Student—Receives TRs and normal PRFs. The eligible officers’ records
meet the respective management level evaluation board as a separate category. Training is within
the eligible officer's utilization field.
Mandatory Comments—Comments evaluators must include in officer and enlisted ALQ
evaluations and TRs (see paragraph 1.9.).
Matter of Record—Evaluations that have been completed, signed, and loaded into ARMS/PRDA.
Evaluations are considered working copies until they become a matter of record.
Military and Civilian Grade Equivalents—For the purposes of this instruction, it is necessary
to equate certain military grades with civilian grades. The appropriate authority, as listed below,
determines equivalency based on the responsibilities and location of the civilian position in the
rating chain (see DAFI 36-3026V1, Identification Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services,
their Eligible Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel, for grade comparison chart).
a. For officer grades—The senior rater determines equivalency for raters. The management
level determines equivalency for HLR/senior rater designations.
276 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
b. For CMSgts selects and CMSgts—The management level determines equivalency for senior
rater designations.
c. For MSgt selects, MSgts, SMSgt selects and SMSgts—The unit commander determines
equivalency for all evaluators (except for the HLR when the HLR is also the senior rater— the
management level determines senior rater designations).
d. For AB through TSgt —The unit commander determines equivalency for raters.
Military Director—The military director designated to lead a unit/organization. Also see “Other
Authorized Reviewers.”
Military Technician (Dual Status)—Refers to members employed under 10 U.S.C § 10216 or
32 U.S.C. § 709. Follow ARC /ANG Non-AGR (Drill Status) for officer and enlisted ALQ
evaluations policy. Technicians are considered drill status guardsmen/traditional reservists for
reporting and rating purposes under their military rating chain.
Military Personnel Record Group (MPerRGp)—Consists of officer selection record group;
senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) selection record (AD only); and correspondence and
miscellaneous record group (officer and enlisted). The MPerRGp is maintained at AFPC for
RegAF members, and at ARPC for ARC members.
Noncombat Ports and MPFs—All ports and MPFs not falling within either the combat zone or
communications zone.
Non-Extended Active Duty—An ARC member who is assigned to an Air National Guard or Air
Force Reserve unit, performs regularly schedule drills (unit training assembly), annual training,
and/or equivalent training. This includes drill status guardsmen, unit traditional reservist or
individual reservist while in a Title 10 or Title 32 status. These members are not on an Active Duty
tour (e.g., Active Guard Reservist (AGR) or Voluntary Limited Period of Active Duty [VLPAD]),
however they may be on long tour such as Military Personnel Appropriation or Reserve Personnel
Appropriations orders.
Non-Line—As used in this instruction, non-line is a collective general reference to chaplains
(AFSC 52RX) and health profession officers (AFSC 4XXX).
Officer Performance Brief (OPB)—The output of the officer ALQ evaluation that is completed
in myEval. The offline version of the OPB is the AF Form 715, Officer Performance Brief.
Offices of Record—The offices which maintain evaluations (original or copies).
Old Guy/New Guy—a report that shows new members to a unit and members who have departed
a unit.
Organizational Climate—The way in which members in a unit perceive and characterize their
unit environment.
Other Authorized Reviewer—The unit commander/military or civilian director may designate
in writing a senior official within their unit to perform the unit commander’s/military or civilian
director’s review. If a flag officer is an evaluator on the SNCO ALQ evaluation, they will serve
as an “Other authorized Reviewer.” A junior ALQ evaluation must be returned to the force
distributor for final endorsement, and a CMSgt ALQ evaluation must be returned to the senior
rater for final endorsement regardless of a flag officer endorsement within the evaluation. In
MAJCOM/CCMD organizations the management level may designate in writing a senior Air
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 277
Force official within subordinate elements of the staff to serve as a “other authorized reviewer”
(e.g., Director of Staff, Director of Public Affairs, etc.).
Parent Management Level—The management level of a ratee’s permanently assigned
unit/organization.
P-Rate—The promotion rate that guarantees the minimum promotion rate for eligible officers
receiving a “Promote” recommendation.
Performance Feedback—A progress evaluation from raters to ratees.
Period of Report—The length of time covered by an evaluation.
Period of Supervision—The period of time a member is under the supervision of a rater.
PRF Accounting Date—The date that determines the senior rater responsible for PRF preparation.
The senior rater for the unit the eligible officer is assigned on this date is the senior rater for the
promotion cycle. For officers in grades lieutenant colonel and below, it is approximately 150
calendar days prior to the central selection board convening date. For colonel, it is 60 calendar
days prior to the central selection board convening date.
PRF Accounting Date (Replacing)—The date that determines the senior rater responsible for
PRF preparation. The senior rater for the unit the eligible officer is assigned on this date is the
senior rater for the promotion cycle. For officers in grades lieutenant colonel and below, it is
approximately 150 calendar days prior to the central selection board convening date. For officers
in the grade of colonel, it is approximately 210 calendar days prior to the central selection board.
PRF Allocation Date—Sixty-six calendar days before a selection board, when “Definitely
Promote” allocations are final (does not apply to ARC).
PRF Cutoff Date—Sixty calendar days prior to the selection board, when final PRF processing
begins. PRFs cannot be completed prior to this date (does not apply to ARC).
Primary Stratification—The first level of stratification evaluators must use to ground a
stratification statement. Primary stratifications are grade stratifications that will only include
officers in the same grade (e.g., first lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenant colonels, and
colonels) and must include all military officers in that grade under the evaluator’s scope of rating
responsibility and may not include officers who are assigned within another HLR’s scope of rating
responsibility. Grade stratifications may not include civilian grades or civilian “equivalents” in
the denominator pool. The following grade stratifications are authorized primary stratification
peer groups: (1) USAF officers, (2) DAF officers, (3) Joint officers, (4) Service Component; or
(5) Reserve Participation category. A primary stratification must be used in order to use a
secondary stratification. See paragraphs 3.15.6.6 and 3.15.7.3 for promotion “selects.”
“Promote (P)”—(lieutenant colonels and below) Recommendation on DAF Form 709 that says
the ratee is qualified for promotion and should compete at the central selection board on the basis
of performance, performance-based potential, and broader considerations; (colonels only)
Recommendation of DAF Form 709 which indicates an officer is making a valuable contribution
to the mission and has potential for promotion.
Ratee—The individual being rated.
Rater (officer and enlisted)—The official (usually the ratee's immediate supervisor) designated
by management to provide a ratee periodic performance feedback and initiate performance
278 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
evaluations. The rater may be an officer or noncommissioned officer (for enlisted ratees) of a
United States or foreign military service serving in a grade equal to or higher than the ratee, or a
civilian in a supervisory position that is higher than the ratee in the ratee’s rating chain.
Management may appoint raters serving in the same grade as ratees without regard to date of rank.
(Enlisted)--A civilian rater must be at least a GS-7 or a comparable grade or higher. RegAF
members in the grade of SrA may serve as raters only if they have completed the
Noncommissioned Officer Preparatory Course or the Airman Leadership Course. Only non-
active-duty AFR members in the grade of SSgt or above may serve as raters.
Rater’s Rater—The second official in the rating chain, after the rater, serving in a grade equal to
or higher than the rater and in a grade higher than the ratee. See paragraph 1.6.4 for other
restrictions (for TSgts and below, at least the grade of MSgt or civilian equivalent).
Rating Chain—The succession of officials responsible for preparing evaluations. Evaluators
other than the rater may be assigned after the close-out date. Commanders set up the rating chain
within their organization. The rating chain is normally the same as the supervisory chain.
Exceptions: An individual in the supervisory chain may not be an enlisted ALQ evaluation
evaluator when the ratee is a TSgt or below and the rater’s rater does not meet the minimum grade
requirement to be the HLR. When the senior rater identification designates more than one position
as a senior rater within a common rating chain (Example: Headquarters Chief of Staff, deputy
commander, and commander), the senior rater who signs the evaluation does not have to be the
rater’s rater, but must be the senior rater designated for the ratee’s grade and assigned PAS code
(only one senior rater may sign an evaluation).
Recommendation Only PRF—Refer to paragraph 8.1.5.6. Does not apply to Reserve of the Air
Force.
Record of Performance—Consists of the following D/AF Forms (when filed in the Officer
Selection Record (OSR): DAF Forms 707; AF Forms 707A and AF Forms 707B (historical); DAF
Forms 709; DAF Forms 475; DAF Forms 77 and Officer Performance Briefs (AF Forms 715).
Evaluators may also use letter of evaluations (LOE) filed in the OSR by a CSS/HR Specialist.
Referral Evaluation—A performance evaluation that contains any of the following is a referral:
Comments in any officer or enlisted ALQ evaluation, LOE or training report, regardless of the
ratings if applicable, or the attachments to that evaluation, that are derogatory in nature, imply or
refer to behavior incompatible with, or not meeting minimum acceptable standards of personal or
professional conduct, character, judgment or integrity, and/or refer to disciplinary actions. This
includes, but is not limited to, comments regarding omissions or misrepresentation of facts in
official statements or documents, financial irresponsibility, mismanagement of personal or
government affairs, confirmed incidents of discrimination or mistreatment, illegal use or
possession of drugs, Absent Without Leave, Article 15 actions, and conviction by court-martial.
Relieved From Supervisory Responsibility—For evaluation purposes, this means an individual
was removed from supervisory duties due to either personal or professional shortcomings or
misconduct that, in the supervisor’s view, made the member incapable of handling, or unsuitable
for holding, the position. Personnel removed from supervisory responsibility must be notified in
writing and acknowledge understanding.
Reserve Active Status List (RASL)—A list of all ARC officers in an active status, not on the
Active Duty List, and in the order of seniority of the grade in which they are serving. Officers
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 279
serving in the same grade are carried in order of their date of rank to that grade. The RASL for the
Air Force shall include officers in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Except as
otherwise provided by law, an officer must be on the RASL to be eligible for consideration for
selection for promotion, continuation, or selective early removal as a member of the Reserve of
the Air Force.
Reviewing Official—Any intermediate-level supervisor above the rater, but below the
Management Level.
Routinely—A repeated inability to meet established DAF standards and/or expectations that
would render the aggregated performance assessment over the entire reporting period as below
standards.
Secondary Stratification—The second level of stratification (and final [tertiary stratifications and
beyond are not authorized]) evaluators may use to stratify an officer. To use a secondary
stratification, the officer must first earn a primary stratification on their evaluation to ground the
secondary stratification statement and communicate the clearest depiction of where an officer
stands for all future evaluation readers. See paragraph 3.15.7.3 for the exception on promotion
“selects.” An evaluator may use one of the following peer groups as a secondary stratification: (1)
developmental category, (2) USAF grade, (3) subordinate echelon grade, (4) duty position, or (5)
AFR or ANG Components.
Select Status—When a member has been selected for promotion to the next higher grade.
Members who turn down their promotion to the next higher grade are removed from select status.
The use of the select status for FGO evaluations corresponds to the public release date of promotion
to the next higher grade or once an officer’s promotion nomination has been transmitted to the
White House. The use of the select status for first lieutenants selected to captain corresponds to
the date of AFPC or ARPC public release of the promotion list or once SecDef approves the
promotion lists. The use of “select” is not utilized for lieutenant evaluations.
Senior Rater (Officer)—The evaluator designated by the management level who completes the
PRF. Senior raters must be in a position to have personal knowledge or access to personal
knowledge of the ratee's performance. They must also have the scope of responsibility and breadth
of experience to assess performance and its significance as it relates to potential for promotion.
The same senior rater normally evaluates all officers in an organization in a particular grade and
promotion zone. For all USAF and RegAF majors and below, the senior rater must be at least a
colonel (or equivalent) serving as a wing commander or equivalent. For all USAF and RegAF
lieutenant colonels and colonels, the senior rater must be a general officer (or equivalent) and will
be the first general officer in the rating chain AFPC/DPMSPE Active Duty List or AFRC/A1 (AFR
unit) must approve exceptions.
Senior Rater (Enlisted)—Position that the MAJCOM, field operating agency, direct reporting
unit, and other organizations with Air Force enlisted personnel designated to be the highest-level
endorser in the ratee's rating chain. For RegAF and ARC members, senior raters must be at least
a colonel or civilian equivalent (GS-15 or higher), serving as a wing commander or equivalent.
Senior Rater Identification Code—A five-character code identifying a senior rater position as
the MAJCOM or Management Level specifies.
Significant Disagreement—The disagreement by an evaluator with the previous evaluator that
results in one of the following: A change of any Performance Factor rating in any of the
280 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
performance assessments; or any statement anywhere in an OPR that indicates obvious
disagreement with the previous evaluator.
Significantly—A single instance where failure to meet established DAF standards and/or
expectations is either egregious in nature or so far short of a standard that it impacts overall
aggregated performance assessment.
Single Evaluator—An individual (colonel/0-6 or equivalent) who may close out an officer or
enlisted ALQ evaluation with a single signature. Individual must meet both grade requirements
and the evaluator requirements for each section of the applicable evaluation form (Example: must
meet both grade requirements as an O-6 [or equivalent/higher grade] and must meet the definition
of a “unit commander/military or civilian director/other authorized reviewer”). An O-6 or
equivalent in and of themselves meet the grade requirement to serve as an HLR on the enlisted
ALQ evaluation, provided they are designated as a senior rater by the management level; however,
they must also meet the necessary requirements as a unit commander/ military or civilian
director/other authorized reviewer (see definition of unit commander/military or civilian
director/other authorized reviewer) to sign the entire evaluation as a “single evaluator”.
Single Senior Rater—The Single Senior rater is not the head of the management level but is the
only senior rater who has In-or-Above-the-Promotion Zone and/or non-line/LAF-J Below-the-
Promotion Zone eligible. The Management Level Review process must review PRFs.
Sole Senior Rater—The Sole Senior Rater is the head of the Management Level and is the only
senior rater who has In-or-Above-the-Promotion Zone and/or non-line/LAF-J Below-the-
Promotion Zone eligible for a specific board. The Sole Senior Rater awards all PRF
recommendations; however, the HAF Management Level Review must review all PRF ratings.
“Standalone” Letters of Counseling—Letters of counseling unrelated to a substantiated finding
or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry. “Standalone” letters of
counseling are not considered as adverse information. This preserves commanders’ abilities to
administratively document and rehabilitate minor instances of substandard behavior or misconduct
without making it a part of the permanent record.
Static Close-Out Date (SCOD)—The date that all officer and enlisted evaluations will close-out
for a specific grade. It is also the date used to determine the final TIG/TIS eligible pool for senior
rater endorsement/stratification and forced distribution allocations.
Stratification—Quantitative comparison of an individual standing among peers within a definable
group and within a specific evaluator’s scope of authority (i.e., direct rating chain).
Statutory Tour—A controlled tour of active duty service. Usually, a precise number of years at
a specific location.
Stop File—Used to award a “Do Not Promote This Board” recommendation when substantiated
derogatory information has been received since departure from previous assignment if time does
not allow for not-qualified-for-promotion action processing. A stop file must be submitted in
writing through the management level to AFPC/DPMSPE. Gaining senior raters must get the
concurrence of the gaining MLR president and ensure the losing senior rater is informed of the
“Do Not Promote This Board” action. This will allow the opportunity for possible redistribution
of any previously awarded “Definitely Promote” recommendations to other deserving officers
prior to the central selection board.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 281
Temporary Management Level—The management level for a ratee who is temporarily assigned
to a unit/organization.
Total Force Service Center (TFSC)—Formerly known as the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC).
When referenced, use the applicable components TFSC, i.e., RegAF would use the TFSC at AFPC
and the ANG AFR would use the TFSC at ARPC.
Unit Commander/Military or Civilian Director—The military service member designated as
the director of, or in command of, a unit (PAS code[s]). A civilian equivalent, assigned to the
position of director, or unit director, responsible for the unit (PAS code[s]). See paragraph 1.6.7.
Whole Airman Concept—Factors included in the whole person assessment include job
performance, leadership, professional competence, breadth and depth of experience, job
responsibility, academic and professional military education, and specific achievements.
282 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Attachment 2
APPEAL GUIDANCE FOR APPLICANTS
A2.1. Overview. In this attachment, the term "evaluation" encompasses all versions of enlisted
and officer performance reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, promotion recommendation
forms, retention recommendation forms and any other forms used by selective early retirement
boards and reduction in force separation boards. Complying with the following guidelines does
not guarantee a favorable decision; however, not complying may cause the board to delay its
decision or return the application without action.
A2.2. Documenting an Appeal. Documentation must be relevant, accurate, and clear. Do not
submit general documentation such as letters of appreciation or character reference statements.
Also, quantity does not equate to quality. If the reason a particular item of evidence is not obvious,
attach an explanation of its relevancy to the item. If the application has multiple attachments, use
tabs to separate them. Before submitting an appeal, review the documentation to ensure it is:
A2.2.1. From a credible source. Information from a person with firsthand or expert knowledge
of the situation is an example.
A2.2.2. Relevant to the time and issue. Evaluations assess performance over a specific period
of time and documentation must relate to that period.
A2.2.3. Factual. Perceived personality conflict or general character references are subjective,
not factual. As much as possible, provide information that is objective.
A2.3. Statements. The most effective pieces of evidence are statements from the evaluator(s)
who signed the contested evaluation. These statements should:
A2.3.1. Cite important facts or circumstances that were unknown when the evaluators signed
the evaluation.
A2.3.2. Detail the error or injustice.
A2.3.3. Explain how and when it was discovered.
A2.3.4. Include the correct information.
A2.3.5. Relate to the contested reporting period.
A2.3.6. Address the allegations and substantially challenge or disprove comments or ratings
in the evaluation.
A2.4. Time Limit Waivers. The applicant can request a waiver of the 3-year time limit by citing
unusual circumstances that prevented filing the appeal in a timely manner. However, ratees are
responsible for reviewing their records at least annually for accuracy and the board can consider
the due diligence of the applicant to apply for correction. Applications that do not include a waiver
will be returned without action. Grounds for a waiver do not include:
A2.4.1. Failing to understand the appeals process.
A2.4.2. Being discouraged from appealing by superiors, peers, or counselors.
A2.4.3. Failing to understand the career impact in later years.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 283
A2.5. Common Appeal Reasons and Related Documentation Requirements. Some common
reasons for appealing and types of documentation are outlined below. Complying with these
guidelines does not guarantee approval of an appeal.
A2.5.1. Impact on Promotion or Career Opportunity. An evaluation is not erroneous or unfair
because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may impact
future promotion or career opportunities. The board will focus on the evaluation only. The
simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void an evaluation is not a valid basis
for doing so. Example: Requests to add optional statements such as developmental
education/professional military education, assignment/job/command "push" recommendation,
add an omitted award or stratification to an evaluation or PRF will normally not form the basis
for a successful appeal. These statements are not mandatory for inclusion and their omission
does not make the evaluation inaccurate. It must be proven the evaluation is erroneous or
unjust based on its content.
A2.5.2. Ratings and Comments Inconsistent with Prior or Subsequent Evaluations. Ratings
are not erroneous or unjust simply because they are inconsistent with previous ratings. An
evaluation documents performance during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct,
and potential at that time, in that position. An ability to function well in one position at a given
time may change in another job at another time. Sometimes an individual can stay in the same
job and a change in supervisors will produce a change in performance standards which,
depending on how well the individual adapts, could cause a marked change in the next
evaluation. The board will not approve requests to void evaluations simply because they are
inconsistent with other evaluations.
A2.5.3. Comments Inconsistent with Assigned Ratings. Retrospective views of facts and
circumstances, months or even years after the evaluation was written, will usually not
overcome the board's presumption that the initial assessment remains valid.
A2.5.4. Deflationary Rating Programs. Evaluators must accurately assess personnel and
control inflation. Therefore, to appeal on this basis must clearly establish that the evaluator
did not use the DAF evaluation policy in effect at the time.
A2.5.5. Personality Conflict. Provide firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict
prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate evaluation. If other evaluators
support an appeal because they were unaware of a conflict at the time, they should provide
specific information (and cite their sources) which leads them to believe the evaluation is not
an objective assessment.
A2.5.6. Coercion by Superiors. The board seriously and carefully evaluates any allegation of
coercion by superiors. The DAF requires endorsers, reviewers, and commanders to review
evaluations for quality and accuracy. These officials must reject poorly prepared evaluations
and downgrade or reject inflated evaluations. Evaluators who change evaluations after talking
with a superior have not necessarily been coerced. Clear evidence must exist proving that the
superior violated the evaluators’ rating rights. Supporting statements must identify the person
who did the coercing, list the specific threats that were made, and identify any witnesses who
can corroborate the incident.
A2.5.7. Undue Emphasis on Isolated Incidents. Evaluators should consider isolated incidents,
their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and
284 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
potential. Retrospective statements from evaluators prepared several months (or even years)
after the incident or following a period of improved performance do not carry as much weight
as assessments made when the facts and circumstances were fresh in their minds. To convince
the board, evaluators must provide specific information about the incident and why they now
believe it was overly emphasized.
A2.5.8. Lack of Counseling or Feedback. The lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not
sufficient to challenge the accuracy or validity of an evaluation. Documentation should
provide specific information about how the lack of counseling or feedback resulted in the
unfair evaluation so the board can make a reasoned judgment on the appeal. Finally, every
Airman should know the existing standards for indebtedness, weight, fitness. Lack of
counseling in these areas provides no valid basis for voiding an evaluation.
A2.5.9. Alleged Discrimination or Unfair Treatment. DAF members must report any form of
discrimination to their supervisors or commander. In cases involving discrimination, the best
evidence is an official Equal Opportunity and Treatment investigation, reviewed and validated
by appropriate officials. Statements from officials in the rating chain or other credible sources
who have firsthand knowledge of the discrimination may also be used.
A2.5.10. Evaluation Completed on Wrong Form. The board does not void an evaluation
because it was completed on the wrong form. The evaluation will either be re-accomplished
or superimposed on the correct form.
A2.5.11. Administrative Issues. The board does not normally void evaluations because of
administrative errors. Proof that the evaluation would have been substantially different without
the error should be provided. Normal procedure is to correct the administrative error rather
than void the evaluation.
A2.5.12. Evaluation Inconsistent with Awards or Decorations Covering the Same Reporting
Period. Citations are not specific enough to offset the comments and ratings in an evaluation.
Awards and decorations are usually submitted by members of the rating chain who are fully
aware of the contested evaluation. Therefore, an approved award or decoration alone does not
challenge the accuracy of an evaluation.
A2.5.13. Personal Opinions and Unsupported Allegations. Provide factual, specific, and
substantiated information that is from credible officials and is based on firsthand observation
or knowledge. Avoid submitting unsubstantiated statements or opinions about motives.
A2.5.14. Mismarked Ratings. The instructions governing the Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Systems clearly require evaluators (and no one else) to mark evaluations and prohibit them
from signing blank or unmarked forms. Statements from all evaluators who signed the
evaluation are needed. These statements must fully explain how the error occurred and why
the evaluators did not notice the error when they signed the evaluation. Sometimes the typist
or administrative section is blamed for such errors, in which case a statement from them can
help. If the unit has a policy which requires raters to sign blank forms, or prohibits them from
marking their ratings, a statement from the unit commander (or other person that imposed and
enforced the policy) will be needed. The board usually directs the evaluation be corrected or
re-accomplished rather than voided.
A2.5.15. Evaluation Not Endorsed by Mandatory Endorser. An evaluation not endorsed at
the required level is normally corrected instead of voided. Identify the proper mandatory
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 285
endorser and obtain the omitted endorsement. The evaluation may be re-accomplished, or the
endorsement placed in the correct section of a blank form and signed. Include statements from
the evaluators explaining the error.
A2.5.16. Lack of Observation. Applications based on the fact that evaluators were
geographically separated, working on a different shift, or new to the job require conclusive
documentation showing there was no valid basis on which to assess performance.
A2.5.17. Evaluation Not Written by Designated Rater. The DAF does not require the
designated rater to be the immediate supervisor. Inaccurate designations and failures to change
raters can occur when personnel are reassigned, work centers reorganized, functional areas or
units realigned. To prove a case, a member will need statements from both the individuals
who signed the evaluation and from the individuals who believe they should have written the
evaluation. They should cite the “FROM” and “THRU” dates of supervision and explain what
happened. The erroneous evaluator must clearly explain why they wrote and signed the
evaluation when they were not the rater. Likewise, the actual evaluator must explain why they
did not write the evaluation even though they were supposed to. Also helpful is a statement
from the unit commander, if possible, providing specific information.
A2.5.18. Insufficient Supervision. The following is needed to appeal based on insufficient
supervision:
A2.5.18.1. Computer-generated products or other documents that substantiate when
supervision began and ended.
A2.5.18.2. Understand that on-the-job training records, feedback notices, and performance
feedback worksheets do not document the date supervision began. They document only
that an on-the-job training entry was made, a feedback notice produced, or a feedback
session took place.
A2.5.18.3. Often, evaluators feel that days of supervision minimums are not sufficient
time to evaluate a ratee. However, DAF standards establish that the minimum days are
adequate to be able to provide a valid assessment. This standard applies DAF-wide and
appeals based on the rater’s belief that minimums are not enough time are not approved.
A2.5.19. Memorandum of Mitigation. A memorandum of mitigation may be attached to an
evaluation from an evaluator who signed the original evaluation or from someone in the rating
chain at the time of the original evaluation. The memorandum must present information that
was not known at the time of the evaluation's preparation and must explain the comments or
ratings. A memorandum of mitigation may not be used simply to add information to an
evaluation when there was not enough space on the original evaluation to include it. The
memorandum must be no more than a single, typed page. It must not discuss promotion status
or potential or any other subject or material if this information was not allowed in the original
evaluation. Do not emphasize comments by using bold type, underlines, unusual fonts, etc.
A2.5.20. Lack of Training. Provide supporting statements from rating chain officials who can
give specific information about the training problem and its impact on the evaluation. Since
failing to provide training and failing to document training are different problems, on the job
training records, reviews of on-the-job training records, and on the job training inspection
reports do not prove training was not conducted, only that training was not documented.
286 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
A2.5.21. Forged Signature. Allegations of a forged signature on an evaluation must be
confirmed by a notarized statement from the actual evaluator or by the results of an
investigation.
A2.5.22. Fitness. Provide relevant justification as to why the fitness area/statement is
incorrect. Any request without supporting documents will be returned or not favorably
considered.
A2.5.23. Re-accomplishing an evaluation. Along with supporting documentations, furnish a
substitute evaluation in the appeal case. The substitute evaluation must:
A2.5.23.1. Be signed by all the evaluators who signed the original evaluation (this includes
the commander on enlisted evaluations). If an evaluator cannot be located, submit evidence
of all attempts to locate the missing evaluator (e.g., certified mail receipt, emails, postal
service). After all attempts have been exhausted, contact AFPC/DPMSPE for guidance.
A2.5.23.2. Be on the correct form not only for the grade, but also for the time the original
evaluation was written. Example: If re-accomplishing a PRF for a CY93 Board, the Aug
88 version of the AF Form 709 must be used, not the Jun 95 edition of the form. Similarly,
if re-accomplishing an enlisted evaluation which has a close-out date of Jan 95, the
substitute must be on the Jan 93 edition of AF Forms 910/911, not the Jun 95 version.
A2.6. Special Information on Appealing DAF Form 709, Promotion
Recommendation. (Note: MLR process does not apply to the AFR).
A2.6.1. General Information. A material error in the PRF itself, substantive changes to the
record of performance used to assess performance-based potential, or a material error in the
PRF preparation process may justify changes to the PRF. Normally, comments and
recommendations are required from the senior rater who signed the PRF and the MLR
President who reviewed it. If the senior rater is deceased or retired and not available, the
president who originally reviewed the PRF may act instead. When the senior rater is available,
but the original president is deceased or retired and not available, the current president can act
in their place. Note: An evaluator is considered not available when they are incapacitated or,
after reasonable efforts, cannot be located or contacted. Include in the application
documentation that shows when and how attempts to contact an evaluator, such as certified
mail receipts. An evaluator will not be substituted or bypassed simply because they will not
support an application.
A2.6.1.1. Substantive additions, deletions, changes, or corrections to an officer's record of
performance include voiding a referral or negative evaluation, adding a previously missing
officer evaluation or TR, removing a negative endorsement or adding a positive one, or
replacing an evaluation with a substantially different one. The change must, in effect,
remove negative information from an officer’s record or add positive information which
was not previously known. A simple administrative change to an evaluation does not meet
this criteria.
A2.6.1.2. Senior rater and MLR presidents who provide comments and recommendations
must carefully consider what, if any, impact the correction or change may have had on the
final PRF content, rating, or the preparation process. They will need to explain the change
to the record of performance, its impact on the PRF, and how the requested PRF action
relates to the changed record of performance. Appeals based on errors in the preparation
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 287
process must also be fully explained and substantiated. Senior raters must weigh the impact
of the processing error on the PRF and explain how the error justifies the requested PRF
change.
A2.6.1.3. The management level that initially processed the PRF can best route PRF
appeals to the appropriate MLR president. Since management levels may have different
procedures for processing PRF appeals, contact the appropriate one for instructions. If the
management level no longer exists, contact AFPC/DPMSPE for instructions.
A2.6.2. PRF Appeal Requirements. It is impossible to list exact instructions for each type of
appeal; so, if necessary, contact AFPC/DPMSPE or ARPC/PB for guidance on appeals not
covered in this instruction. The following list describes minimum required documentation for
the board to reach a fair and equitable decision on the appeal:
A2.6.2.1. Voiding a PRF. Provide substantial evidence proving the PRF does not contain
a valid promotion potential assessment, and that it is not possible to correct the form.
A2.6.2.2. Changing the promotion recommendation requires the concurrence of both the
senior rater and MLR president. The PRF should “provide key performance factors from
the officer’s entire career.” The space on the form is limited and it is not usually possible
to describe every achievement in an officer’s career. The senior rater bears the
responsibility of selecting what to include in the PRF, and what to leave out, which portions
of the officer’s career to concentrate on, and which portions to have supported by the
record. While inputs from subordinate commanders may be requested, to do so is not
mandatory. To change the promotion recommendation, the senior rater will need to
demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF; a material error in the record of
performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF; or a material error in the
process by which the PRF was crafted. In all instances, the requested change to the
promotion recommendation must be related to the documented error. Appeals to rewrite
the promotion recommendation simply to include different, but previously known or
documented accomplishments will not be approved.
A2.6.2.3. Changing the overall promotion recommendation to a "Promote"
recommendation requires the concurrence of both the senior rater and MLR president. The
senior rater provides detailed information about the circumstances surrounding the
requested change and the rationale for the correction. The MLR president reviews the
request and recommends for or against the change. The senior rater and MLR president
should not support a requested change to the PRF unless a material error exists.
A2.6.2.4. Changing the overall promotion recommendation to a “Definitely Promote”
recommendation must be fully justified and requires the concurrence of both the senior
rater and MLR president. In the promotion process, “Definitely Promote”
recommendations are strictly controlled and awarded after a competitive review of the
senior rater’s pool of eligible members identifies the top officers. The MLR validates the
senior rater’s decision and conducts a similar competitive review in awarding carry-over
or aggregate “Definitely Promote” recommendations. In determining whether to seek
award of a “Definitely Promote” recommendation via an appeal, senior raters and MLR
presidents must, as much as possible, replicate the original competitive process. Senior
raters and MLRs needing assistance in identifying their original pool of eligible officers
should contact AFPC/DPMSPE, 550 C Street West, Suite 7, Joint Base San Antonio-
288 AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024
Randolph, TX 78150-4709 to obtain a MEL and copies of records of performance which
may be needed for the board in question. The senior rater details the circumstances
surrounding the requested change, the rationale for the correction, and the method (an
earned “Definitely Promote” allocation, aggregation or carry-over) by which the
“Definitely Promote” recommendation would have been awarded originally. As with other
PRF appeals, there must be a material error in the PRF, record of performance, or process,
and it must be shown how that error resulted in an erroneous rating. In addition:
A2.6.2.4.1. When the senior rater identifies an earned “Definitely Promote” allocation,
they certify that the applicant's corrected record would have been awarded a “Definitely
Promote” recommendation in competition with the senior rater’s original pool of
eligible officers. After reviewing the circumstances of the appeal and the applicant's
record, the MLR president recommends whether the “Definitely Promote”
recommendation should be confirmed.
A2.6.2.4.2. If the senior rater believes a “Definitely Promote” recommendation would
have been awarded under aggregation or carry-over, the Management Level Review
President reviews the request, the circumstances surrounding the error, and its impact
on the strength of the applicant’s record. The MLR president, after a competitive
review (see paragraph 8.7), determines if the corrected record would have been
sufficiently strong to have earned a “Definitely Promote” recommendation at the
original MLR, and makes the appropriate recommendation.
A2.6.3. Changing PRFs reviewed by a USAF Student Evaluation Board or a USAF Evaluation
Board for Officers in Competitive Categories Other Than Line of the Air Force. The same
requirements listed above apply, except after meeting the senior rater’s requirement, forward
the appeal to AFPC/DPMSPE for processing. AFPC/DPMSPE serves as the management level
for these boards and will secure a recommendation from the MLR president.
A2.6.4. Board Review. The decision whether or not to grant or deny the appeal rests with the
board, which has the independent responsibility to make the determination. Senior rater, MLR
president, and other inputs and/or recommendations are factors which the board will consider
in making its determination. It is not bound by any of the recommendations. The board
determines the weight it will give to all such inputs.
A2.7. Special Information on Appealing AF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation.
A2.7.1. The board carefully evaluates retention recommendation form appeals and obtaining the
support outlined below does not guarantee approval, but is the minimum required for the board to reach
a fair and equitable decision.
A2.7.2. Voiding a Retention Recommendation Form. Evidence requirements are similar to evidence
requirements for voiding other evaluation types. Provide substantiating evidence that the form contains
an unjust or inaccurate assessment of potential for continued service.
A2.7.3. To change the narrative comments, or the retention recommendation, the support of the
evaluators who signed the form is needed. The first evaluator is generally the primary person to
substantiate the form is inaccurate. They detail the circumstances surrounding the error and explains
why it should be corrected. The second evaluator reviews the circumstances and provides a
recommendation. On occasion, the same person may be responsible for the first and second evaluators'
portions of the form. If major changes are needed, fill out a new form and attach it to the request for
correction.
AFI36-2406 6 AUGUST 2024 289
Attachment 3
NON-RATED PERIOD MEMORANDUM
Example: (use appropriate organization letterhead) (Attachment XX) Non-rated Period(s)
Memorandum
MEMORANDUM FOR XX SQ/CC DATE
FROM: GRADE, LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MI OF REQUESTING MEMBER (LAST 4 of
SSN)
SUBJECT: Non-rated Period(s) on (Enlisted/Officer) Performance Report
1. I am requesting a non-rated period on my next performance report in accordance with
AFI 36-2406 paragraph 1.4.11.
2. As a reminder, we met on DD/MM/YYYY and discussed any reasonably foreseeable
career impacts with this request.
3. I am requesting a non-rated period to start on DD/MM/YYYY and end on
DD/MM/YYYY. (First request will not exceed 80 calendar days; any extensions will require an
additional letter and will not exceed 60-day increments)
4. If you have questions, please contact me at (requesting member’s contact information).
Requesting Member’s Signature Block
1st Ind, XX SQ/CC
MEMORANDUM FOR XX SQ/CSS (Evaluations Monitor)
I have considered (grade/name of requesting member)’s request and approve/recommend
disapproval the non-rated period from DD/MM/YYYY to DD/MM/YYYY.
If recommending disapproval, CC must provide justification for the recommendation and
forward to the requesting member’s wing commander/equivalent for final approval/disapproval
(may be delegated no further than deputy commander/equivalent). This may be accomplished on
this memo or under a separate attachment.
Once signed, a copy will be provided to the requesting member and wing CDS office.
Unit/CC Signature Block
