This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking — by Russians or anyone else. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia. Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay.
There are some very specific requirements in DAPAM for these situations that were written to help boards understand the information.
The next regulation will make these requirements for NCOER slightly more generic but until then the current rules stand. That meant no one looked at it prior to signature and submission. Profiles are supposed to be renewed regularly.
If they have not been, the rater should make some comment.
The form will let you do this but the policy will not. Reason is that board members question if rating officials were actually rating officials all the way to the end of the rating period.
Reviewers not writing and attaching letters of non-concurrence when the rater and senior rater box checks are inconsistent. This occurs when the rater marks in VII. DAPAM provides a listing of the box check interpretations.
This situation is allowed by regulation without required reviewer interaction but sends a mixed message to selection boards.
Incorrect SSN for rated Soldiers. We cannot get it to the correct OMPF without this. Missing counseling dates without an explanation by the senior rater. There needs to be an explanation and if needed the lack of CAC can work but Soldiers have the option of ink-signing and this option should be used when needed.
A key component of the current evaluation system is that rated Soldiers get to actually see and review their evaluation prior to its placement in the OMPF. There are many coming in without signatures legally by regulation but probably more than need to.
Change of rater should be used. That should also be a change of rater. The Complete the Record term is one for evaluations just prior to selection boards. There are two problems here. As for confusion — you can never have more than 12 months of rated time on an evaluation.
Extended months can be any amount between 3 and 12 but no more. Also, as the regulation stands right now there should be at least 21 months of physical time between FROM and THRU dates to qualify for an extended annual.
That last element will change in the next regulation release but for now still stands. None of these are acceptable in most situations. Bullet comments incorrectly formatted. Bullets going over 2 lines. Bullets spaced with more than a single spaces between them. No bullets on front side, not all sections with at least one bullet.Effective Communications "To lead effectively requires a command of communicative skills.
Teaching, writing, briefing, and speaking are unavoidable. ALARACT Message for guidance on collection of DNA for army criminal investigations by CID.
The performance portion of the OMPF is updated to include either (1) a memorandum for record that documents the amendment or explains non-rated time or (2) the DA PERSCOM letter which notifies the appellant that his appeal has been denied. 3. This memorandum will remain in soldier's packet until SM receives a new leadership, changes units, or 12 months from memorandum date.
4. Point of contact of this memorandum is the undersigned at [email protected] Sergeant S. Sergeant SGT (P), US ARMY TEAM LEADER. Example: the Header, Memo For line, and name in the signature block will always be ALLCAPS. The date auto-populates and the Office Symbol and Subject replicate in the headers of all of the memo pages.
The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.