DA Form 67-10-3 Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report

DA Form 67-10-3 otherwise called the Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report is used within the United States Army to provide the Headquarters (HQDA) with useful and valuable information about the competence, mental and physical condition and potential for promotion of an officer. The DA 67-10-3 is used when evaluating colonels.

The Department of the Army-issued form was revised in November 2015 and is valid and in use today. An up-to-date fillable DA Form 67-10-3 is available for download below.

The form sometimes referred to DA Form 67 for short, should not be confused with the DD Form 67, Form Processing Action Request which is used to request a revision or cancellation of an existing form in the DoD inventory or to add a new one to the Army database.

What Is DA Form 67-10-3?

The United States Army introduced a new officer evaluation system on April 1, 2014. The new DA 67-10 Series presents a new format of evaluation to analyze and rate officer performances more precisely and in line with Army doctrine.

The DA Form 67-10-3 and other reports in the series replaced the DA Form 67-9, which was universal for all officers despite their rank.

The report is prepared by the rating chain, which consists of a rater and senior rater. An intermediate rater may also take part in the evaluation. The process of officer evaluation includes supervision, performance evaluation, writing a self-assessment and a face-to-face interview with the raters. The DA 67-10-3 is forwarded to the Department of Army Headquarters (HQDA) upon completion.

ADVERTISEMENT

HQDA#:
STRATEGIC GRADE PLATE (O6) OFFICER EVALUATION REPORT
See Privacy Act
Statement in AR 623-3.
For use of this form, see AR 623-3; the proponent agency is DCS, G-1.
PART I - ADMINISTRATIVE (Rated Officer)
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)
b. SSN (or DOD ID No.)
c. RANK
d. DATE OF RANK
e. BRANCH f. COMPONENT
(YYYYMMDD)
(Status Code)
h. UIC
g. UNIT, ORG., STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND
i. REASON FOR SUBMISSION
k. RATED
l. NON RATED
m. NO. OF
j. PERIOD COVERED
n. RATED OFFICER'S EMAIL ADDRESS (.gov or .mil)
MONTHS
CODES
ENCLOSURES
FROM (YYYYMMDD) THRU (YYYYMMDD)
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer's signature verifies officer has seen completed OER Parts I-VI and the administrative data is correct)
a1. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, Middle Initial)
a2. SSN (or DOD ID No.)
a3. RANK
a4. POSITION
a6. RATER SIGNATURE
a7. DATE (YYYYMMDD)
a5. EMAIL ADDRESS (.gov or .mil)
b2. SSN (or DOD ID No.)
b3. RANK
b4. POSITION
b1. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, Middle Initial)
b6. INTERMEDIATE RATER SIGNATURE
b7. DATE (YYYYMMDD)
b5. EMAIL ADDRESS (.gov or .mil)
c1. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, Middle Initial)
c2. SSN (or DOD ID No.)
c3. RANK
c4. POSITION
c5. SENIOR RATER'S ORGANIZATION
c6. BRANCH c7. COMPONENT
c9. EMAIL ADDRESS (.gov or .mil)
c8. SENIOR RATER PHONE NUMBER
c10. SENIOR RATER SIGNATURE
c11. DATE (YYYYMMDD)
e1. RATED OFFICER SIGNATURE
e2. DATE (YYYYMMDD)
d. This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?
Referred
Yes, comments are attached
No
f2. NAME OF REVIEWER (Last, First, Middle Initial)
f1. Supplementary Review Required?
Yes
No
f3. RANK
f4. POSITION
f5. Comments Enclosed
f6. SUPPLEMENTARY REVIEWER SIGNATURE
f7. DATE (YYYYMMDD)
g. MSAF Date (YYYYMMDD)
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE
b. POSITION AOC/BRANCH
c. SIGNIFICANT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM, COMPETENCIES, AND ATTRIBUTES (Rater)
a. APFT Pass/Fail/Profile:
Date:
Height:
Weight:
Within Standard?
Comments required for "Failed" APFT, or "Profile" when it precludes performance of duty, and "No" for Army Weight Standards?
b. THIS OFFICER POSSESSES SKILLS AND QUALITIES FOR THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC ASSIGNMENTS
c1. Character:
(Adherence to Army Values, Empathy, and
Warrior Ethos/Service Ethos and Discipline.
Fully supports SHARP, EO, and EEO.)
Page 1 of 2
DA FORM 67-10-3, NOV 2015
APD LC v1.00ES

Download DA Form 67-10-3 Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report

2314 times
Rate
4.7(4.7 / 5) 185 votes

ADVERTISEMENT

DA Form 67-10-3 Instructions

Part I, Administrative data is used to identify the rated officer and provide unit data and information on the number of rated months, the period covered, the reason for submitting the report and non-rated time codes.

Part II, Authentication is for the rated officer and rating officials to sign after the SGP–OER has been completed at the end of the rating period.

Part III, Duty Description provides an overview of the rated officer’s tasks and responsibilities and is filed by the rating officials.

Part IV evaluates the professionalism, competencies, and skills of the officer as well as their adherence to attributes and core leader competencies.

Part V is only filed by an intermediate rater if they are participating in the rating process.

Part VI is the senior rater’s assessment of the potential of the officer. This part is intended to capitalize on the senior rater’s experience and valuable organizational perspective.

DA 67-10-3 Related Forms

  1. DA Form 67-10-1A or the Officer Evaluation Report Support Form is a form used for assisting the rating chain and the officer in preparing the evaluation report. This form has six areas of assessment: character, presence, intellect, leadership, development, and achievements. The rated officer fills it at the beginning of the rating period and submits it before the face-to-face interviews.
  2. DA Form 67-10-1, Company Grade Plate (O1–O3; WO1 - CW2) Officer Evaluation Report is a performance reporting form similar to the DA 67-10-3 that is used when evaluating first and second lieutenants, captains, warrant officers one and chief warrant officers two.
  3. DA Form 67-10-2 or the Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report is used to evaluate officers ranked major, lieutenant colonels, and chief warrant officers levels three to five.
  4. DA Form 67–10–4 (Strategic Grade Plate General Officer Report) is another reporting form used for evaluating generals’ performance.
Page of 2