Da 2166 9 1 Form

What is the DA 2166 9 1 form used for?

The DA 2166 9 1 form is an NCO Evaluation Report specifically designed for Sergeants. It evaluates the performance and potential of non-commissioned officers within the U.S. Army. The form captures various aspects of an NCO's duties, professionalism, and attributes over a specified period.

Who needs to complete the DA 2166 9 1 form?

This form must be completed by the rated NCO, their rater, and the senior rater. It is essential for documenting the NCO's performance and is typically required during the annual evaluation cycle or when there are significant changes in duty assignments.

What information is required in Part I of the form?

Part I requires administrative data such as the NCO's name, Social Security Number or DOD ID, rank, date of rank, unit information, and the period covered by the evaluation. This section ensures that all basic identification details are accurately recorded.

What does the rater evaluate in Part IV of the form?

In Part IV, the rater assesses the NCO on several performance areas, including character, presence, intellect, leadership, development, and achievement. Each area requires a determination of whether the NCO met or did not meet the standards, along with specific comments to support the evaluation.

How does the NCO acknowledge their evaluation?

The NCO acknowledges their evaluation by signing the form. This signature indicates that they have reviewed the administrative data and the completed report. It does not imply agreement or disagreement with the rater's assessments.

What is the role of the senior rater?

The senior rater provides an overall assessment of the NCO's potential compared to peers. They must indicate whether the NCO is "Most Qualified," "Highly Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified." This evaluation helps inform future assignments and career progression.

What are the counseling dates mentioned in the form?

Counseling dates refer to the times when the rated NCO received feedback on their performance. Initial and subsequent counseling sessions are documented to ensure ongoing communication between the rater and the NCO about performance expectations and development.

Can the NCO appeal their evaluation?

Yes, the NCO has the right to appeal their evaluation if they believe it is unjust. The appeals process is outlined in AR 623-3, and it provides a structured way for NCOs to contest their ratings if they feel they do not accurately reflect their performance.

What happens if the NCO fails the APFT?

If the NCO fails the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), comments are required to explain the circumstances. This information is important for understanding the NCO's overall fitness and readiness for duty, as it can impact their evaluation significantly.

How is the DA 2166 9 1 form submitted?

The completed form is typically submitted through the NCO's chain of command. It may be processed electronically or in hard copy, depending on the unit's procedures. Ensuring timely submission is crucial for maintaining accurate personnel records.

Understanding the DA 2166-9-1 form is crucial for effective evaluation and documentation in the military. Here are key takeaways to keep in mind:

• Purpose: The DA 2166-9-1 is primarily used for evaluating Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) at the rank of Sergeant.
• Administrative Data: Ensure all administrative information in Part I is accurate, including name, SSN, rank, and unit details.
• Rater and Senior Rater: Both the rater and senior rater must provide their signatures and contact information. This adds credibility to the evaluation process.
• Performance Evaluation: The form includes sections for evaluating various attributes such as character, presence, intellect, leadership, development, and achievement.
• Counseling Dates: Document counseling dates accurately. This shows the rated NCO's engagement in their development and performance feedback.
• Height and Weight Standards: Report the rated NCO’s height and weight, ensuring compliance with Army standards. Comments are required for any failures.
• Overall Potential: The senior rater assesses the NCO’s potential compared to peers, indicating whether they are most qualified, highly qualified, qualified, or not qualified.
• Supplementary Review: If applicable, a supplementary reviewer can provide additional insights. Their comments and signature are important for a comprehensive evaluation.
• Verification: The rated NCO’s signature does not imply agreement with the evaluation but confirms that the administrative data and counseling dates are correct.

Misconceptions about the DA 2166-9-1 form can lead to confusion among users. Here are eight common misunderstandings:

• It's only for evaluations of senior NCOs. Many believe that this form is exclusively for evaluating senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs). In reality, it applies to all NCOs, including sergeants.
• All sections must be filled out for every evaluation. Some think that every part of the form is mandatory for all evaluations. While certain sections are essential, others may not apply to every individual, depending on their specific duties.
• The rater's signature means agreement with the evaluation. A common misconception is that the rater's signature indicates agreement with the assessment. However, it merely confirms that the administrative data is accurate and that the rated NCO has seen the report.
• Only the rater can provide input. Many believe that only the rater has a voice in the evaluation process. In fact, the rated NCO can provide feedback and comments, especially during counseling sessions.
• The form is not subject to review. Some assume that once submitted, the evaluation is final and cannot be reviewed. However, there is an appeals process outlined in AR 623-3 that allows for challenges to the evaluation.
• Performance evaluations are solely based on technical skills. A misconception exists that evaluations focus only on technical abilities. The form also considers attributes such as leadership, character, and professionalism.
• All evaluations are the same. Many think that evaluations follow a one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, each evaluation is tailored to the individual’s specific duties and performance.
• The form is outdated and not relevant. Some believe that the DA 2166-9-1 is no longer applicable. However, it remains an important tool for evaluating NCOs and is regularly updated to reflect current standards.

1. Incomplete Administrative Data: One common mistake is failing to fill out all required fields in Part I of the form. Missing information, such as the rated NCO's email address or the reason for submission, can delay processing and create confusion.

2. Incorrect Signatures: Signatures are crucial for authentication. A mistake occurs when the rater or senior rater signs without including their full name or rank. This oversight can lead to questions about the validity of the evaluation.

3. Misunderstanding Counseling Dates: Many individuals do not accurately record counseling dates. This section is essential for tracking the development of the rated NCO. Failing to provide correct dates can affect the perceived effectiveness of the evaluation process.

4. Neglecting Comments: In the performance evaluation sections, some may skip providing comments. Comments are important as they offer context and clarity regarding the rated NCO's performance. Without them, the evaluation may lack depth and fail to convey the full picture.

When filling out the DA 2166-9-1 form, it’s crucial to approach the task with care and attention to detail. Here are some important dos and don’ts to keep in mind:

• Do ensure all personal information is accurate, including your name, SSN, and rank.
• Do double-check the dates for the period covered to ensure they are correct.
• Do provide a valid email address that ends in .gov or .mil for communication purposes.
• Do include all required enclosures and documents that support your evaluation.
• Don't leave any sections blank; incomplete forms can lead to delays in processing.
• Don't use informal language or abbreviations that may not be understood by all reviewers.
• Don't forget to sign and date the form; your signature verifies the accuracy of the information.
• Don't submit the form without reviewing it thoroughly for errors or omissions.

The DA Form 2166-9-1 is similar to the DA Form 2166-9, which is the NCO Evaluation Report for higher ranks. Both forms serve to evaluate the performance and potential of non-commissioned officers. The primary difference lies in the rank of the individuals being evaluated. While the 2166-9-1 is specifically for Sergeants, the 2166-9 covers evaluations for Staff Sergeants and above. Each form includes sections for administrative data, performance evaluation, and recommendations, ensuring a consistent approach to assessing leadership and effectiveness within the Army.

Another comparable document is the DA Form 4856, known as the Developmental Counseling Form. This form is used for documenting counseling sessions between leaders and subordinates. Like the 2166-9-1, it focuses on performance and professional development. However, the 4856 is more interactive, allowing for discussions about goals, strengths, and areas for improvement. Both forms aim to enhance the professional growth of soldiers, but the 4856 emphasizes ongoing dialogue rather than a formal evaluation.

The DA Form 67-10-1 is also similar, as it is the Officer Evaluation Report for company grade officers. This document evaluates the performance of officers in a structured manner, similar to how the 2166-9-1 evaluates NCOs. Both forms require input from raters and senior raters, ensuring that multiple perspectives contribute to the final assessment. They share common elements such as performance metrics and recommendations for future assignments, fostering a culture of accountability and leadership development.

When transferring ownership, utilizing a detailed Dog Bill of Sale document is essential. This form captures the necessary information about the dog, ensuring a smooth and legally compliant transaction.

Additionally, the DA Form 1059, or the Service School Academic Evaluation Report, shares similarities with the 2166-9-1. This form evaluates a soldier's performance in a school environment. Both documents assess competencies and provide feedback on performance. However, the 1059 focuses on academic achievements and skills acquired during training, while the 2166-9-1 evaluates overall job performance and leadership abilities in a duty assignment context.

The DA Form 2166-9-2, which is the NCO Evaluation Report for the rank of Sergeant First Class and above, is another related document. It maintains the same structure as the 2166-9-1 but is tailored for higher-ranking NCOs. Both forms include sections for performance evaluation and potential assessment, ensuring that the evaluation process remains consistent across different ranks. This similarity helps maintain a standard for evaluating leadership qualities and effectiveness within the Army.

Lastly, the DA Form 11-2, known as the Army Regulation (AR) 623-3, outlines the policies and procedures for the evaluation process. While not an evaluation form itself, it provides the framework and guidelines that govern how evaluations like the 2166-9-1 are completed. Understanding the regulations helps ensure that evaluations are conducted fairly and consistently, aligning with the standards set for performance assessments in the Army.