Military Officer Performance: Actions Needed to Fully Incorporate Performance Evaluation Key Practices

Fast Facts

How does the U.S. military evaluate active duty officers and decide who gets promoted?

The military services evaluate officer performance using their own performance evaluation systems. Performance information is used for promotion decisions and can help officers with career development.

In our review, these systems demonstrated some effective practices related to system design and implementation, but there's more to do. For example, 2 of the systems don't require performance feedback for officers at key points, including after evaluations.

We recommended ways to improve the systems to get officers the feedback they need, and more.

Military ID tags on a US flag

Highlights

What GAO Found

Out of 11 key practices for performance evaluation, all four military service systems fully incorporated the same five key practices and partially incorporated one key practice. The service systems varied in their implementation of the remaining five practices. Some fully incorporated the practices, some partially incorporated them, and most did not incorporate one practice.

Assessment of the Military Services' Officer Performance Evaluation Systems against GAO's Key Practices for Performance Evaluation

Note: Fully incorporated: GAO found complete evidence that satisfied the key practice.

Partially incorporated: GAO found evidence that satisfied some portion of the key practice.

Not incorporated: GAO found no evidence that satisfied the key practice.

For example, GAO found that all four service systems fully incorporated the key practice that organizations should establish and communicate a clear purpose for the performance evaluation system by stating the purpose of their systems in relevant policies. In contrast, GAO found that three service systems did not incorporate the practice that organizations should align individual performance expectations with organizational goals because their systems' policies neither align performance expectations with organizational goals nor direct rating officials to do so. By fully incorporating all 11 key practices, the services will have better assurance that their performance evaluation systems are designed, implemented, and regularly evaluated to ensure effectiveness.

The 19 promotion board members and 31 active duty officers GAO interviewed provided differing perspectives on the value of information in officer performance evaluation reports and on the extent to which reports support officer development. Promotion board members stated that evaluation reports provided sufficient information to inform their decisions about which officers to recommend for promotion. Some active duty officers stated that the reports provide a clear and relevant tool for assessing performance and supporting officer development. Conversely, others stated that factors such as misused or overused narrative may prevent a clear picture of officer performance areas in need of growth.

Why GAO Did This Study

Military service performance evaluation systems provide necessary performance information for approximately 215,000 active duty commissioned officers across the Department of Defense (DOD). They also support decisions about officer promotions and placements. These decisions affect the composition and quality of the military's current and future leadership.

Public Law 117-263 includes a provision for GAO to review the military services' officer performance evaluation systems. This report examines (1) the extent the military services' active duty officer performance evaluation systems incorporate key practices for performance evaluation, and (2) how officer performance evaluations inform promotion board determinations and support officer development.

GAO developed 11 key practices for performance evaluation; reviewed military service policies, manuals, forms, and other documentation; conducted nongeneralizable interviews with 19 promotion board members and 31 active duty officers; and interviewed DOD officials.

Recommendations

GAO is making a total of 20 recommendations, including that three services develop a training plan and align performance expectations with organizational goals; two services address communication of performance expectations and competencies and require feedback; and all four services develop a plan to evaluate their systems. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations.

Recommendations for Executive Action

See All 20 Recommendations

Full Report

View Full Report Online

GAO Contacts

Kristy E. Williams

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

williamsk@gao.gov

Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek

Managing Director

Office of Public Affairs

media@gao.gov

Public Inquiries

Topics

National Defense

Best practicesCivilian employeesInternal controlsMilitary forcesMilitary officersMilitary personnelNaval operationsPerformance appraisalsPerformance goalsPerformance managementPerformance management systemsPerformance measurementPersonnel management

Agency Affected	Recommendation	Status
Department of the Army	The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Army's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 1)	Open The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In February 2026, we met with Army officials to discuss how existing Army training could be included as part of a proposed path forward for closing this recommendation. During the meeting, Army officials showed us an internal training website that offers links to online training modules accessible to officers. Officials indicated they would provide documentation of these trainings as part of their next update on the recommendation's status. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Army's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for the delivery of training on the Navy's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 2)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy has existing training on the processes and policies in place for its legacy performance evaluation system; however, it is undergoing a comprehensive transformation of its performance evaluation systems and policies that will necessitate renewed focus on training and education moving forward. The Navy outlined corrective actions it would take through calendar year 2028 to incorporate training as part of its future performance evaluations. According to the Navy's Human Resources website, the Navy will implement Performance Expectation Management (PEM) to institutionalize Get Real, Get Better (GRGB) behaviors within Navy Performance Evaluation policy and systems, starting in 2026. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for delivery of training on the Navy's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Air Force	The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Air Force's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 3)	Open The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Air Force provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, including conducting working groups to establish a training process on evaluations and a re-write of its performance evaluation system policy--Air Force Instruction 36-2406. At that time, the Air Force estimated that the revision and other efforts would be completed in September 2025. However, as of March 2026, the Air Force has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Air Force should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Air Force's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations revises the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 4)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy complies with the practice for its existing performance evaluation system through the guidance provided in its current policy-BUPERSINST 1610.10. The Navy further noted that it is undergoing a comprehensive transformation of its performance evaluation systems and policies that will necessitate renewed focus on training and education to ensure continued alignment with Navy-wide goals and values. The Navy outlined corrective actions it would take through calendar year 2028 to incorporate changes as part of its future performance evaluation system. As of March 2026, we are reviewing the Navy's December 2025 update to its performance evaluation system policy to determine whether the stated changes were made and if they are consistent with the leading practice. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations revises the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to ensure raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Air Force	The Secretary of the Air Force should revise the Air Force's performance evaluation system policy or guidance to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 5)	Open The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Air Force provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, including conducting a working group to review its performance evaluation system policy--Air Force Instruction 36-2406--to ensure it aligns with both the Air Force Core Values and the Air Force's organizational goals. At that time, the Air Force estimated that the working group's efforts and policy revision would be completed in September 2025. However, As of March 2026, the department has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Air Force should revise its performance evaluation system policy or guidance to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 6)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Marine Corps provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, stating that it would revise its performance evaluation policy--Marine Corps Order 1610.7b, chapter 4, paragraph 5.a, to ensure that reporting officials explicitly align officer expectations with the unit's or organization's mission and goals. The Marine Corps estimated it would complete the policy revision by December 2025. However, as of March 2026, it has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations updates the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to identify and define all traits by which officers are evaluated. (Recommendation 7)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy's existing performance evaluation system policy-BUPERSINST 1610.10-defines performance traits and characteristics and provides guidance on grading criteria, examples of evaluative behaviors, and guidance on mandatory narrative and grading requirements. The Navy further noted that it is undergoing a comprehensive transformation of its performance evaluation systems and policies that will align traits and values with updated Navy-wide goals and values. The Navy noted that corrective actions would take until the end of calendar year 2028. As of March 2026, we are reviewing the Navy's December 2025 update to its performance evaluation system policy to determine whether the stated changes were made for the Navy's existing system and if they are consistent with the leading practice. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations updates the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to identify and define all traits by which officers are evaluated. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Navy's performance evaluation process. (Recommendation 8)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy's updated performance evaluation system policy-BUPERSINST 1610.10-addresses this recommendation by requiring the ratee's signature on the performance evaluation form. The Navy further noted that it is undergoing a comprehensive transformation of its performance evaluation systems and policies that would take until the end of calendar year 2028. As of March 2026, we are reviewing the Navy's December 2025 update to its performance evaluation system policy and form to determine whether the stated changes were made for the Navy's existing system and if they are consistent with the leading practice. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Navy's performance evaluation process. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Marine Corps' performance evaluation process. (Recommendation 9)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Marine Corps provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, stating that it would revise section J.1, "Certification," of Navy Marine Corps Form 10835 to include acknowledgement that the Reporting Senior established and formalized expectations with the Marine Reported On. The anticipated completion date for this update to the form was December 2025. However, as of March 2026, it has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Marine Corps' performance evaluation process. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Army	The Secretary of the Army should assess the design, implementation, and outcomes associated with the Army's forced distribution model and consider alternatives as necessary based on the findings of the assessment. (Recommendation 10)	Open The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In February 2026, we met with Army officials to discuss the Army's efforts to address this recommendation and their proposed path forward for closing this recommendation. During the meeting, Army officials described efforts to establish a working group from across the department. Officials indicated they would provide documentation of the working group's efforts to assess aspects of the officer performance evaluation system as part of their next update. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army should assess the design, implementation, and outcomes associated with the Army's forced distribution model and consider alternatives as necessary based on their findings. Once we receive documentation to confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Army	The Secretary of the Army should revise the Army's performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to all officers at key points in the process, including following the completion of a performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 11)	Open The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In February 2026, we met with Army officials to discuss the Army's efforts to address this recommendation and their proposed path forward for closing this recommendation. During the meeting, Army officials indicated that incorporating changes into Army Regulation 623-3-the Army's policy for its Evaluation Reporting System-could take three to five years and sought input on options for addressing our recommendation in a timelier manner. Officials indicated they would need to further consider the range of options and would provide documentation of any efforts as part of their next update. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army should revise its performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to all officers at key points in the process, including following the completion of a performance evaluation report. Once we receive documentation to confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Army	The Secretary of the Army should develop a mechanism, such as a signature block on the Army's evaluation report, to capture the provision of performance feedback to officers with their performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 12)	Open The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In February 2026, we met with Army officials to discuss the Army's efforts to address this recommendation and their proposed path forward for closing this recommendation. During the meeting, Army officials indicated that changes to the evaluation report would first require changes to Army Regulation 623-3-the Army's policy for its Evaluation Reporting System-before incorporation into the form. They stated that those changes could take three to five years and sought input on options for addressing our recommendation in a more timely manner. Officials indicated that they would need to further consider the range of options and would provide documentation of any efforts as part of their next update. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army should develop a mechanism, such as a signature block on the Army's evaluation report, to capture the provision of performance feedback to officers with their performance evaluation report. Once we receive documentation to confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to officers following the completion of a performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 13)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Marine Corps provided an update on its efforts, in which it noted that, while the fitness report is not a counseling tool, its performance evaluation system policy encourages Reporting Seniors to counsel Marines Reported On throughout the rating period, consistent with its counseling policy. The Marine Corps further noted that, while the performance evaluation system and counseling are separate, they are complimentary. As a result, the Marine Corps stated that, as part of its ongoing efforts to revise its performance evaluation system policy--Marine Corps Order 1610.7b chapter 2, paragraph 3(c)--it would require the Reporting Senior to provide feedback to the Marine Reported On after the evaluation cycle is complete, consistent with our recommendation. However, as of March 2026, the department has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to officers following the completion of a performance evaluation report. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to capture that feedback is provided to officers at all key points in the Marine Corps' process. (Recommendation 14)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Marine Corps provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, in which it noted that, as part of an ongoing effort to revise its performance evaluation system policy, it would revise its performance evaluation form--Navy Marine Corps Form 10835--to reflect that the Reporting Senior provided feedback to the Marine Reported On. The estimated completion date for both the revised policy and form was December 2025. However, as of March 2026, the Marine Corps has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to capture that feedback is provided to officers at all key points in the Marine Corps' process. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Army	The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Army's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 15)	Open The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In February 2026, we met with Army officials to discuss the Army's efforts to address this recommendation and their proposed path forward for closing this recommendation. During the meeting, Army officials indicated that they felt they were already in compliance with this recommendation because of the requirement to review their publication-Army Regulation 623-3-at a minimum, every five years. They noted that such reviews were conducted in 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2025; however, we have not received documentation of these review efforts or what would constitute the Army's plan for conducting such evaluations. Officials indicated that they would provide documentation of any efforts as part of their next update. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Army's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. Once we receive documentation to confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Navy's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 16)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy established the Talent Management Center of Excellence in Fiscal Year 2024 to evaluate and propose revisions to the Navy's performance evaluation system, and cited a number of iterative steps it would take through calendar year 2027 to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Navy's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. Once we receive documentation of these efforts and confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 17)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Marine Corps provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, in which it noted that it would revise its performance evaluation policy---Marine Corps Order 1610.7--to require an annual review of the performance evaluation system, including its tools and processes, as part of an ongoing effort to update that policy. The Marine Corps' estimated completion date for the revised policy was December 2025. However, as of March 2026, it has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Air Force	The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Air Force's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 18)	Open The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Air Force provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, which included collaboration between Air Force offices and the evaluation developers to evaluate the system's tools and processes, as well as development and implementation of a plan for such evaluations. The Air Force estimated it would complete these efforts by October 2027. As of March 2026, the department has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Air Force should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Air Force's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Navy	The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a process to review the results of the Navy's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, for example, through reviews of ratings or ratings trends. (Recommendation 19)	Open The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In July 2025, the Navy provided an update in which it stated that the Navy established the Talent Management Center of Excellence to regularly review and make recommendations to enhance the Navy's performance evaluation policy and practices, and cited previously issued Naval Post-Graduate School studies, which we also described in our report. The Navy further noted that it is undergoing a comprehensive transformation of its performance evaluation systems and policies that would take until the end of calendar year 2028. To fully implement this recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Chief of Naval Operations develops should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a process to review the results of the Navy's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, for example, through reviews of ratings or ratings trends. Once we receive documentation sufficient to confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of the Air Force	The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a process to review the results of the Air Force's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, for example, through reviews of ratings or ratings trends. (Recommendation 20)	Open The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In March 2025, the Air Force provided an update on its efforts to address this recommendation, which include a contract with the RAND Corporation to develop an evaluation plan to study the impact of changes made to the Air Force's performance evaluation systems, as well as efforts to analyze and develop a plan to use its myEval system as a tool to evaluate data officer ratings, among other things. The Air Force estimated that, following software development delays associated with the myEval system, it would complete these efforts by October 2027. As of March 2026, the department has not provided any additional information related to its efforts to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Air Force should develop a process to review the results of the Air Force's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, such as through review of ratings or ratings trends. Once we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.