Enlisted Evaluation System

This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-24, Military Evaluations. It provides guidance and procedures for implementing Air Force (AF) Evaluation Systems policy for the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). It describes how to prepare, submit, and manage Air Force Forms (AF Forms) prescribed by this Air Force Instruction (AFI). Waivers to this instruction are authorized and shall be processed IAW AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management. Waiver requests will be submitted using the AF Form 679, Air Force Publication Compliance Item Waiver Request/Approval, or via e-mail or memorandum if the form is unavailable. For unit-level compliance items, waivers must be approved by AFPC/DP3SP. AFPC/DP3SP is the waiver approving authority for non-tiered requirements in this publication.

This publication, Air Force Instruction AFI 36-2406 Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems June 2019, implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-24, Military Evaluations. It provides guidance and procedures for implementing Air Force (AF) Evaluation Systems policy for the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). It describes how to prepare, submit, and manage Air Force Forms (AF Forms) prescribed by this Air Force Instruction (AFI). Waivers to this instruction are authorized and shall be processed IAW AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management. This publication applies to all major commands (MAJCOM), field operating agencies (FOA), direct reporting units (DRU), and other Air Force activities, as well as Regular Air Force, Air National Guard (ANG), Active Guard/Reserve (AGR), and Air Force Reserve (AFR) activities, officers, and enlisted. While the philosophy and intent of the OES/EES pertain to the ANG and AFR, modifications are necessary. This instruction also provides procedures governing evaluation of brigadier and major generals.

The job evaluation system used by the Air Force was applied to a sample of positions. Judged by pay-grade conversions, evaluation scores obtained were somewhat inflated, but the evaluations discriminated between higher and lower skilled jobs. A simple average of individual ratings closely approximates the consensus ratings arrived at during two-man conferences held by the judges. This finding eliminates the reason for limiting the number of judges to the small number who can attend such meetings. By means of regression analysis it was found that factors dealing with Knowledge, Adaptability and Resourcefulness, and Attention formed one group related factors while the factors measuring Responsibility for Safety of Others, Physical Effort, and Job Conditions were related to each other. Although there was overlap within the two groups each factor had a considerable amount of unique variance.