How to Rate Your Airmen: A Supervisor's Guide to Fair and Accurate EPR Ratings

The Weight of Your Ratings Decision

As a supervisor, few responsibilities carry more weight than rating your Airmen's performance. Your ratings directly impact their promotion opportunities, assignment selections, and career trajectories. Get it right, and you help deserving Airmen advance. Get it wrong, and you can derail careers or create inequity within your team.

Yet many supervisors struggle with this critical task. Rating too harshly damages morale and retention. Rating too leniently creates false expectations and undermines the system. Finding the right balance requires understanding, consistency, and courage.

This guide will help you navigate the complex world of EPR ratings with confidence and fairness.

Understanding the Five-Point Rating Scale

The Air Force uses a five-point scale for performance ratings:

5 - Truly Among the Best

Intended For: Top 5-10% of performers

Characteristics:

• Consistently exceeds every standard
• Demonstrates transformational impact
• Performs at the next rank level
• Goes far beyond expected duties
• Creates lasting organizational improvements

Example Justification: Led wing-level initiative that saved $500K annually; mentored 12 Airmen (8 promoted ahead of peers); earned MAJCOM-level award; completed master's degree while maintaining 100% job performance.

4 - Above Average

Intended For: Top 25-30% of performers

Characteristics:

• Regularly exceeds standards
• Delivers significant contributions beyond primary duties
• Demonstrates clear leadership potential
• Consistently volunteers for challenging assignments
• Positive influence on team performance

Example Justification: Managed $200K budget with zero discrepancies; trained 6 new Airmen to fully qualified status; volunteered 100+ community service hours; completed CCAF degree and two PME courses.

3 - Valued Performer

Intended For: Approximately 50% of performers

Characteristics:

• Consistently meets all standards
• Reliable and dependable
• Performs duties competently
• Participates in team activities
• Maintains professional standards

Example Justification: Completed all assigned tasks on time; maintained 100% accountability of equipment; participated in squadron events; progressing appropriately through upgrade training.

2 - Does Not Meet Some Standards

Intended For: Rare circumstances

Characteristics:

• Performance gaps in some areas
• Documented counseling required
• May require Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
• Specific deficiencies identified

Critical Note: Requires extensive documentation and leadership coordination. Should never be a surprise to the ratee.

1 - Does Not Meet Standards

Intended For: Very rare, serious performance issues

Characteristics:

• Significant performance deficiencies
• Multiple documented counseling sessions
• May be tied to administrative actions
• Requires commander involvement

Critical Note: Extensive documentation trail mandatory. Typically involves formal administrative processes.

The Art of Fair Rating: Key Principles

Principle #1: Ratings Should Match Narrative

Your narrative (bullet statements) must support your ratings. Disconnect between the two raises immediate red flags.

Red Flag Example:

• Narrative: "Completed basic tasks; met minimum standards; no significant contributions"
• Rating: 5 (Truly Among the Best)

This disconnect destroys credibility with senior raters and promotion boards.

Aligned Example:

• Narrative: "Led squadron innovation initiative saving $200K; mentored 8 Airmen to qualification; earned MAJCOM award; completed master's degree"
• Rating: 5 (Truly Among the Best)

Principle #2: Use the Full Scale

Rating inflation hurts everyone. If everyone gets 5s, the ratings become meaningless.

Healthy Distribution Example (10 Airmen):

• 1 person: 5 (top performer)
• 2-3 people: 4 (strong performers)
• 5-6 people: 3 (solid performers)
• 1 person: 2 (if performance issues exist)

This doesn't mean rigid quotas, but rather honest differentiation based on actual performance.

Principle #3: Compare to Standards, Not to Each Other

Rate Airmen against established standards and expectations for their grade, not against each other.

Wrong Approach: "Sarah is better than John, so she gets a 4 and he gets a 3."

Right Approach: "Sarah consistently exceeds standards for a SrA. John consistently meets standards for a SrA. Based on their individual performance against expectations, Sarah earns a 4 and John earns a 3."

Principle #4: Document Everything

Ratings without documentation are opinions. Documentation makes them defensible.

Maintain Records Of:

• Specific accomplishments with dates
• Quantifiable metrics
• Awards and recognition
• Training completions
• Feedback session notes
• Any counseling (positive or corrective)

Common Rating Dilemmas (And How to Handle Them)

Dilemma #1: The Likeable Underperformer

Situation: An Airman is friendly, shows up on time, and has a great attitude—but doesn't produce results commensurate with their grade.

Solution: Rate based on results, not personality. Being nice doesn't earn promotion. However, use feedback sessions to explain how they can improve performance while acknowledging their positive attitude.

Rating Guidance: Likely a 3 (meets standards but doesn't exceed). Don't inflate to a 4 just because they're pleasant.

Dilemma #2: The High Performer Who Coasts

Situation: An Airman crushed it for 9 months, then essentially stopped trying for the last 3 months.

Solution: Evaluate the entire rating period, but weight consistency. Outstanding performance for part of the year doesn't override checked-out behavior later.

Rating Guidance: Probably a 3 or 4 depending on severity of the drop-off. Use midterm and final feedback to address the issue explicitly.

Dilemma #3: The One-Dimensional Star

Situation: An Airman excels at their primary job but completely neglects leadership, self-improvement, or community involvement.

Solution: The Air Force values the Whole Airman Concept. Technical excellence alone doesn't warrant a 5. Rate accordingly and provide feedback on development areas.

Rating Guidance: Likely a 4 (strong in some areas, gaps in others). Explain during feedback how they can reach a 5 by developing well-roundedness.

Dilemma #4: The New Airman vs. The Seasoned Pro

Situation: You supervise both a brand-new A1C and a seasoned SrA. The SrA performs better, but the A1C is exceptional for their experience level.

Solution: Rate them against expectations for their grade. An A1C performing at SrA level is a 5. A SrA performing at SrA level is a 3.

Rating Guidance: It's possible (and appropriate) for a junior Airman to earn a higher rating than a senior Airman if they're performing above their grade expectations.

Dilemma #5: The Pressure from Above

Situation: Leadership pressures you to give all your Airmen 4s or 5s to "support the team."

Solution: This is where integrity matters. Respectfully push back with facts. Explain that inflated ratings hurt deserving Airmen by making everyone look the same to promotion boards.

What to Say: "Sir/Ma'am, I understand the intent to support our team. However, for our true top performers to stand out to promotion boards, we need honest differentiation. Here's how I've rated each Airman and my justification..."

The Rating Conversation: How to Deliver Difficult Feedback

When an Airman receives a rating they didn't expect, the conversation matters as much as the rating itself.

For Lower-Than-Expected Ratings:

1. Start with Facts

"Based on documented performance over the rating period, here's what I observed..."

2. Be Specific

"You completed your primary duties, but you didn't take on additional responsibilities or demonstrate leadership growth."

3. Explain the Standard

"A 4 rating indicates exceeding standards. To earn that next rating period, here's what I need to see..."

4. Create an Action Plan

"Let's identify 3-4 specific goals for next rating period that will demonstrate that higher level of performance."

5. Remain Professional and Supportive

"I'm invested in your success and I believe you can improve. Let's work together on this."

For Expected High Ratings:

1. Acknowledge Excellence

"Your performance this year was outstanding. Here are the specific accomplishments that warranted this rating..."

2. Set Next-Level Expectations

"To maintain this trajectory, here's what I recommend focusing on next year..."

3. Discuss Career Goals

"Where do you see your career going? How can I help you get there?"

The Rating Calibration Meeting

Many units conduct rating calibration sessions where supervisors discuss their intended ratings. These meetings help ensure consistency.

How to Prepare:

• Bring specific examples for each rating decision
• Have metrics and documentation ready
• Be ready to explain why your ratee earned this rating
• Listen to how others justify their ratings
• Be willing to adjust if presented with compelling inconsistencies

What Calibration Should Accomplish:

• Ensure similar performance gets similar ratings
• Identify and correct rating inflation or deflation
• Share best practices for documentation
• Align supervisors on standards and expectations

Special Considerations

Transitioning Supervisors

If you take over supervision mid-rating period:

• Request detailed transition notes from previous supervisor
• Review any existing documentation
• Conduct an early feedback session to establish your expectations
• Rely more heavily on the previous supervisor's input for the final rating

Short Rating Periods

For abbreviated rating periods (PCS, separation, etc.):

• Rate based on demonstrated performance during the shortened period
• Adjust expectations proportionally to the timeframe
• Document the shortened period clearly

Performance Referral EPRs

When performance issues require referral:

• Extensive documentation is mandatory
• Commander must be involved early
• Legal review may be required
• Follow AFI 36-2406 referral procedures precisely
• Provide the ratee opportunity to provide input

FileMyEPR: Supporting Fair Rating Decisions

Fair, accurate ratings require solid documentation throughout the rating period. FileMyEPR helps supervisors:

• Track performance continuously: Document accomplishments in real-time
• Maintain objective records: Time-stamped, detailed achievement logs
• Compare against standards: Built-in performance benchmarks by grade
• Generate ratings justifications: AI-assisted narrative alignment with ratings
• Coordinate with leadership: Streamlined review and approval workflows

The Bottom Line

Rating your Airmen is one of your most important duties as a supervisor. Approach it with:

• Integrity: Rate honestly, not conveniently
• Consistency: Apply standards uniformly
• Documentation: Support ratings with facts
• Communication: Explain ratings clearly and professionally
• Courage: Stand by your ratings even when unpopular

Your Airmen's careers depend on you getting this right. The Air Force's promotion system depends on honest differentiation. And your integrity as a leader depends on fair, accurate rating decisions.

Simplify Your Rating Process

Visit FileMyEPR.com to see how our platform helps supervisors make fair, well-documented rating decisions. From year-round performance tracking to ratings justification tools, we support supervisors in this critical responsibility.

Start your free trial today and lead with confidence.

Supervisors: What's your biggest challenge with EPR ratings? Share your experiences and let's learn from each other.