In 2023, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) implemented several changes to the officer and enlisted performance evaluation systems. The USAF then asked RAND researchers to assess whether the changes were having their intended effects. The project team developed a mixed-methods approach to assess the changes, and they detail their methods, findings, and recommendations in this report.

Evaluating the Impact of Changes to the Air Force Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems

Kirsten M. Keller, Devon Hill, Jennifer Nevius, Angela K. Clague, Lewis Schneider, Ellen Gracia, Brandon Krueger, Maria C. Lytell, Stephanie Williamson, Makai Ruffin, et al.

ResearchPublished Feb 13, 2026

Cover: Evaluating the Impact of Changes to the Air Force Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes Annex; Research Summary

In 2023, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) implemented several changes to the officer and enlisted performance evaluation systems, including a redesign of the performance reports and a change in the USAF's approach to providing developmental feedback. The USAF asked RAND Project AIR FORCE researchers to first establish a method to evaluate and monitor whether the performance evaluation changes are having the intended effects and then to conduct the designed evaluation. The project team used a mixed-methods approach that included a survey with a stratified random sample of airmen; focus groups with raters, ratees, and higher-level reviewers (HLRs); interviews with board members (e.g., promotion boards); and an analysis of performance evaluation data. This report details their methods, findings, and recommendations.

Key Findings

The redesign of the performance briefs includes many improvements, but some concerns remain:

  • The new separate block for HLR comments is helpful to talent management board members.
  • The major performance area framework helps with documenting accomplishments, but airmen report not all areas are equally relevant across ranks and jobs.
  • There is confusion as to whether Whole Airman Concept elements should still be documented in enlisted performance briefs.
  • There are concerns about differentiating performance after the removal of the additional rater block and overall performance assessment rating for enlisted airmen.

The change from bullet points to narrative writing style offers clarity but less space:

  • Narrative statements provide clearer information on performance and potential.
  • There are concerns that required sentences and the reduction of acronyms and abbreviations does not always provide space to fully highlight accomplishments.

Changes to static close-out dates (SCODs) and stratifications work well, although timing and compliance concerns remain:

  • The introduction of SCODs for officer stratifications reduces gamesmanship, but concerns remain about timing.
  • Most airmen view the increase of senior noncommissioned officer stratifications positively.
  • There is confusion about the new officer and enlisted stratification rules.

Airmen leadership qualities (ALQs) help guide feedback with some exceptions:

  • ALQs offer a good framework for feedback, but many report not receiving feedback or proficiency ratings.

The myEval 2.0 system is an improvement but could be further developed:

  • myEval 2.0 is viewed positively, but some challenges remain, including difficulties with routing, tracking evaluation status, and general useability.

Recommendations

  • Provide additional guidance about documenting accomplishments across major performance areas and where and when to include accomplishments related to the Whole Airman Concept.
  • Provide additional examples of expected sentence structure and how to write concisely and clearly when documenting accomplishments.
  • Consider expanding the approved abbreviations list to include additional commonly understood abbreviations across the USAF.
  • Continue to monitor the impact of eliminating the additional rater block on board reviews.
  • Explore ways to incorporate more quantitative information into the enlisted performance brief that can help differentiate enlisted airmen during talent management boards.
  • Review the alignment of talent management board timing and SCODs.
  • Develop clearer guidance on stratification policies and explore ways to incorporate policy requirements into the myEval system to address confusion and compliance.
  • Provide additional guidance on how deeply to stratify officers.
  • Incorporate initial and midterm feedback into the myEval system to provide more accountability; ensure ratees have access to their proficiency ratings during the evaluation period after they sign their annual performance brief.
  • Continue to monitor whether raters are completing the ALQ proficiency ratings and the extent to which airmen are receiving constructive feedback.
  • Assess the feasibility of addressing common user difficulties to improve the overall functionality of myEval and to improve policy compliance.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Keller, Kirsten M., Devon Hill, Jennifer Nevius, Angela K. Clague, Lewis Schneider, Ellen Gracia, Brandon Krueger, Maria C. Lytell, Stephanie Williamson, Makai Ruffin, Louis T. Mariano, and Zhan Okuda-Lim, Evaluating the Impact of Changes to the Air Force Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3177-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research reported here was commissioned by Headquarters Air Force (HAF) Force Management Policy Directorate (A1P) and conducted within the Workforce, Development, and Health Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.