There was an error in this gadget


Thursday, April 22, 2010

Common Errors in ACRs


1.      It has been observed that a large number of CRs are received wherein there are errors of trivial/technical nature and the ratee and the endorsing Officers have not followed the specified procedures. Resultantly the CRs have to be processed through the files causing infructuous paper work. This results into either the CRs getting set aside or a portion of it getting technically invalided. This may at times adversely affect the officers in their career progression.
 2.      The commonly occurring errors are listed below: -
  (a)     Part-I (Personal Data, Service Record and Authentication Data) not filled correctly and also not signed by ratee and IO.
  (b)     Requisite enclosures are not found attached to the CRs. The required enclosures to be attached with the CRs are as per DGMS(Army) letter No 15013/ACR/Policy/2003/DGMS-1A dt 16 Dec 2003 and 15013/ACR/Policy/2003/DGMS-1A dt 08 Jan 2004.
  (c)     The ratee has not completed mandatory 90 days physical service with IO, 75 days and 90 days service (not physical) with RO and FTO respectively.
  (d)     Average of box grading at Para 12, 27 of IO, RO, FTO and STO incorrectly calculated or rounded off. These averages must be calculated upto second decimal point without rounding off.
  (e)     Variance found in award of numerical marking between the two copies of CRs in respect of Naval and Air Officers.
  (f) Signatures of IO, RO and SRO are missing in Para 29.
  (g) Wide variation in assessing the ratee by the reporting Officers with difference of more than 2 points without any justification in pen picture or comments offered in this regard whether over-assessed or under –assessed by the reporting Officers.
  (h) After initiation of an ICR the balance of reporting period is not covered by an ACR or NIR as applicable thus leaving a gap in the reporting period.
  (j) The   SRO/STO/HTO have endorsed the CR when they were not holding the appointment on the last day of the period covered by the report.
  (k) Wrong forms have been used for initiation of CRs and the RO and other superior reporting officers have not rectified the defect and even endorsed and sent to higher authority for endorsement.
  (l) CRs are initiated not on due date or when not due. Raising of CR on change of rank (e.g. A Major becoming Lt Col on 22 Apr is due for an ACR on 01 Jan of following year covering the period of 19 months) is governed by Para 39 of SAO 8/S/91.
  (m) Sanction of SRO for RO to initiate CRs (Para 52 of SAO 8/S/91) and sanction by DGMS (Army) for officiating incumbents (Para 20 of SAO 8/S/91) are not found enclosed which is a mandatory requirement.
  (n) NIRs are received without the details of physical service under the IO and RO respectively. In many cases the ratee and reporting Officers have not signed the NIR.
  (o) The endorsement by NSROs have been dispensed with in terms of DGMS(Army) letter No 15025/ACR Policy/00/DGMS-1A dt 16 Mar 2000 for AMC/AMC (NT)/AD Corps Officers. Despite this the NSRO have endorsed the CR.
  (p) The CRs are received without any endorsement by any Medical Officer as FTO/STO/HTO (Dental Officer in case of AD Corps Officer). This is a mandatory requirement and at least one of these Officers should have endorsed the CR. If the reporting Officers have retired, the endorsement can be obtained from the retired reporting Officer to make the report technically valid.
  (q) The SROs/HTOs have awarded marks in fraction instead of whole number. Also the Senior Advisors have awarded marks in fraction at professional qualities at Para 9 of PCR. The SROs & HTOs can award numerical grading in whole number only.
  (r) ICR has been initiated for a period less than 180 days and without fulfilling the conditions of Para 48 of SAO 8/S/91.
  (s) The laid down channel of ACR reporting has not been followed. Any channel other than that laid down must have the sanction of the DGMS (Army).
  (t) The adverse /advisory remarks have not been communicated to the ratee Officer in terms of Para 77 of SAO 8/S/91. This lapse leads to complaints from the ratee when there is delay in communication of remarks by this Dte Gen /Office of DGAFMS on the final scrutiny of CRs.
  (u) The procedure prescribed at Para 11 of SAO 8/S/91 for overwriting/erasing has not been followed. Overwriting should always be scored off first, then re-written afresh while ensuring that the scored off number/remarks is clearly visible. All amendments should be authenticated by making full signatures with date. Pasting of slip or use of whitener is not permitted as it makes the assessment invalid.
  (v) Two CRs for the same period have been initiated which is highly irregular and leads to invalidment of last CR received for the same period.
  (w) Period covered by the report is not entered in the PCR, which should be corresponding, to the period of ICR/ACR. It has been observed that PCRs are being raised without the corresponding ICRs/ACRs. In many cases, PCRs are received for period for which NIRs have been raised.
    (x) Speciality of the ratee Officer is not mentioned in Para 5 (a) of PCR.
    (y) Instances have come to notice where it is seen that though CR should have been   initiated due to posting out or retirement of IO, but it has not been done and later NIR  was forwarded. Officers (Ratee) avoided submitting CR Forms in time or purposely delayed to avoid initiation by IO. Higher HQs at the level of Corps/Command have not taken any timely action against ratee Officer or IO for such intentional omission/commission. These instances should be viewed seriously and appropriate action be taken.
3.      It is emphasized that the environment, particularly the ratee and the endorsing Officer, must be made aware of the provisions of SAO 8/S/91 and various policy letters issued from time to time.

(O/O DGMS (Army)/DGMS-1A letter No 15013/ACR Policy/2004/DGMS-1A dt 15 Jan 04).