Glassdoor exists for every company in America. Nothing like it exists for military units. That changes.
Anonymous, aggregate ratings of command climate — verified service members only, designed so nobody can be identified. Five dimensions. Installation-level scores. The record that should have always existed.
The information exists. It has never been made visible.
PCS orders to a new installation?
Right now you rely on Facebook groups, Reddit threads, and whoever you happen to know who served there. The quality of that information is luck. It should be data.
SHARP culture varies wildly by unit.
The difference between a unit that takes complaints seriously and one that buries them is not visible from the outside until you are already inside. That data should be visible before you sign the orders.
Command climate surveys exist.
DEOCS results go to the rated commander and their senior rater — but they are not public. No service member can look up their unit's DEOCS scores, compare results across installations, or see trends over time. There is no external transparency layer.
This is the record that should have always existed.
Verified, aggregate, anonymous. No individual identified. No command able to suppress it. The institutional accountability layer the military has always lacked.
Four steps. No names. No exposure.
Submit
Verified service members (tier 1 or above — peer-verified MOS) rate their unit on five dimensions using a 1-5 scale. Submissions are accepted for units served in within the last 5 years. The form takes under 5 minutes.
Protect
Reviews never display until 15 or more verified submissions exist for a unit type at an installation. No timestamps on any review. No names. No units smaller than brigade level are shown unless the verified submission count reaches 50. When threshold is not met: "Not enough data yet."
Aggregate
Scores are shown at installation level, updated quarterly. Verification tier weighting applies — a peer-verified submission counts more than an email-verified one. Dimension scores are displayed individually alongside the overall climate score.
Improve
Installations with sufficient data have their aggregate scores visible to all users — including leadership. Commands can see aggregate feedback. They cannot see who submitted, when, or from which specific unit within their formation.
Five dimensions that actually matter.
These are not arbitrary categories. They map to the specific failure modes that service members describe most often when explaining why a unit was toxic, functional, or exceptional.
Does leadership set a clear standard and live by it? Is accountability applied consistently up and down the chain, or only downward? Does the command climate reflect what is posted on the wall, or what actually happens?
Are complaints handled seriously or buried? Is the EO program a functional resource or a box to check? Do service members believe they can report without career consequences? Does leadership model the standard or exempt itself?
Do NCOs have the authority to do their jobs, or are they micromanaged at every level? Do officers trust their NCOs to execute, or does every decision require lieutenant involvement? Is the NCO corps treated as a leadership tier or a bureaucratic layer?
Does finance work? Are awards and evaluations submitted on time and processed correctly? Does leave get approved without a fight? Are PCS entitlements correct? Administrative failure is a leadership failure. This dimension measures it directly.
When something goes wrong — a mental health crisis, a family emergency, a wrongful action by a senior — does leadership have your back? Is welfare a priority or a platitude? Do service members feel that the organization will look out for them when it matters?
The following data is NOT real. These are sample cards showing what the interface will look like when Unit Climate Intelligence launches. No actual reviews have been collected. Scores are invented for demonstration purposes only.
Installation climate cards.
Fort Placeholder, XX
Camp Fakename, XX
Base Imaginary, XX
Scores display only when 15 or more verified submissions have been received for this installation. This threshold protects reviewer anonymity.
Designed from the ground up so nobody can be identified.
These are not policies written after the fact. They are architectural constraints baked into the system before a single line of review logic was written.
The 15-review threshold is non-negotiable
Scores never display until 15 verified reviews have been submitted for a unit type at an installation. This prevents any individual from being identified through their review by limiting the pool of possible authors. At N=3, you can often narrow down who reviewed — at N=15, you cannot.
Verified service members only
Reviews are submitted by verified service members only — tier 1 (peer-verified MOS) or above. Email-verified accounts (tier 0) cannot submit unit climate reviews. This is not a verification hurdle; it is a protection mechanism. Lower verification = higher gaming risk, and unit climate data is high-stakes enough to require the stronger standard.
Aggregate only — no individual review is ever shown
No individual review text, score, or data point is ever displayed. The only output is the aggregate score across all verified submissions for an installation. There is no way to read an individual submission, even if you are a moderator or administrator.
Timestamps are suppressed
We show a date range (e.g., Q1 2025 – Q4 2025), never a specific submission date. Knowing when a review was submitted could narrow down the pool of people who were present at an installation during that period. Date ranges prevent that.
Brigade level minimum — battalion requires k=50
Scores aggregate across all units of a given type at an installation. We do not display scores at battalion level or below unless the verified submission count reaches 50. We do not track which specific unit within a brigade submitted reviews. This prevents leadership from correlating scores to specific subordinate units.
Minimal linkage — not zero linkage
We store reviews against a one-way verification token, not your account profile. Staff cannot casually see 'who wrote what.' But we won't claim absolute anonymity — any system with a database has a database owner. What we commit to: we do not expose submission identity in any interface, we do not share it with commands or third parties, and our data model is built to minimize what's stored. Transparency about this builds more trust than a claim we can't actually back up.
Who can submit unit climate reviews.
The verification requirement is higher for unit climate ratings than for MOS reviews. The reason is simple: unit climate data is higher-stakes and more targeted. A lower bar creates more gaming risk.
Identity and service record verified through the VA API. Can submit for units served in within the last 5 years.
MOS and service record vouched for by another verified member. Can submit for units served in within the last 5 years.
Email-verified accounts cannot submit unit climate reviews. This prevents low-effort gaming of high-stakes data.
Tier 1 verification requires another verified member to vouch for your MOS and service record through the peer verification flow. It takes under 10 minutes and does not require sharing any personally identifying information with Honest MOS. Once verified, your account is elevated and all tier 1 features — including unit climate submissions — are unlocked.
Aggregated Quarterly Reports
Every quarter, verified review data compiles into a structured climate report — the kind of actionable analysis a DEOCS survey is supposed to produce, built from the bottom up by the people who actually served there.
Reports generate automatically when an installation reaches the review threshold. Commanders can request access to aggregate reports. Individual submissions are never exposed — to commands or anyone else.
Fort Placeholder, XX
Overall climate at Fort Placeholder improved modestly from Q3 2025 (+0.3 pts), driven primarily by gains in Soldier Care. Admin Competence and SHARP/EO Culture remain the installation's two lowest-scoring dimensions and have shown no meaningful improvement over three consecutive quarters.
The gap between Soldier Care (3.8) and Admin Competence (2.8) is the largest single-installation dimension spread in the current dataset. Reviewers consistently describe financial and awards processing delays as the primary driver of morale erosion, despite reporting positive relationships with direct leadership.
Reviewers describe a gap between the stated command emphasis on SHARP and unit-level response to incidents. Formal reporting channels are perceived as functional; informal complaints are widely described as discouraged at the NCO level. No improvement over three consecutive quarters.
Signal: Consistent pattern across multiple brigade-equivalent populations. Not isolated to a single unit type.
Finance processing delays and awards backlog are the most frequently cited issues. Reviewers distinguish between company-level admin competence (rated higher) and battalion/brigade-level processing speed (rated lower). Leave approval described as inconsistent across same-installation units.
Signal: Scores have remained in the 2.7–2.9 range for four consecutive quarters with no trend improvement.
Meaningful improvement from Q3. Reviewers report increased visibility of senior leadership and better communication of command priorities. Unit-level leadership ratings are notably higher than installation-wide averages, suggesting improvement is concentrated at the company level.
Signal: Largest single-quarter gain of any dimension. Trend is positive.
Highest-scoring dimension for the third consecutive quarter. Reviewers consistently cite direct leadership responsiveness to personal and family issues as a strength. Emergency leave and family hardship requests described as handled well.
Signal: Strong and stable. Installation outlier in positive direction vs. dataset average (3.2).
Unit-level SHARP climate discussion separate from formal training cycles. Anonymous feedback loop on whether informal complaints reach SARC.
Battalion-level admin audit. Review travel voucher and awards processing timelines against installation standards. Identify where delays originate.
Document what is working at the company level on emergency leave and hardship response. Formalize as a best-practice template across the installation.
Q4 command climate improvement appears tied to increased senior leader presence. Maintain tempo into Q1.
No individual responses. Commanders see patterns, not people.
Reports publish on a fixed schedule. No real-time monitoring.
Commanders submit a verified request. Access is logged and audited.
Beta launches with verified service members first.
Unit Climate ratings launch in beta with verified service members first. Beta access goes to Tier 1+ verified accounts on a rolling basis by installation. Get notified when your installation goes live.
Frequently asked questions.
Can my command see who submitted reviews?
No. Commands receive only aggregate scores — never individual submissions. Reviews are stored with a one-way anonymization layer: your submission is linked to a verification token, not your account. Honest MOS staff can see that a review exists and passes verification thresholds — they cannot casually browse 'who submitted what.' We are transparent about this: no system can guarantee absolute anonymity at the database level. What we can guarantee is that we do not expose that data, we do not share it, and the display layer never surfaces it.
What if there are only 3 or 4 reviews for my installation?
Scores are hidden until 15 verified reviews have been submitted for a unit type at that installation. If the threshold has not been met, the installation shows a "Not enough data yet" card. No partial scores, no low-confidence estimates — just the threshold notice. This protects reviewers when the population is small enough that a score could implicitly identify its source.
Can I rate a unit I served in 3 years ago?
Yes. Submissions are accepted for units you served in within the last 5 years. Data older than 5 years is not accepted because command climates change and stale data would misrepresent current conditions. Reviews from 4-5 years ago are accepted but carry lower weight in the aggregate score than more recent submissions.
What prevents someone from submitting fake reviews?
Tier 1+ verification is required to submit unit climate reviews. Tier 1 (peer-verified MOS) means your MOS and service record were independently vouched for by another verified member before your account was elevated. This is the same verification standard used for weighted MOS reviews. Bulk submissions, coordinated campaigns, or command-directed reviews from the same unit are detectable as anomalies and flagged for review before being included in the aggregate.
Why brigade level and not battalion?
Smaller populations equal higher identification risk. A battalion typically has 500–1,000 personnel depending on type; a specific unit type within that battalion may have far fewer. If only a handful of people reviewed that unit and a score appeared, any observer — including leadership — could narrow down who submitted reviews through process of elimination. Brigade and installation-level aggregation keeps the population large enough that no individual can be identified from the data.
Can units game their scores by coordinating submissions from leadership?
The same verification requirements that protect honest reviewers also prevent gaming. Each submission must come from an independently peer-verified member. A coordinated effort to submit positive reviews from command-directed sources would require multiple verified accounts submitting in an unusually correlated pattern — which is detected and flagged. Additionally, our anomaly detection monitors for submission clusters that deviate significantly from historical patterns at an installation.
Other transparency and accountability tools
Unit Climate Intelligence is a concept in active development. Sample data displayed on this page is entirely illustrative and does not represent any real installation, unit, or service members. No actual reviews have been collected. Features, scoring methodology, and availability are subject to change prior to launch.